site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   29309 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So let's say the big bang happened. Who cares what caused it? Everything we know precedes from it and was always going to happen exactly as it did. There is no reason for the future to behave differently than the past, so things will continue to unfold in the only way they ever could have. Since everything has a cause everything is causal. There simply is no room for the concept of "free will", I can't even fathom what it could look like.

Physical laws cause everything.. that is also all there is. If there was more, that would also be a law, and we could understand it and incorporate it into knowledge base. There is nothing outside of what exists (because their literally by definition, can't be), everything is causal (as we agreed), and thus there is no free will.

So let's say the big bang happened. Who cares what caused it?

I do, because it demonstrates that at least one unobservable cause clearly exists. If the universe and everything in it can have an unobservable cause, I don't think it's too unreasonable to claim that the self can have an unobservable cause as well, given that no observable cause is available.

You are free to assume that the unobserved cause of both the universe and the self are just more physics, but this belief is neither empirical nor falsifiable. It is simply a statement of faith, an axiom you have adopted to direct your reasoning and to filter evidence.

And of course, further evidence can change all this. Demonstrate mind reading and mind control, and I'll agree that Determinism appears to be correct. In the meantime, I'll continue to point out that confident assertions are not evidence.

There is nothing outside of what exists (because their literally by definition, can't be), everything is causal (as we agreed), and thus there is no free will.

Free will does not violate causality any more than the big bang does. We observe the big bang, and you ask "who cares what caused it". We likewise observe free will and the self, and I ask "who cares what caused it?" Why is that answer fine from you and a problem from me?

The thing is, we don't observe "free will". If you can hit a pool ball into a pocket then free will is a fantasy.

Not knowing everything about the universe right this second doesn't mean determinism is based on faith, because everything we can observe points to it being 100% true. That is 100% better than the zero evidence for the other side of the coin.

I think it is time to leave this particular picadillo alone. I'm never going to logic you into determinism and you're never going to faith me into...whatever it is you think free will is. There is no way to even describe it since it literally can't even exist tautologically, let alone in the world as we see it.

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