site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34937 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time on, but this sounds bat-shit crazy neurotic unhealthy self-flagellating.

Or do you just have something against imagination and fiction entirely?

As a different perspective, avoiding fantasizing about things that would be bad to do in real life sounds like an aspect of virtue ethics. It is neurotic and unhealthy to focus on something that will never happen. Epicureans would focus on obtainable pleasures. Buddists would say that these desires cause suffering. And so forth.

I think @SubstantialFrivolity is arguing that there is a very real moral and psychological injury being done to the people engaged in making and consuming these AI Generated images. I don't know if they would extrapolate to porn in general, but I would.

I mean, I mostly agree that it's not productive, and often not healthy, to spend a lot of time thinking about things that won't happen.

I think bringing in a moral judgement onto it makes no sense though.

For me, morality and health are intertwined. Any time someone says "should" they are making a moral judgement. Any time someone says, "I shouldn't do this, it's not healthy" they are making a moral judgement. "I shouldn't eat dessert, it's not healthy," is a moral decision that increases the virtue/habit of prudence and fortitude.

Fantasizing about sex with (uninterested female friend) isn't just about 'having sex with them immorally', it could also be a part of motivation to see if they are interested / pursue them, or even in a conservative moral framework attempt to court them for marriage and then have sex. "If something is obtainable" is not something one can know in many cases.

Do you think there is actual benefit to fantasizing about having sex with someone, in the eventuality that you actually get to have sex with that person at some point? I am not very certain that imagining having sex with a woman, picturing her liking this, enjoying that, actually helps when you encounter the flesh and blood woman, who likely acts and enjoys completely different things. In fact, I think it probably hinders a fruitful, mutually pleasing sexual encounter.

My argument is fantasizing about sex is ... part of or deeply related to desiring sex, in (same analogy as before) the same sense that 'imagining tasty food' is part of wanting that tasty food. This may be described as 'wanting it so badly you imagine it', but I don't actually think they're separate, or that 'imagination' is a discrete thing separate from normal thought. If you, just as a casual action, plan to reach for a cup, do you "imagine" reaching before you do? Not really, but ... sort of, partially, vacuously?

So 'imagining sex with someone' is just a normal thing. It's possible to spend too much time imagining it and not enough time in pursuit, and that could 'make the sex worse', but I don't think it's made worse in the normal case of imagining it.

I agree with you about imagination, that it is inseparable from rational thought and a needed step in actualizing a potential. I draw a distinction between imagining something - having a thought or chain of thoughts related to a topic that leads to a conclusion regardless of the current state of physical material reality - and fantasizing, dwelling, vividly painting a picture and circling around and around in the same thoughts for minutes and hours and days. Imagination gets you from point A to point B and invites action. Fantasizing is Narcissus staring at his reflection for the rest of his life. It prevents action.

Would you extend this standard to all forms of fiction, be they novels, movies, or video games, in which the protagonist harms or kills others? Or only if such harm is justified in context or the morals of the story are considered appropriate or applicable to the real world?

I don't extend it to novels where a protagonist harms another, has sex, or does any specific immoral action. I would extend it to a form of fiction where the sole point was to dwell/glorify violence, sex, or a specific immoral action. Most forms of fiction provide some sort of philosophical evaluation of right/wrong, and utilizes immoral actions to demonstrate this. Or they provide a psychological snapshot of someone else's viewpoint, which broadens the mind of the reader. Or they provide a glimpse into another way of life.

Something like Agony in Pink, on the other hand, takes a little something away from everyone who reads it, be it time or a tiny amount of psychological well-being.

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