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 -
If you define "spirits" as purely force-carrying particles or the perturbations of a field, then that's an isomorphic claim. Unfortunately, we already have a word for such entities, and if that's all they do, then spirit is a terrible term.
What exactly does calling them djinn achieve except for pointless word-play? Presumably the term indicates commonality in some degree with the kind that comes out of lamps. Any extra posited properties that have no bearing on observed outcomes automatically makes the model less useful, unless you declare that these djinn are exactly equivalent to fundamental particles, at which point you're not doing anything useful yourself. At most, you now have equations which are better framed by CTRL-F find and replace with normal terms, and you've just wasted everyone's time.
I wish you luck in your linguistic endeavors. Rationality is a means to an end and not an end in itself, not that you can't find some wacko who will claim the latter. It's a collection of cognitive techniques that is robustly useful for a very wide set of possible goals, be it improving human welfare, maximizing the output of paperclips or anything else really.
Most if not literally all the self-described Rationalists out there see it is an incredibly useful tool for achieving goals in reality, and the conserved core of the movement promotes such practices because for most ideologies out there, people are amenable to being talked out of their goals if it can be rationally shown to conflict with other more fundamental goals. A rational NIMBYist will at the very least come to understand and accept the same facts and figures a rat YIMBYist would (moderated by priors and trust), and the two of them might even find common cause if it can be sufficiently demonstrated that mixed density housing is an optimal solution to both the problem of walkable neighborhoods as well as creating sufficient housing everywhere such that all the miscellaneous miscreants don't congregate there. The aim is to at least get everyone on the same page regarding reality, even if they disagree on ideals or implications of facts, because such fundamental disagreement on reality is often the cause of much strife.
Two different concepts having parallels or overlaps is necessary but not sufficient to claim they're the same thing.
The "Cult of Reason" has also moderated itself in many important regards, such as few people advocating for command economies when it was once believed to be optimal by the best minds of the time. Every time scientific consensus is overturned or new discoveries are made, it adapts and repurposes.
I no more consider the excesses of Wokism damming for materialist ideology as a whole than you might think that milquetoast Western Christianity deserves opprobrium for the crimes of fundamentalist Islam. Turns out there are unneutered strains of religion out there, flourishing, and all the worse because it's based off bullshit.
At any rate, I'm going to recuse myself, I feel there's nothing left to add on my end, and the debate is largely word-games through and through.
The entire Enlightenment is made of wackos by this standard. In their own word. Which is kinda my problem with the notion.
The methodology on its own is just fine, it's using it to organize society that is tantamount to religion, and if you just want to restrict yourself to the methodology that's fine. But our disagreement is on the possibility of a society that is organized by no religion, and I'm sorry but all alternatives I know end up using positivism or antirealism as a stand in that both has the same tendencies and same epistemological problems.
At that point it seems reasonable to classify it the same way, and if we were so inclined I could actually give you a functionalist definition of the religious that fits both and sounds somewhat reasonable.
Suit yourself. This is a pretty dry topic anyhow.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link