site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29464 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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.

The autonomy I personally believe in, and which is probably unpopular, is an autonomy that is the result of efficient morality. A person who is free from addictions, vices, consumerism, and general poor habits has a substantive autonomy that allows him to pursue whatever great heights of life he wills to pursue. To get there, we should eliminate the evils of human life that take advantage of primitive animal instinct. (As such, gambling should be banned.) Now to answer your question specifically, yes in theory. We should reduce the autonomy of unwise and immoral people for their own good. The question of whether you can practically do this without risks is a separate question. I would point out that in the formative years of teens we eradicate autonomy, forcing them into a very specific weekday routine with courses they usually can’t pick. Then if they go to college they also lack autonomy. Then if they go to work, they lack autonomy. Civilized life is about lacking autonomy, or, another way of putting it, externalizing cognitive labor.

Let's suppose that we're talking about a decade. How much should we expect a person's morality to be "improved" in that time period

I don’t know if it’s a matter of expecting. If you know someone with anger issues who is actually consuming information and practicing whatever helps his issues, intuitively we know to give this person praise and not blame. If you take another person and they are laughing off the suggestion of helping their anger issues because they say it doesn’t matter, intuitively we know that this person deserves blame. Now applying this to historical figures, did the founding fathers laugh off the idea of black people being equal in the face of insurmountable evidence? Well, no. Such evidence wasn’t widespread or unanimous. But obviously in 1970, the evidence would be, and so blame is due. [ignore HBD for the sake of my example]

Now applying this to historical figures, did the founding fathers laugh off the idea of black people being equal in the face of insurmountable evidence? Well, no. Such evidence wasn’t widespread or unanimous.

Is there any analogy, in your view, between moral ideas and scientific ones? Let's suppose a new paradigm, a better one, is created to address gravity or some other scientific topic. Are scientists obligated to pursue its truth value even if they might be early adopters?

If yes, then I would ask you whether people have a similar obligation to morality. Especially, say, those who have the time or means to pursue a moral question to a rigorous end.

To a degree the paradigms are similar, sure. Did you have an example in mind? If we’re talking about the morality of slavery, that’s kind of what happened — moral development determined it was immoral. But if we’re talking about, let’s say, the bombing of Hiroshima, the moral paradigm is informed by “what would the Japanese do to us?” and “what are the costs of invasion”. Then, if we’re talking about individual morality in everyday life, norms have to be considered because moral actions are usually costly… I would allege that at a certain threshold of students cheating in a university course (51%?), it becomes morally permissible to cheat because that has become a new norm.

But if we’re talking about, let’s say, the bombing of Hiroshima, the moral paradigm is informed by “what would the Japanese do to us?” and “what are the costs of invasion”.

I'm not entirely certain that it does. Why would Japanese barbarity change pre-war moral paradigms about how to treat noncombatants and captured/surrendered soldiers? I have no desire to go to an eye-for-an-eye morality. I would not want the Japanese subjected to the atom bomb simply because they killed many more in their occupied territories.

But I'm not interested in moral questions of the past as I am the present. The clear example is LGBT rights in the last decade or two, which is a sign of moral progress (for the most part) in my eyes. Now, there are widespread and very clear arguments in favor of the variety of LGBT rights (marriage, the right to physically transition, etc.). However, there are also places where one would known of these ideas, but never encounter the arguments sans someone's anti-LGBT rhetoric or commentary over them.

Let us suppose there exists a person in a community which is largely anti-LGBT. This person is reasonably well-off, but would still stand to lose some social status if they disagreed with the majority. They know of the issue, but have not previously pursued the moral questions with any rigor. Let us also suppose that this person would, if they heard them, be convinced by pro-LGBT arguments.

Does this person have a moral obligation to dive into the question and change their stance by being an early adopter?

If LGBT stuff were objectively a moral obligation, then yes. It would still depend on “conditions” though, right? Namely that someone from a very traditional social background is going to naturally be more stubborn to change than someone raised by a gay couple in NYC.

However I don’t think today’s LGBT issues are an example of something objectively moral. There are some interesting moral questions that are often ignored like —

  • Does extolling gay union reduce the social significance of heterosexual union? If so, then there are negative consequences, because a society needs to extol heterosexual marriage to operate peacefully and orderly, for the greater of the society

  • Is homosexuality “naturally” disgusting to heterosexuals? If so, you have to balance the desires of gays with the disgust of straights, because disgust is an inherently bad feeling.

  • How important is being sexually active to a gay person?

Out of curiosity, I tried to find out whether celibate gays were as happy as sexually active gays, and I couldn’t find any compelling research, but I did find this:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/soin.12154

The results show that religious affiliation is a significant predictor of LGBT individuals’ happiness. Surprisingly, no significant differences are found between mainline Protestants (whose church doctrine often accepts same‐sex relations) and evangelical Protestants (whose church doctrine often condemns same‐sex relations)

Also this

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-021-01289-4

Results of path analysis involving sexual minority participants (N = 1317) from diverse sociopolitical contexts revealed health outcomes to be associated with internalized homonegativity and the resolution of conflict between religious and sexual minority identities. Contrary to expectations, several markers of religiousness were not directly associated with either improved or worsened health outcomes for depression or anxiety. However, religious activity moderated the influence of internalized homonegativity (IH) on depression such that IH was less strongly related to depression among individuals who frequently attended religious services than among individuals who infrequently attended religious services. These findings have special salience for advancing a more accurate understanding of conservatively religious sexual minorities and directing culturally sensitive research, clinical services, and public policy.

Also this:

https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ilmed36&section=7

Contrary to expectations, these differences were not associated with health differences in depression, anxiety, and social flourishing.

If LGBT stuff were objectively a moral obligation, then yes. It would still depend on “conditions” though, right? Namely that someone from a very traditional social background is going to naturally be more stubborn to change than someone raised by a gay couple in NYC.

I don't see why a person is only obligated to consider that which is morally good. This kind of thing is always in contention, and we can never be entirely certain going into a brand new topic of where we will end up after rigorous consideration.

I'll rephrase the hypothetical and make it abstract as well. Suppose there exists moral question X, for which there are two sides. In 2023, it is generally easy for someone who was raised in a sheltered community to get access to unedited arguments in favor of the side they are not on for this issue. Is a person morally obligated to pursue these questions, even if there would be a cost personally should they be convinced of the opposing side's correctness?

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