site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28223 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well then, I'm sorry but I can't take your moral outrage seriously.

Why? Is utilitarianism obviously wrong? Do you think morality is a solved problem?

Or am I not allowed to express moral outrage because I do not revere a wrathful god?

Armies not following orders don't do whatever the hell you want them to do, they do whatever the hell they want to do.

I ask of them only what I ask of everyone else: make sure you act morally first, and only later worry about legality, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, etc.

Either way I fail to see how this has anything to do with your "Perhaps, but not down the middle.

You should value this because no cause, no nation, no people, not even individuals are ever truly virtuous, as the line of good and evil runs through every human heart.

This is an entire sentence. It has nothing to do with statues. It is relativistic. It is either trivial: ‘there’s good and bad in everyone’. Or : It equates all inviduals, causes, and peoples as morally the same, half-good, half-evil (down the middle). I disagree strongly with that.

"Lesson One" from historians, that you shouldn't judge the past by today's standards, and it's pretty clear to me that this is what's happening here.

Red herring. Since you, FC, me and the woke, all agree that he served evil based on our, today’s, standards. We’re just haggling about honor within evil and statue moving costs etc. There is no need to dynamite our agreed-upon moral foundation with appeals to relativism and accusations of manicheism.

P.S.

Yes, I too believe that the world would be better if everyone had exactly my morality, and put it above legality, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, and every other concern.

No, wait! What the fuck am I saying, I don't believe that! In fact anyone pushing in that direction is likely to end up with some monstrous movement like communism, or Jonestown.

Why? Is utilitarianism obviously wrong? Do you think morality is a solved problem?

Or am I not allowed to express moral outrage because I do not revere a wrathful god?

It's because when morality is not about certain things being inherently immoral, but about utils adding up, and you can't guarantee that your approach actually results in the highest amount of utils, your moral outrage fails on it's own terms.

It also just feels silly to get so angry at missing utils.

I ask of them only what I ask of everyone else: make sure you act morally first, and only later worry about legality, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, etc.

Yes, I too believe that the world would be better if everyone had exactly my morality, and put it above legality, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, and every other concern. This is literally never going to happen though, dismissing all other concerns is much more likely to result you being annihilated with no regrets by someone who think's they are good and you are evil.

This is an entire sentence. It has nothing to do with statues.

And it is preceded by the paragraph starting with "You should value statues of Lee because you should value peace."

It is relativistic.

Even out of context - "No on one is perfect" is not relativistic.

There is no need to dynamite our agreed-upon moral foundation with appeals to relativism and accusations of manicheism.

I don't see anyone dynamiting any moral foundations.

It's because when morality is not about certain things being inherently immoral, but about utils adding up

So ? Utils represent human suffering. Your objection is like saying 'a million deaths is just a statistic'. Just because it's a number doesn't mean it has no moral and emotional value.

you can't guarantee that your approach actually results in the highest amount of utils, your moral outrage fails on it's own terms.

And you can? Why is utilitarianism alone held to this prohibitive standard?

There's a large overlap between moral systems, virtue ethics, deontology, golden rule, utilitarianism,etc . You don't need utils to come to the conclusion that slavery and mass murder is wrong.

Yes, I too believe that the world would be better if everyone had exactly my morality, and put it above legality, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, and every other concern.

Ok, great. Although I did not stipulate 'my exact morality'. They should use their morality before legality, obedience, etc; too.

This is literally never going to happen though, dismissing all other concerns is much more likely to result you being annihilated with no regrets by someone who think's they are good and you are evil.

You're throwing this out like it's supposed to mean anything, meanwhile millions of people died 'doing their duty' for an evil cause, including in the example under discussion, or a more infamous one, closer to my family history.

Even out of context - "No on one is perfect" is not relativistic.

I said trivial, if this is all he meant.

So ? Utils represent human suffering. Your objection is like saying 'a million deaths is just a statistic'. Just because it's a number doesn't mean it has no moral and emotional value.

Problem is you have no way of telling which action results in less suffering. For all we know slavery maximized utlity

And you can?

No, but I don't go by utils.

Why is utilitarianism alone held to this prohibitive standard?

Because that's the standard it sets for itself.

You're throwing this out like it's supposed to mean anything, meanwhile millions of people died 'doing their duty' for an evil cause, including in the example under discussion, or a more infamous one, closer to my family history.

I does mean something. You are again assuming that "not following orders" will mean people doing what you want them to, rather then what they want to.

I said trivial, if this is all he meant.

Sorry, I glossed over that. It's not trivial. Demanding perfection is a road to hell, and a lot of the absurdities we see today stems exactly from that impulse.

Problem is you have no way of telling which action results in less suffering.

It's certainly easier to check, with a confidence high but lesser than 1, whether an action results in suffering than whether it's inherently Virtuous or whether God approves of it.

I don't care if you're religious or not, just that you think certain things are bad in themselves. If you insist on utilitarianism, I want to see your utila spreadsheet where you arrived at you conclusion.

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