site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26712 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024

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.

Instructions unclear. Started compassionately guillotining terminally ill cancer patients.

Surely the indignity of the guillotine is that it turns someone's execution into a humiliating blood spraying spectacle? You can almost look cool standing in front of a firing squad, blind folded (obligatory: smoking a cigarette). Nobody looks cool on their knees with their head in a guillotine stockade, even with a cigarette.

OTOH, with a firing squad, you probably look much less cool suffocating to death from all of the holes ripped through your lungs; not sure what I'd pick.

The gore is a feature, a token of our respect for life. We’re not “putting people to sleep” here. Each juror should get a splash when the blade falls. They shouldn’t eat meat if they can’t kill the animal.

I like your avoiding the Nietzsche last man vibe.

But, this is going to be a problematic jury selection, no? “Would you be able to vote to convict this man if his head might bounce into your lap during his execution?”

Might be really bad to have a jury made up exclusively of people who say yes to that.

Would you demand that someone not rent to gay people, or otherwise profit off of gays, if they can't bear to watch gay sex? If they can't bear to watch an operation, do we forbid them from being operated on?

Squeamishness is not a source of morality.

Squeamishness fails to be a robust source of morality, but it is an excellent trigger for introspection. If someone is squeamish about a decision, they should ask themselves why - the response isn't being called for no particular reason, it's because something is happening that evokes danger, threat, or disgust. In the case of an operation, we would find that the squeamishness is not a product of an immoral action, but a product of the danger associated with open wounds and body integrity violations. Even though operations are often incredibly strong net value, it is worth considering for a moment what exactly you're signing up for - your bodily integrity will be violated, you will have an open wound, and this carries risk. It's not trivial and shouldn't be treated as trivial.

I think in cases like war and executions, it’s a decent requirement simply because I think that if what you’re voting for is the death of a human being, you ought to be willing to face that directly. I wouldn’t want someone to vote for a war and never be willing to face the full extent of what voting for war actually means. It’s death, you’re voting to kill, you should face the full horror of what that means.

How could the same argument not be made about everything that people feel disgust about? "If you're willing to hire gay people but you're not willing to face the full extent of what gay actually means...."

Because there's no causal element involved there. Your hiring of a gay person has no effect on whether they're gay or not. Unlike the convict who wouldn't be executed but for your vote.

You can do things that help them live a life where they have sex that disgusts you, or you can discourage such a life.. Social pressure is a thing and I don't believe for a moment that if nobody hired gays, there would be exactly the same amount of gay sex around.

And you certainly wouldn't have an operation if you didn't hire someone to operate on you.

Squeamishness often covers a lie. We tell children that their beloved pets have gone to a happy farm. The meat comes from the store. The death row criminal humanely goes to sleep. Extreme squeamishness requires euphemisms which compromise the truth, our model of the world.

Unlike igi, I do think there are other sources of morality, but still the emotional punch associated with death and violence is morally helpful, and should not be easily sidestepped. Or one day we could find ourselves processing units when we are in fact murdering people.

Squeanmishness is not a source of morality.

Except it literally is. Morality isn't some abstract platonic idea, it's a taste or feeling people evolved, and the sick feeling you get when you drench yourself in the gore of your fellow man is part of it.

I'll go as far as to say that things are immoral because they feel distasteful and for no other reason. Any rationale you can name is a post-hoc rationalization. When surveyed people act according to taste, not to some Kantian formalized system of ethics. We may wish it otherwise, but morality as an actual real world phenomenon is not a pure reason object.

Understanding this means understanding that people act immorally when they are not confronted directly enough with the consequences of their actions (or are themselves deficient). And thus recommending they be brought closer is fitting.

I'll go as far as to say that things are immoral because they feel distasteful and for no other reason

Is gay sex immoral? Plenty of people find it distasteful.

I think you'll find a lot of that same plenty find it immoral too.

Unless you're talking about Catholics, anti-death-penalty sentiment seems to usually come from the left and anti-gay from the right, so I doubt that.

I don't think it's very reasonable to exclude the most popular religion in the world from moral consideration, but more importantly I don't understand how this proposition slots in with anything I've said so far.

Most people favor the death penalty in the abstract. How many are okay with swinging the axe themselves?

Most people favor the death penalty in the abstract. How many are okay with swinging the axe themselves?

If you found out the vast majority would be happy to, would that change your mind about anything?

More comments

Understanding this means understanding that people act immorally when they are not confronted directly enough with the consequences of their actions (or are themselves deficient). And thus recommending they be brought closer is fitting.

If that goes for the jury, it goes for the criminal as well, which is a good reason to put him to death (I assume Alabama's been killing murderers, not jaywalkers). Demanding each juror "get a splash" is just attempting to gratuitously heighten the disgust impulse.

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