site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35854 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Or maybe I'm being crazy and it's a coincidence. I don't know. I'd be curious to read what other people think of all this.

That's why you have to compare to earlier dates to see if there is a statistically significant uptick of cheating or just confirmation bias

I dunno why after a month people are still talking about the chess cheating thing. Magnus should provide proof or stop being a sore loser. Upsets happen all the time in sports, like that Mike Tyson vs Buster Douglas fight. A few relevant points: 1. Did Niemann cheat at over the board games? 2. Chess. com may not be impartial (it's buying Magnus' app) 3. Confirmation bias on the part of Chess. com Had Trump cheated at chess probably we'd still be talking about it, unlike all the other things he allegedly did, in which public and media interest died after a week.

I dunno why after a month people are still talking about the chess cheating thing.

It's the anal beads for sure.

No idea why you got downvoted because this is 100% correct. Unless you're into chess, "chess player accused of cheating" isn't particularly interesting. However, "chess player accused of cheating with anal vibrator" grabs your attention. It's kind of a funny idea, it makes you question "how does that even work?". But most importantly, it makes you want to talk to a friend and say "hey did you hear about the chess player accused of cheating with an anal vibrator?".

I am quite certain that if it weren't for the sex toy angle, this story would've never gained the traction it has.

I think it still would have without that angle, IMO. I think the anal vibrator thing didn't come out (not in that way, perverts) until later.

Ok, here's a pitch: Chess, but cheating is legal, but if your opponent catches you, you lose the game.

Just imagine all the things people would come up with!

That and the juxtaposition of chess, which has a rather staid and mathematical reputation, crossed with sexual paraphernalia. It's the unexpectedness that keeps people buzzing.

I think they're talking about it because things keep happening, the most recent being the chess.com report saying he had likely cheated at least 100 times (in online games), and apparently admitted to it when confronted with it (I haven't dug in though), including fairly recent games (within the last two years) and in games for prize money.

Magnus should provide proof or stop being a sore loser.

For what it's worth, while Magnus didn't provide anything besides "just a hunch", Chess.com ruled that Hans most likely cheated more than 100 times in a 72-page report (52 of which is just the appendix).

Chesscom published the report based on cheating from over 2 years ago, but the most recent game that prompted all these cheating accusations was from last month. So far there's no evidence that cheating occurred in that game other than character evidence of him cheating online 2 years ago.

This is almost certainly chesscom trying, and succeeding, to cover for their questionable decision of re-banning Hans, most likely motivated by their financial stake in the reputation of Magnus. Here's the timeline, and you can double check this by reading the report you linked:

Up to 2020-08-11: Hans was cheating on chesscom. He cheated in 100 games, including prized tournaments.

2020-08-12: Hans was banned by chesscom and given an ultimatum to confess to cheating so he can recreate his account. He confessed, and chesscom let him create a new account

2020-08-12 to 2022-09: No evidence of cheating on Hans' new account was detected by chesscom, in the 4000 games played in the interval.

2022-09: Hans won over Magnus, who then implicitly accused him of cheating.

2022-09: Chesscom banned Hans for cheating.

So far there's no evidence

NO EVIDENCE!

There is absolutely evidence. Chess.com even cites some it, while saying that they say, in their own opinion, it is not enough to ban him from OTB chess (which they do not moderate anyway).

When it's difficult to detect cheating in a sport, I think it's fair to cast suspicion on someone who became 'best in the world' but has been caught and literally admitted to cheating quite a few times.

the more pertinent question is did he cheat more than the average online player . If someone plays thousands of games, then probably inevitably some of of the games are going to look suspicious . IF chess. com ran such a detailed audit on dozens of other players, would there also be suspicious activity? And if chess. com knew he cheated 100 times, why wouldn't they ban him on the 5th time or something. So it's like they compiled this huge dossier to make him look bad , even though they suspected he had cheated in the past and didn't do anything, which makes chess .com also look bad? Also, does not answer the question of over the table cheating, which is what my OP mentioned.

the report is a joke . it does not even address how he cheated in those 100 games. only that his strength score was high.

more than the average online player .

When you are regularly winning prize money you should expect higher scrutiny than that.

IF chess. com ran such a detailed audit on dozens of other players, would there also be suspicious activity?

Yes, and they do. You say you read the report so I do not know how you missed this.

And if chess. com knew he cheated 100 times, why wouldn't they ban him on the 5th time or something

Because it was found on looking back. Also, when your job is "catching cheaters" you absolutely do not tell someone the instant they trip an alarm.

I dunno why after a month people are still talking about the chess cheating thing.

The controversy over Hans has been building for a long time.

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