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 -
I did no such thing in the first place.
Alright, you want a concrete example? Some people, or rather a lot of them, operating under a fundamentally flawed definition of choice, routinely suggest things like fat shaming or telling depressed people that lying in bed all day are "choices", and hence their decision is worthy of opprobrium. They don't do the same when the cause is less vague, because barring the odd idiot, nobody goes around telling a diabetic that they're at moral fault for not having a working pancreas, and they ought to will their glucose levels back to normal. A mechanistic understanding of a phenomenon often prevents that assignment of moral fault.
Given that I know that everything is mechanistic, that means that I don't go around blaming people for the same, at least in situations where the act of blaming isn't going to make things better.
The sense of choice is entirely an illusion, your every action is determined by the precise configuration of the universe before you made it, updating according to the laws of physics. You couldn't have done otherwise, nobody can.
Remember when I called it a useful social fiction? I think crime ought to be punished even though the actions of a given criminal were entirely contingent on the above, if in expectation punishing them would lead to lower crime.
Therein arises a malign prior.
Okay then. This conversation has gone well past a leisurely waste of time into outright futility. If no evidence that anyone can plausibly muster with enormous resources can convince you otherwise, then you're effectively immune to further evidence.
Jesus Christ. Good for you that you bothered, but I regretfully inform you that no end of RCTs on the effectiveness of prayer have only confirmed the null hypothesis.
Maple syrup on a shit sandwich. For the properties of God almost universally acknowledged by most Christian denominations, the omnipotence and omnibenevolence part, from his perspective it makes no fucking difference whether I was indoctrinated with vague evidence by a Church or woken up with a handie from an Angel. He knows with absolute certainty whether or not I'm going to Hell before creating me, and in the event that I do go to Hell, he's entirely responsible for it. No point fucking around, that's just sociopathic.
I'm going to call it here, at least it was good practise in the event that I have the misfortune to run into Mormon missionaries in the States.
Starting to look like you're not engaging in good faith here.
No, I don't, I want you to tell me what was wrong with my concrete example, which you said relied on "[divorcing] all the usual connotations of choice". I've been very clear about that and you've dodged the question twice now.
The example you gave doesn't have anything to do with knowing the result of a choice ahead of time anyways. It's just a mostly unrelated example of your perspective, which while valuable, has already been shared in this thread.
Your response had much more to do with your own conception of hell than with his, as I mentioned. If you disagree, please explain why rather than just saying "nuh-uh".
Not what I said, and you know it. You wanted that answer ("people who disagree with me are immune to the truth") so badly you refused to hear what I said as anything else. I don't think the hypothetical should ever convince anyone of anything--an institution whose goal is by definition to convince you of something regardless of the truth of the matter should not be trusted. In that situation the only rational course of action would be to commit to epistemic learned helplessness regarding any information such an organization presented to you.
Besides that, I did address the hypothetical in the spirit in which it was intended, and you ignored that. Meanwhile you didn't even try to respond to the same question turned on you.
Unless you actually think they'll sound anything like me (they don't), this sounds less like something you really believe and more like something you're just saying as a sort of quasi-insult. Nice one.
As I mentioned, this only applies if you don't consider your brain to be "you". The idea that "you would never have made a different choice" means choices do not exist is wrong. As I said, everyone will choose $100 over $1, but the choice is still a choice, and is fundamentally up to them (unless you define their neurons as not being "them").
Like I said at the beginning, agency is what gives moral virtue value. If anyone is created without the capacity for evil, they also lack the capacity for good. Supposing God does know where you're headed before you're created, as I've been arguing that still doesn't mean you were forced into making those decisions. You still have the capacity for evil and good, and you determine which you choose; that choice is just known beforehand. To deny you the right of existing and making those choices would be to deny you your agency.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link