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 -
We have rules against such things for a reason(consensus building). What use would this information be to you? Do you think popularity of a belief that does seem to be pretty contested is really that important? I'll register as someone on the HBD side who thinks that intelligence is not very strongly correlated with moral worth but frankly it's a question that hinges mostly on framing and very little on the kind of thing that makes interesting arguments. Most of what you tend to get and are indeed getting here are people arguing part eachother with totally different definitions of moral and worth and intelligence.
I think many people think that intelligence is incredibly valuable and value raising it in a population as a moral aim. Or it is at least trivially instrumental to moral aims as a more intelligence population alleviates more suffering, produces and experiences better art and is able to develop more wisely. whether we can assign morality to intellectual failings is another questions, that I personally answer no to because to me morality implies some kind of choice and people do not choose to be dumb. And talk of raising a population's intelligence can but does not have to imply some pretty horrible practices of the past which definitely is poisoning the conversation, "We think you have equal moral weight to smarter people but would prefer you not reproduce" is both unconvincing to the people being cleansed from the gene pool and often put much less kindly.
There are many twists and turns in this debate but as @fcfromssc said, they rarely change and people stuck in the twists and turns rare change each other's minds even when they basically agree on everything but definitions.
Well, Scott at least does 1 big poll each year. Is it wrong? I understand why it'd be bad if every motte poster would create one here, but polls provide infortmation supplementary to postings.
and I am also interesting in opinions of people other than those two create long effortposts. A poster being rare poster doesn't mean they don't have strong opinions.
I think we've done wide polls before which I wouldn't be against but I kind of oppose having positions in it. If for no other reason than the behavior of "Well 74% of us believe this so why do you think you're smarter than us all" Which is egregiously obnoxious. As well as the simple act of registering a position might make people less willing to deviate from their previous position.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link