site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   26077 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I really wonder how you're defining "utilitarianism" here such that other moral ideologies aren't predicated on demonstrably false premises. I rarely encounter critics of utilitarianism who can pass an ITT/Steel Man of what most actual utilitarians believe.

"Your belief system leads to horrible outcomes!" Well, thank god I'm a consequentialist so that I can adjust to edge cases and new knowledge.

There are many flavors of utilitarianism, but we use some simple version of it in life any time we're doing say cost-benefit analysis.

I have a hard time wrapping around any moral philosophy that isn't consequentialist, with rule utilitarianism being my preferred subcategory, in that if your beliefs aren't intended to lead to good outcomes (however those might be defined), what exactly are you trying to do?

Yes, there are many flavors of utilitarianism, but they are all predicated on the same fundamental lie. Namely that "utility" is both quantifiable and fungible. IE that there is some sort of commutative quality or equivalence between one person being x amount "worse" off and another being x amount "better" off.

The thing about reality is that it often forces us to make choices about tradeoffs where it is not really possible to assign particular numerical values in any "objective" sense.

Recognizing that doesn't defeat utilitarianism anymore than it does economics. We assign numerical values under uncertainty out of necessity all the time. We make the craziest things fungible. Fuzzy math tends to be a lot better than no math.

I'd argue utilitarianism is far more honest in its predicates than e.g. the lie that there are supernatural powers that dictate what the rules are or what virtue is. And I'll reiterate that no other moral philosophy has some immunity to weaknesses and fail modes on edge cases.

Sure, but but I'll readily accuse utilitarians of not just using fuzzy math, but no math at all. The supposedly mathematical nature of the philosophy is entirely a sham. No numerical values, no matter how fuzzy or how broadly bounded by uncertainty bars, are ever assigned, other than "number of people affected".

"Too much fake math" vs. "no math at all." Well okay then.

Of which utilitarians do you speak? You're gonna have to cite specific cases for me to give any coherent response. There are certainly bad utilitarians out there with whom I disagree--SBF being perhaps the near-perfect case of being so good at math and yet so bad at basic decision theory (on top of the fraud).

Not every moral quandary requires particular math beyond considering general outcomes and scale, relative to alternatives.

Personally, I think a combo of secular humanism + rule utilitarianism + Tyler Cowen's "economic growth plus human rights" does the job.

Can you give me an example of utilitarians applying mathematics to calculate anything broadly resembling utilons, beyond "number of humans affected"? Any examples of quantification they use?

GDP

This seems to be less of a lie and more of the underlying assumption of modern egalitarianism. I disagree with it, sure, but the people who base their ethics on it seem to be sincere believers.

Yes, I agree that this an underlying assumption of modern secular liberal Atheism+LGBTQRST mindset. But I also think that's part of the problem.

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