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 am not a vegan, but C is where things start to go off the rails. Factory farms are optimized for profit, not happiness - they do not make concessions to reduce animal suffering except where it starts to impact the bottom line. There is no reason to think that factory farms are better than nature in this respect.

And there are things that impact the bottom line that mean better welfare for the animals. Animals that die in a high stress way do not taste as good. Animals that are starving do not taste good. Animals are not butchered while they are still alive because it can be done better and more efficiently when they are dead. Animals that are sick have lower quality meat. Injured animals can at times be nursed back to health rather than being put down. For larger animals like cows and pigs, safe pregnancies result in lower chances of miscarriage and death at birth. Minor birth defects that might impair movement are not an immediate death sentence. None of these are amenities that Nature provides.

By the time we get to E the argument is fully nonsensical. The claim that we should not actively cause harm that wouldn't exist otherwise should not be construed to mean that we must go and eliminate all harm everywhere, even harm that has nothing to do with us.

There is a small jump there, but not really when it comes to reality. Think about something like the Amazon rain forest. There are three land uses: farming, ranching, and leaving alone (nature). Many vegans I've spoken with would order their preferences as (nature) > farming > ranching. But my claim is that they should have preferences of farming > ranching > (nature).

Its not that Vegans need to embark on a project to eliminate all nature. Its just that anytime nature is about to be destroyed for some other use, vegans should be happy. None of this is hypothetical, these are the actual land use debates that happen all the time. There have been at least two centuries of these debates in the United States. And some of the earliest recorded conflicts in history have had a similar theme of farmers vs ranchers vs hunter gatherers. Typically most of history is just farmers vs ranchers (China vs Mongolia), but the 20th century saw the first introduction of people that wished to return things to (nature).

A serial killer whose defense is "well in the state of nature these people probably would have been killed anyway" is just as deranged. You remain accountable for your actions regardless of what's going on elsewhere or in other hypothetical situations.

I'm very confused why you keep seeing this as a purely hypothetical question. What do you think happens to ranch land if all the farm animals go away? Usually the land used for ranching isn't great for farming in the first place. Its more likely to just go back to a wild state of nature. Or is it that Vegans actually getting their way is completely hypothetical, so we need not consider the actual implications of their policies?

And there are things that impact the bottom line that mean better welfare for the animals.

Nature doesn't maximize suffering either. What's your point?

I'm glad you brought up sick animals because that reminded me that organic livestock cannot be given antibiotics. That would affect the bottom line, you see.

Many vegans I've spoken with would order their preferences as (nature) > farming > ranching. But my claim is that they should have preferences of farming > ranching > (nature).

This is not unlike atheists telling Christians what they should believe. Vegans in my experience are first and foremost concerned with the effects of human actions.

I'm very confused why you keep seeing this as a purely hypothetical question. What do you think happens to ranch land if all the farm animals go away? Usually the land used for ranching isn't great for farming in the first place. Its more likely to just go back to a wild state of nature.

I am similarly confused why this simple point is not coming through. You don't get to harm one group of animals just because otherwise another group of animals would be harmed through some other mechanism that has nothing to do with you.

I simply do not care about what's going on in nature.

Nature doesn't maximize suffering either. What's your point?

Nature is neutral toward suffering. Eating animals for meat is slightly against suffering.

I'm glad you brought up sick animals because that reminded me that organic livestock cannot be given antibiotics. That would affect the bottom line, you see.

I'm not sure why things have to be organic?

This is not unlike atheists telling Christians what they should believe.

I happen to agree with the atheists pretty often. If you say your bible is sacred and its word is to be taken literally, and your book says to stone adulterers, why aren't you stoning adulterers? This seems fine to me to point out logical contradictions in other people's beliefs.

Vegans in my experience are first and foremost concerned with the effects of human actions.

Going back to the Amazon Rain Forest. Human action is required no matter what. Even "leaving it as is" requires human action in the form of enforcement. Its cut down the trees and plant crops, cut down the trees and graze animals, or shoot trespassers trying to cut down the trees. The same thing happened in the US, the formation of US national parks on the east coast often first involved evicting people that lived there.

Humans are a dominant species on this planet. In the West, if an area is left underutilized by humans, it is often by human choice.

I am similarly confused why this simple point is not coming through. You don't get to harm one group of animals just because otherwise another group of animals would be harmed through some other mechanism that has nothing to do with you.

It does have to do with us though. Nature needs that land. Ranchers need that land. Farmers need that land. You take raw land and you mix it with a thing, and you either wind up with a vegan approved diet or suffering animals. Torture planet isn't across the galaxy doing its thing without our input. No its like they are next door and we are shipping them food to keep the humans alive so they can continually be tortured. We could deny the torture machine resources!

I simply do not care about what's going on in nature.

I very much understand this perspective. There are no humans in nature, and so I generally don't care about the suffering taking place in Nature either. But you also said are not a vegan, and you also haven't proclaimed to care about the suffering of animals as a reason for being vegan. My point is not addressed to you. It is addressed to vegans who claim to be vegan because they care about the suffering of animals. I can't imagine a vegan walking along a path in the forest when a fawn falls off a ledge and breaks its legs in front of the vegan, the vegan steps over its trembling body with a smile on their face and say "well at least the suffering is only happening from nature's hands!" Where as if the fawn had jumped off the ledge after being scared by a human the vegan would instead cry out in horror and rush to save the animal.

I take most Vegans at their word that they genuinely care about the suffering of animals. I don't think they carve out exceptions for how the suffering was caused. I'm not likely to ask one next time I meet them in person, just like I don't go up to Christrians and ask "how do you feel about all your non-christian friends going to hell". There was one Vegan in this thread, but I think they left after getting a bit piled on.

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