site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31623 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why does the supernatural idea matter, and how does one define "supernatural"?

If I claim that god is the substrate the natural world is built on, does that make him not supernatural any more? One presumes not. But when Marxists claim that iron laws of history demand that human civilization move through exactly one path with no possible deviations, why is that meaningfully less supernatural than me claiming God as substrate?

Both I and the Marxist are making unfalsifiable claims that the physical world is determined by metaphysical, unobservable, unfalsifiable forces. Being unable to prove the existence of those forces, we nonetheless both precommit to treating them as axiomatic. In other words, we put our faith in them, and act accordingly. Your "faith" in Man Utd is not based on metaphysical claims that take precedence over the physical, and that is why it is a poor comparison here; also, you've seen Man Utd play, while I have never seen God and the Marxist has never seen the classless society.

But only one is a religion, otherwise the term is too broad to be meaningful. For example it's probably tricky to discredit Communism by claiming Marx never existed.

If I could prove to your satisfaction that the man named Jesus existed, I find it doubtful that you would promptly convert. Whether Jesus existed or not is hardly the issue, but rather whether what his metaphysical claims were true, no? And is it not exactly the same with Marx? The purported Jesus made specific claims about the supernatural: that it existed, and that as a result we should take specific actions and adopt specific values. Marx likewise made specific claims about the supernatural: that it did not exist, and that as a result we should take specific actions and adopt specific values.

Which isn't a claim on which is better or more true because the value judgement as to whether Marx was right is subjective, but it's a different kind of subjective as to whether a supernatural being exists.

I do not think there is a functional difference between asserting that a supernatural divinity exists, and asserting that history is bound by iron laws and can only proceed along one path.

What, specifically, is added to the analysis by separating positive spiritual claims into one category, and negative spiritual claims into the other category? What observed outcomes demand such a separation? The context of this conversation is about the label "religion" specifically used as a pejorative. Well and good, so what does this special label allow us to focus on that would otherwise pass unnoticed? Corrupting effects on reason? Additional zealotry? Violence or aggression? Why is the separate label useful?

The modern Atheist movement was based on the idea that religion was irrational, and often or even always harmful. Point me to an irrationality or a harm that any religion has ever caused or advocated, that materialist ideologies cannot match or surpass. You claim that labeling Marxism a religion makes the term too broad to be meaningful. Why, specifically? What is lost through such an application? What, specifically, does "Religion" by your definition do that ideology does not?

A non-religous ideology can absolutely be irrational. It can absolutely cause great harm. No question there.

If you could prove God exists then you have proved that Christianity is to a greater or lesser extent true. If you prove a classless society can exist, that doesn't impact whether it should.

If you could prove to me that Jesus existed and did the various miracles associated with him, then that fundamentally would change my view on reality in a major way. Proving communism works wouldn't. People can live in small communes, at small scales communism clearly can exist. If some AI assisted version of communism actually worked i'd be surprised but it wouldn't fundamentally change anything.

The difference is I think that God could in theory change the rules to say anything. The teachings and commandments are His, the judgments are His. It would still be Christianity if in a miracle every Bible tomorrow added an 11th commandment. Or changed all the others in the blink of an eye. You would (correctly I think!) probably see that as proof God existed. Perhaps that He was intervening to correct what man had written or whatever interpretation you might put on it.

If we change what Marx wrote to endorse free markets and the capital class then it is no longer communism at all. What the idea is (true or false) is what it is evaluated on.

Where the knowledge comes from is a critical part of religions, whereas if Marx was proven not to have existed and Bob Smith had written Das Kapital then nothing really changes, whether the ideas work or not would not change.

Would Christianity really be the same to you if it were proven God didn't exist? That it was just a set of rules for living written by men with no deific inspiration? Doesn't that change the fundamental idea of what Christianity even is? Or if it were revealed the Devil wrote the Bible to put evil into the heart of humans. Would you just shrug and say, but it works, so i will still go along with the commandments?

The source of knowledge or truth in Christianity is arguably the most important bit. Whether that source really exists is a major component of the faith. Christianity without God is just an ideology. Maybe it has good rules for living, but its no longer the same.

The source of knowledge in communism is nearly irrelevant. If we discovered Marx was a lie then communism is still just an ideology.

None of this necessarily changes how zealots behave just to be clear. As for why I draw the distinction, the argument made was that wokism was a religion, and I think that is incorrect and diminshes our understanding. Wokism like communism is built on materialism, and while enforcing behaviours will be the same either way (because those don't change whether you believe in God or racism), its fundamental conceptual building blocks and how it will mutate in the future are not the same as if its precepts were derived from a supernatural entity or not.

I'm not arguing it not being a religion makes it objectively better or worse in other words, just that it makes it different. It's likely to mutate and fragment much faster than Christianity did for example because it lacks an overarching "eye in the sky" and even that didn't entirely protect Christianity from fragmentation.

Wokism not being a religion won't necessarily impact how individuals behave, but does change how the movement overall will alter over time in my opinion.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats