This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sure, and that's not an argument against what I pointed out. Again, there's no particular reason to believe that those societies would be "failure modes" of a transhuman future.
Like, the whole house elf analogy just reminds me of Brave New World, which was a novel that played around with that concept quite a bit more than in Harry Potter. I don't see any good reason why a transhumanist wouldn't consider that society a perfectly cromulent one. And personally, I would see that world as a very good one to live in, if not to aim for achieving in our own.
Perhaps if you interrogated a perfect spherical example of a transhuman whose literally only value is "transhumanity", they'd agree that a transhuman future that replicates the power inequalities and the downtrodding of the below by the above is no less good than a transhuman future which exemplifies Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.
I don't see how this responds to anything I wrote. The idea that a house elf in Harry Potter or an elevator operator in Brave New World is "downtrodden" due to "power inequalities" is, in itself a rejection of transhumanism. It just seems to me like you're just trying to have your cake and eat it too.
To get back to the topic of this scifi gender-dysphoria-B-gone pill vs sex-change-down-to-the-molecular-level surgery, I still contend that a desire for transhumanism can't support the latter without supporting the former. There could be other reasons for supporting the latter without supporting the former, but that'd be something like believing in the sanctity of the mind over body. Which many people do believe in, on the basis of the eternal soul. But which also isn't convincing to people who don't believe in souls.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link