site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32956 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 1, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm really loving this thread. I haven't seen such prideful self assured unrepentant flesh eating monsters since I last read the Eclipse Phase exhuman manifesto. Not all of the responses of course, only one or two true believers without caveats. The sort of person that sounds like they might even kill and eat an uplifted animal.

I mean that in the most loving possible way. The authenticity and candor in this thread really hits my heart.

I know those self identifying natural humans reading this might take offence to the word 'monster'.

But I legitimately mean it as the highest of compliments here. The beauty of a creature that rips other creatures apart without remorse or compassion...

Bravo thejdizzler, for pulling them out of the woodwork.

I find myself wondering how they taste... I'm sure they'd object but- it just feels so right, so respectful, playing by the same rules among such beautiful creatures.

  • -35

I am not sure whether you're being ironic or not, but even as satire, this is not a good comment. If it's meant ironically, speak plainly. If it's meant sincerely, then saying "in the most loving possible way" does not make calling people monsters for a difference in moral values acceptable.

Banned for a day, because the smarmy, self-satisfied obnoxious tone of this post seems meant for no other reason than to provoke anger.

Thank you, I find social updates to be intensely euphoric and one banning is worth a thousand downvotes informationwise.

I particularly appreciate:

If it's meant sincerely, then saying "in the most loving possible way" does not make calling people monsters for a difference in moral values acceptable.

This really drives home the point that my comment utterly failed to convey my intended meaning, and in fact conveyed nearly the opposite of its intended meaning.

To be clear, I am not being ironic or sarcastic. Self-satisfied, perhaps. It is very satisfying seeing my kindred post things like "I do many immoral things and have made my peace with them, and I like the taste, so I remain omnivorous."

I am a monster, and they are in-group. If I had conveyed my meaning properly, perhaps I still would have deserved the ban for making a post that only accomplishes buttering up my ingroup. But regardless, that is not what I posted. That meaning was not conveyed at all. It created some second order conversation that let me make clearer posts like this one, but it would have been far superior if it had stood on its own.

Side note: If anyone here wants to join my collective's 'transcendent compassion of deep understanding' themed vore club come post-singularity, hit me up. (I'll be the one in the 'Peter Watts The Thing' shapeshifter body wearing a pink and blue striped velociraptor morph.)''

Tell you me, what is the difference between a human and an animal?

Are you seriously asking?
In any case, I feel compelled to unravel the question if only for myself.
setting aside the vapidly true 'humans are animals' take-

Highly abstract language, highly evolved culture and technology (even when compared to other animals with culture and tool use), their unique status as current peak predator and as our game theoretic peers, the fact that they are foom-ing much faster than any other animal species, thus becoming less and less like other animal species.
Other than those very, very crucial differences, the remainder of our variance is perhaps average among mammals.

Alright. Why are animal lives or animal welfare morally relevant?

They're not... well, ok. This misses the point but:

To be rigorous, I see two ways things can be morally relevant, terminally, and instrumentally. Instrumentality is much more convergent than terminality. So a Vegan would value them terminally, and they have value instrumentally, I might even argue that we've thus far squandered the potential for use cases for animals- But instrumentally, food is valuable, obedient servants are valuable. So this does the Vegan who wishes for all to treat them as Kantian persons few favors.

So yes, I can totally squeeze water from a stone and come up with ways in which they are morally relevant if you push me to. I can argue that side of the argument. But I'm not trying to do that. My top comment has failed you. I apologize for that. It seems that I have brought you to the conclusion that I'm a vegan.

My position is much closer to- "Those animals will taste even better if you embrace their suffering with a sociopathic compassion that levies understanding but no mercy, and indulge deeply in the body horror. (Also my indulgence in this mode of thinking is why I'm not a vegan)"

My comment absolutely failed to convey this. Mostly because it was busy clapping.

Love the veiled threat. The right to eat meat is without doubt worth dying for, but against people on soylent diet it's more likely to be “killing for.”

So, do you think this is a good comment? Do you think is adds anything or just makes yourself feel smug?

I'm not smug. Sadistically giddy maybe.

I think that my comment is the same thing as 70% of the comments in this thread.
People explaining why they aren't vegans- with their explanation boiling down to a difference in values.

I think my comment points at the idea that which lives by monstrous means is likely to die by monstrous means, perhaps at the hands of those running selfless tit for tat (treat others as they treat others. Engage with each organism by the rules it uses to engage with other organisms, etc). But this is not an argument against carnism.

I mean, who's to say we'll ever run into a sufficiently powerful species running selfless tit for tat? We may just as well run into another race of monsters that we will be better suited to devour if we develop ourselves as monsters. And in any case, rejecting meat for that reason would be Tasteless. Unauthentic. Frightened. Unbased. I personally run something like selfless tit for tat, but I'm fringe. And as I've said, it's not about stopping people from eating meat. It's about respecting the beauty of the principles, joining in on the fun, and developing ourselves as monsters. An almost Klingon sentiment... but for eating people.

Unless of course the carnist didn't realize how based and Jungle-pilled they're being, in which case they should reflect on that and become based and Jungle-pilled.


And as for whether my comment was good. I did write it with the thought that I might need to write this follow up comment. I believe both of them together stand tall.

  • -17

I think that my comment is the same thing as 70% of the comments in this thread.

Nope, you're just projecting.

I think my comment points at the idea that which lives by monstrous means is likely to die by monstrous means

You wrote that about diet. Are you serious?

another race of monsters...

But this is not an argument against carnism.

You're actually pretty funny.

Here's the thing. No one cares about your diet. Mind your business.

lol. What diet? Maybe try attacking my worldview. My diet hasn't come up.

While it's probably not fair to reply to someone banned...

I think this "tit for tat" thing, as if all living things engage in constant IPD, is...irrelevant? Weird? Nonsensical, perhaps? I think people here might be able to argue that not every defector or cooperator gets back what they put out into the world. Some things in life are just plain unfair. If you're arguing that people who eat meat will eventually be repaid by being eaten or whatever, I just don't think that will happen. If you're arguing that we'll have to become monsters if we meet aliens, well, that's just not a given at all.

It's only a 1 day ban. It's fine.

I'm not really arguing either of those things per se... though I do live them. And the fact that I live them religiously is leaking into my posts.

I think these things are worth considering. Any reader that hasn't considered them should. I see that you have done that thinking and have come to more or less the same conclusions that I have. Nothing about the future is a given.

You might be confused because I spent part of my last post tearing apart the idea that my philosophy can be used as a Pascal's Mugging. Saying that we could meet aliens that we need to be monsters to kill was part of that. It's analogous to 'but what if anti-god exists and bad people get infinite reward' in response to Pascal. It isn't an argument that we have to be evil because anti-god exists.

I am of the position that if you aren't aiming compassion at animals you're really missing out on a huge amount of the higher pleasure that you can get from really reveling in the complex emotions available if you really explore the feelings of eating something you love as a sophont. Compassion is not some mere game theoretic mechanism for aligning with other humans. That is a mere use case. Compassion is a tool for gaining a biological and predictive understanding of your prey. This is why it is a higher pleasure. It is a universally applicable learning skill.

I'm the primary 'monster' here. Pridefully so. My use of the word 'monster' in the my top post was careless, and led to needless confusion. I have updated to the belief that there was no way for anyone outside of my closest confidants to make the inferential leap from what I posted. But you can take my intended meaning as a synonym for 'brother and kindred' that evokes 'body-horror exalting aesthetic' with a positive, or complexly meta-negative affect.

Illustrative Side Note: Hit me up post-singularity if you ever want to hunt and eat someone or vice versa. Platonically I mean.

Many years ago my roommate and I ate fried chicken while watching a vegan propaganda video. What a great afternoon.

I’d be lying if I didn’t say I licked my canines and incisors a few times reflexively while scrolling through the thread.

"Am I the only one being made to feel hungry by watching this?"

-Nathan Explosion watching the yard wolves eat a man alive

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