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 -
A bit of a tempest in a teapot, leading to a tangent:
(emphasis added)
I remembered seeing it in this format, with the disclaimer intact, so I thought it was a classic "don't trust your lying eyes" situation (not helped by the refusal of every site except CTV and Business Insider to actually link to the tweet). But...
Link and screenshot to the tweet in question, and link and screenshot to the post he was retweeting.
X changed its layout recently, and the text of the original post wasn't carried forward in the retweet. Their claim is accurate.
I'm guessing that there was a slow rollout of the new layout, so some people saw it in the old format and some in the new.
I would like for primary research to build common ground off of a shared foundation of facts, but that can't happen if the results are different based on the person looking. You can (presumably?) see it with the website's layout. It happened with personalized Google recommendations here last week.
I'd count when I almost missed half the context in a post last week (not helped by bitrot in the top level post), and noticing all of the intact teleprompters (so Trump's ear wasn't hit by glass in the assassination attempt) as marginal successes in primary research, but who's to say that the next issue won't be "personalized" so I can't actually see what other people are talking about?
Eh, I'd say tempest in a teapot is right. The Argentina Election last year was sort of a capability-demonstration of what AI-powered campaign support can do, and there's really nothing you can do to stop AI-propaganda given both the decentralized and also international dynamics to it. But that's not even new in and of itself- social media influence efforts are far more ubiquitous than most people realize, and so while in terms of volume greater AI role is increasing volume, that doesn't correspond to an effectiveness increase due to how people largely disassociate from high-volume propaganda they don't already gel with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link