site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29396 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 16, 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.

Some signs that maybe this Trump administration won't just be more of the same...

So apparently the US government will "shut down" on Friday if Congress doesn't pass a continuing resolution. (I put "shut down" in quotes because of course they will still continue the all-important business of sending out transfer payments and paying bureaucrats. Mostly they'll just close the National Parks.).

To keep the government running, the House Speaker (Mike Johnson, Republican) put forward a 1500 page continuing resolution that had all kinds of ridiculous shit in it, including funding pro-regime propaganda, changing the word "offender" to "justice-involved person", and of course a bunch of pork barrel projects for both parties.

A 1500 page bill right before Christmas is all very normal of course. No one expects the Congresspeople to read it. They just rubber stamp and then go home to their constituents bragging about their $100 million in funding for music tourism or whatever.

Only, this time, something happened. Spurred on by Elon and Vivek, constituents started calling their representatives and complaining. The bill looks to be in trouble. And now, reportedly, it is being replaced by a bill that's "only" 116 pages. At this point, our resident nitpickers will come in and mention that most of the important stuff in the bill is still there. The money for molasses research is just a small drop in the bucket compared to the money for hurricane relief. And they're right. But still, this is important progress. A government for the people and by the people needs to legible to the people.

Bills should be only as long as they need to be and no longer. This bill should have been a single page, continuing existing funding levels. 116 pages is still 115 pages too long, but it's progress.

It's a good sign that the swamp is less powerful than before.

p.s. Grok AI is very useful for getting information on current events.

I dunno, government shutdowns due to ineffective governance and republican infighting sounds exactly like the first Trump administration. Springing this on congress a few days before the deadline when they thought they had everything worked out isn't a great way to introduce your administration, they hate working holidays. And it doesn't work as a show of power if you don't get your desired bill through, it just looks uncoordinated and capricious.

The shorter bill was voted down GOP budget hawks because it suspended the debt ceiling for 2 years. Senate Dems already called for the House to go back to the original negotiated one.

I think it's the start of a serious intra-GOP conflict.

It's like when you go to the shop and you get a 75% discount and think you saved a lot of money.

Lol, the Steam Winter sale is on now. If you ever want to "save" 95% on a game, you have to act fast (or wait three months for the Steam Spring sale). Help, I haven't even installed 80% of the games I own...

I feel your problem, I barely have time to game and I'm really tempted to drop 50-100 on picking up games. I decided I will not buy a AAA game until I play and mostly complete Kingdom Come Deliverance, RDR2, and Hogwarts Legacy.

RDR2

I really wish there was a mod that gets rid of all the tiresome gunplay and outlaw stuff, and instead just lets you play as John Audobon, tracking down and sketching rare birds.

What is annoying is old games for 20% off, when 1337 offers them for 100 off.

But imagine paying full price. Only an idiot would do that, amirite?

Why does this indicate Trump will be different this time? Musk and Ramaswamy signal boosted a shorter bill, which proves they have influence, which means DOGE could be more than a publicity stunt, maybe? I'm not really getting the connection.

The number of pages of legislation seems like a very poor barometer of government judiciousness.

> Something happens that doesn't usually happen > Why does this mean things will be different?

The key isn't just smugly concluding that small bills are bad too, so who can really say? Lots of people can tell, in fact, what is in bills. From all the discussion going around there were a lot of bad things in that first bill that aren't in the second one. Elon Musk is happier, Vivek Ramaswamy is happier, that must count for something? It's tedious to read the all-knowing attitude that everything is a publicity stunt, after all, and nothing really matters (but I don't actually know the specifics I'm just guessing because nothing really matters).

Edit:

As one example, here is Congressman Jim Banks alleging that the old bill funds an agency that censored conservatives:

https://x.com/RepJimBanks/status/1869350064742875341?t=EoITrkbHKRZJ0JeO_cPqDw&s=19

Short of an argument about how Jim Banks is wrong, actually, or censorship is good, actually, killing the old bill sounds good to me!

From all the discussion going around there were a lot of bad things in that first bill that aren't in the second one. Elon Musk is happier, Vivek Ramaswamy is happier, that must count for something?

Does it though? If they were unhappy but knew that they couldn't win, isn't their obvious play to claim victory?

Why does this indicate Trump will be different this time?

Trump administration. I am using the metonym.

The number of pages of legislation seems like a very poor barometer of government judiciousness.

Hard disagree. Rules must be comprehensible to those who are ruled. Even more importantly, they must be comprehensible to those who MAKE the rules. Congressmen who pass laws they haven't even read are derelict of their duty. And if you think that the modal congressman read the 1500 page CR, I have a bridge to sell you.

I think this is an interesting 'shot across the bow.'

We have language analysis technology that includes LLMs that makes these huge bills easier to search and catch the 'hidden' spending provisions tucked in there, and translate complicated legalese into mostly plain English.

This results in increased 'legibility' in the most literal sense. The text of any bill, no matter how large, can be instantly processed and made comprehensible to the constituents well before the vote is called.

Add in general anti-FedGov sentiment, and the fact that Elon is popular and has an uncensorable platform, and this could change the game.

Where before the mainstream news might have picked out like 3-5 of the provisions that would piss off one side or the other, while ignoring the really egregious stuff in the bill, now there is no 'safety through obscurity.'

Not clear what congress' counterplay is, honestly.

If Elon wants to, he can set up PACs to fund primary challengers for any Republicans who defect, to make sure that there are consequences locked in for later, to prevent any politicians from relying on the public's short memory.

This is a great point. LLM's are changing the game in a big way and it's hard to see where it ends.

Corporate lawyers have often used the equivalent of a denial-of-service attack to overwhelm smaller opponents. You are ordered to turn in documents, so you turn in 1 million pages and laugh because there's no way your opponent can read them at $500/hour.

Of course, the natural end game is that all law is done by LLMs. O1 is arguably already superhuman at parsing large documents. Recently, there was a bogus scientific study about plastic from cooking spatulas causing negative health effects. It turns out the authors made an order-of-magnitude error in a basic calculation. It was missed by human reviewers. Someone ran it through O1. It found the error immediately.

Lawyers defend obfuscation because it places them at the top of a power hierarchy. But this will change. Soon. The future is LLMs that chow through a MILLION pages in a few hours, with superhuman patience and memory.

All in all, shorter and simpler is better. Warren Buffett has bought billion dollar companies with a 1 page contract. Lawyers think they need 1000 pages. Well I'm here to tell you that we can make a MILLION page contract. So now lawyers need to make the argument "the contract needs to be short enough for me to parse, but too long for you to parse". Good luck.

Of course, the natural end game is that all law is done by LLMs. O1 is arguably already superhuman at parsing large documents. Recently, there was a bogus scientific study about plastic from cooking spatulas causing negative health effects. It turns out the authors made an order-of-magnitude error in a basic calculation. It was missed by human reviewers. Someone ran it through O1. It found the error immediately.

I have a great pitch for AI proofing internal communications, all intra-business e-mail is done over a synthetic language which features N-words and other verboten lingo and concepts by the current regime. Lets see them use AI to disentangle that which they have worked so hard to censor.

Most SPAs are long because you want to force the other side to disclose so you make them rep to certain things.

There is also some legalese.

There is also some legalese.

There's a plausible argument that legalese is like a ceremony where you slaughter a cow and then look at the entrails to take the omens. It makes people feel that ceremonies were observed while having no effect on on the actual outcome. It works especially well on people who are a little dim.

"You write it up all nice and fine, and I’ll sign it."

Few things fit the midwit meme greater than people who are obsessed with "legalese". They view it like a talisman that can protect them from evil forces. But nothing can.

LLMs are going to gish gallop the shit out of every lawyer alive today. They probably deserve it.

It really is funny. As a lawyer, I laugh when people try to write something formal and start throwing around “big words.”

I’m not a lawyer, but I am extremely suspicious about claims of the form “oh yeah [X profession] is a bunch of bullshit, it’s actually really simple and easy but they make it more complicated than it has to be”, because people say it about my own profession (programming) all the time in cases where I know it to be false.

Do you have any examples of legalese that you think could be profitably and straightforwardly simplified?

There's a plausible argument that legalese is like a ceremony where you slaughter a cow and then look at the entrails to take the omens. It makes people feel that ceremonies were observed while having no effect on on the actual outcome. It works especially well on people who are a little dim.

In my experience, the legalese is there not for the people actually signing the contract, but instead for the people trying to resolve disputes about the contract years down the line. You're not trying to snow the other side; you're trying to get the completely unrelated judge or future lawyer to take your side in the future. Many of the strange phrasings are references to standard language which can be reliably interpreted in a particular way so long as the standard remains current, or attempts to cover every possible base and contingency.

LLMs are going to gish gallop the shit out of every lawyer alive today

It's not the lawyers you need to gish gallop, it's the judges. And if you do that, you're not going to like the results. You want courts to be predictable.

Is this really a good thing for conservatives, though? For years I've heard them complain both about the length of bills and the power of the administrative state. The trouble is that if you insist on a shorter bill that does essentially the same thing as a longer one, what you're really doing is eliminating detail. If you're sticking to, say, Herman Cain's 9-page limit, what you're really doing is delegating to an agency with rulemaking authority.

Anyway, according to CNN as of 5 minutes ago, it looks like this new bill is dead. House conservatives balked at Trump's 2-year suspension of the debt ceiling, and there's nothing in it to entice Democrats. What we're seeing here is a repeat of the old divisions that made it impossible for the Republicans to elect a speaker last time around, and Massie has already said he's not voting for Johnson next year, so we might see a repeat of the McCarthy fiasco in the near future. Trump can take his victory lap, but it looks like the infighting that's dogged Republicans for a while isn't going anywhere. It's not inconceivable that the Democrats could tap one or two swing-district Republicans to vote for Jeffries in the name of ending the circus and getting down to business and deliver Trump an embarrassing defeat before he even takes office (it doesn't help that he raided the House for some of his appointments).

Alternative take: the federal government has become too large to manage. The scope of the federal government vastly outstrips the capacity of the human mind making it impossible to manage. The only way to have a federal government is to shrink it to a size in which it is humanly possible to understand what is being voted on.

The trouble is that if you insist on a shorter bill that does essentially the same thing as a longer one, what you're really doing is eliminating detail. If you're sticking to, say, Herman Cain's 9-page limit, what you're really doing is delegating to an agency with rulemaking authority.

Presumably the alternative would be, rather than a single 1500 page bill, 15 or so 100 page bills, or 30 or so 50 page bills. So rather than a single vote on everything, you'd get 30 votes on 30 things. While obviously it would still be impossible for anyone to read the whole thing, it would at least be manageable for somebody to have read the entirety of every bill.

The real mechanism of the giant bill isn't bureaucracy or pork barrel spending, those can happen anyway, it's moreso the lack of trust between congress critters. Dems aren't going to vote on R's things in exchange for a later vote for their things, because they know the Rs won't be there when they said they would. They'll make some excuse about constituent pressure.

I think there is a lot of merit in shorter bills simply because at some point the bills simply become unreadable by humans in the time allotted. A KJV Bible is about 1500 pages. Do you really think you can read a text that long in the space of a week or two, and come to a decision about the content of the bill? That’s not even doing much analysis on the effects of the provisions, just reading them. And this is done so that lobbyists can slip in their agenda through these giant bills unnoticed.

Do you really think you can read a text that long in the space of a week or two, and come to a decision about the content of the bill? That’s not even doing much analysis on the effects of the provisions, just reading them.

I mean, I think that congressional staffers could theoretically divide up a 1500 page bill, and read all of the sections in a week or two.

But reading law isn’t the same as reading say a book. You need to stare at the language. Look to see “is there surplusage.” “Is there an inference due to language somewhere else.”

It's a good thing for the nation, not necessarily for conservatives. 1500 page omnibus spending bills in lieu of a simple continuing resolution are bad, actually. NormanRockwellFreeSpeech.jpg

From a politics perspective, any Republicans who cross the aisle to vote for Jeffries are 100% getting primaried, so that won't happen. But we'll see if old school Republicans like Mike Johnson continue to bend the knee now that business-as-usual has been threatened. In any case, the point of winning elections is to use power. If you don't do anything because you're afraid of the backlash, there is no point. Better to try and fail than not to try.

From a politics perspective, any Republicans who cross the aisle to vote for Jeffries are 100% getting primaried, so that won't happen.

It's unlikely, but getting primaried isn't as much of a concern as some make it out to be. Primary threats only work for safe seats. If the district is competitive, sure, the Republicans can try a primary challenge, but an extreme partisan is dead in the water in the general.

Primary threats only work for safe seats.

No, the MAGA people are willing to engage in spite, risking a seat to primary someone.

Sure.. But they're still getting primaried. In the house at least. Susan Collins is probably safe.

I don't get the sense that, as someone thoroughly impressed by a change in page count, you'll care, but in the interest of facts...

still continue the all-important business of ... paying bureaucrats

Most bureaucrats do not get paid during shutdowns.

Not that you should shed a tear for then; current law requires that they receive backpay for the shutdown.

So with that correction, please feel free to continue cheering for giving delayed-pay vacations to the bureaucrats.

Uh, the government won’t be open for much of this shutdown anyways. In practice government offices are shut down from Christmas through new years.

Are you maybe thinking state government? The feds don't have any holidays Dec 26 - Dec 32st.

Maybe he's alluding to the fact that government employees have lenient bosses and leisurely schedules that allow them to take solid two-week or three-week blocks of vacation leave around Christmas and New Year's, and large proportions of them use this opportunity to the fullest.

Yeah Contractors get hosed, unless their company has enough private contracts, employees get a delayed pay vacation.

I believe contracts are generally written such that funding isn’t affected by a small shutdown.

This shit is old hat.

Most major contractors I know something about keep a chunk of their budget aside for this sort of thing, so they can usually keep paying people for a few weeks/months before they have to start freezing nonessential workers.

I think some contracts are funded up front as well.

I just don’t recall any contractors I know worried about losing pay from shut downs.

I did have a dark thought this could be some sort of 4d chess play.

Back in 2022, Elon cleared the way for his purchase of Twitter by trying to get out of it. It was a brilliant move. Everyone who was against him before said "no, no, you HAVE to buy it". Incredibly, progressives celebrated when they "won" and forced him to buy it. Two years later, Trump won the popular vote and DEI programs are being canceled all across America.

There's a chance that the shutdown is actually the intended point. If he were smart, Jeffries would get the Dems to go along with the new 116 page bill. The bill is fine. But instead, he is apparently fighting it. Now HE owns the shutdown. When Trump takes charge, there's a chance they'll just tell the furloughed workers, "you know what, stay home, you're fired". They are, after all, self-identifying as non-essential. Too bad the Democrats couldn't sign the continuing resolution..

Epistemic status: Extremely speculative.

They are, after all, self-identifying as non-essential.

This is perhaps the furthest thing possible from "self identification" - it's your boss telling you you're not important enough to be paid.

I know we're all super cynical mercenaries here, but ...

If my job was essential to the well-being of the country, I'd work anyway if they let me. Even if they didn't let me, I might sneak in and do work.

I've been one of those people. I was told if it got that bad, I'd have to come in without pay (while everyone else was at home without pay)... but that my line manager would be right there in the office beside me, working without pay, out of personal principle on his part rather than any corporate requirement.

It's a violation of the anti deficiency act to work while forloughed. You risk being fired when everyone else comes back, for violating a very clear red line.

Thanks for that. I was pretty sure it was illegal to work while furloughed.

If he were smart, Jeffries would get the Dems to go along with the new 116 page bill. The bill is fine. But instead, he is apparently fighting it. Now HE owns the shutdown.

No, the media decides who owns the shutdown. So when the National Christmas Tree goes dark, the Republicans will be to blame.

Who cares? New CEO. You start saying “the estimates are too rich we are going to lower.” Rio the band aide off at the start. As a result you start off with only upside.

The media will say that. But how much do they still matter?

I feel it is important to note that, just two month ago, the media decided that Kamala had all the momentum and Iowa was in play. They will certainly try to blame Republicans, they may very well succeed, but events might not play ball.

Events play ball by default. Most Americans default to blaming the party currently in power for anything that goes wrong regardless if that's valid. The Republicans will get 100% of the blame for any government shutdown that happens.

After 20th of January. Republicans are not in power.

Hey no need to snark. Thank you for the correction. Yes, it's possible that many (what percentage?) of bureaucrats will not receive checks temporarily. My guess is that the details are complicated.

But the page count does matter. Reductio ad absurdum, would you be okay with a 1 million page continuing resolution? We need our congresspeople to actual read and be informed about the laws they vote on. Frankly, it's hard to believe that anyone would take the opposite position.

Hey no need to snark. Thank you for the correction. Yes, it's possible that many (what percentage?) of bureaucrats will not receive checks temporarily. My guess is that the details are complicated.

They're not that complicated.

With a few exceptions, all federal employees are furloughed during a shutdown. (This includes everyone from "bureaucrats" to the janitors cleaning the buildings - assuming the latter are actually federal civilians and not contractors, which many of them are.) This is not just all the people you think of as "bureaucrats" in HHS and the VA and SSA and EPA and NEA and national parks, etc., but folks working for the DoD, for the IC, the FBI, and the GS-4 park rangers and motor pool guys and badge issuers and so on.

The exceptions are people who are considered "essential." This does not, contrary to what some folks have suggested, mean that everyone else could easily be fired and the government would carry on just fine. You can suspend the operations of a bunch of agencies for a while and most people would not notice immediately, it doesn't mean that work isn't piling up and the effects won't be felt eventually. But essential personnel have to keep working to make sure everything doesn't literally grind to a halt.

This is one reason why a lot of people think these furloughs are "no big deal," because the stuff that people would really notice - airports being shut down, social security checks not being mailed out, military standing down, etc. - doesn't happen thanks to the skeleton crew of "essential personnel" who continue to work.

Everyone else goes home and all work stops.

In the past, in theory, furloughed federal employees had no guarantee of being paid for their forced time off, though in practice, Congress always voted to restore their back pay. After playing chicken over CRs became an annual thing, Congress passed the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act in 2019, which guarantees back pay after a furlough. So yes, feds are essentially being given a free paid vacation during a furlough. (Though they still aren't getting paid during it, which can cause financial hardships for some if the furlough goes on for a long time.)

If you think this is unfair, that feds are getting a "free vacation," well, it is, but that's entirely on Congress's shoulders. And if you said "Sorry, furloughs mean you just don't get paid, now come back to work when Congress says so, and by the way, this is likely to happen on a regular basis," consider who will stick around to work for the government under those conditions and who won't. If you're one of those "abolish the federal government, all government employees are parasites" types, this may sound good, but most people I think would not like the long-term effects.

Keep in mind that a lot of people working for the government now are actually contractors working for private companies, but doing "government business." (This is an entirely different boondoggle on a huge scale.) They are not allowed to work in government buildings during a government shutdown, and they don't get back pay restored by Congress. Some of them will be temporarily sent home by their companies unpaid; others will be given work to do by the company during the furlough. This is entirely up to each company.

Overall, furloughs are a big expensive mess that shouldn't happen if not for Congressional dysfunction.

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