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 -
Sam Altman just loves to be a sociopath and then brag about it. His latest?
https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666
"Her".
In case you've been living under a rock, this is in reference to the 2013 movie in which Scarlett Johansson plays the voice of an AI girlfriend. And it's also a reference to Open AI's new product, Chat GPT 4o, whose voice sounds just like... you guessed it, Scarlett Johansson.
This is no mistake. Open AI actually approached Ms. Johansson and asked her permission to use her voice. When she said no, they said fuck it and did it anyway.
https://x.com/BobbyAllyn/status/1792679435701014908
If Elon Musk is chaotic neutral, Sam Altman is increasingly proving himself to be lawful evil. It's not a good look.
I think it's insane that US makes hiring lookalikes illegal. People writing about "owning their own likeness", but the existence of this law proves that it wasn't theirs to begin with. Scarlett Johansson was just one of the women who looks and sounds generally like her to become famous. In the alternative reality person who voiced gpt4o was famous and SJ was hired because she sounded similar enough.
I am not even remotely some kind of libertarian, but what is the actual harm to society this regulation prevents? People who look like other people always existed and if you obviously can't stop some man eerily similar to you from acting in a hardcore pornography I don't see why SJ should be granted anything here.
You can't, but my understanding is that if you are a notable person, and if the producer of the pornography chose to use someone with your likeness because of the value that your personal brand adds, and if you have not given your permission, and if they are in one of the 35 states with prior case law about such things, you might have a pretty strong case. Though IANAL so TINLA.
Yeah, hence I write that it's crazy that this case law exists. Why would being a notable person grants you more rights and what societal purpose these rights serve.
I mean is it crazy that you can't build a car, slap a Rolls Royce logo on it, and sell the car? It's not a "being a notable person" issue, it's a "having a personal brand" issue.
I don't see why a theoretical Ginger Johnson, Scarlett's separated-at-birth identical twin, should be prevented from having a public career because Scarlett beat her to it and she'd (unavoidably) be riding Scarlett's coattails. So the same goes for other look-alikes.
As long as Ginger does not benefit specifically by doing things which are intended to cause people to falsely believe that Scarlett did the thing rather than her, I think Ginger is fine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link