site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32051 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 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.

So are we going to talk about the bombshell news about social media companies collaborating with federal agencies to police all information or what?

I would give you my take but I’m very unsurprised. Glad that this information is now official however. If they thought they couldn’t control information before, they’ve completely destroyed any lingering trust now. Everything is now suspicious.

/images/16673274303383677.webp

Sorry, this is news? Why do you guys think the EU is going all-out with GDPR and the rest of it?

How is GDPR related to this? This isn't about personal information.

Well, theoretically, social media working with EU governments to do a data dragnet does impinge on that, but you're probably right in that it's not the same thing as dictating how those companies use personal information outside of that context.

The only surprise here is that I wasn't aware the motte had image hosting. Til

Don't worry, I'm sure everyone responsible for posting this misinformation about the department of misinformation will be punished for misinformation.

The only surprise here is that I wasn't aware the motte had image hosting

I'm not sure this is a good idea. It's only a matter of time until someone hosts CSAM and may be more trouble than it's worth. Though I guess allowing avatars poses the same risk. @ZorbaThut thoughts?

I like the image feature, I have a bunch of fairly relevant images. I used one the other day to back a point about issues with the Pentagon's computers.

See Stalin's complaints about politicizing education textbooks!

/images/16673382186722202.webp

I understand we had some issues with shock accounts using gory profile/banners to go with their slur spamming. God bless the janitors for mopping that up.

God bless the janitors for mopping that up.

Indeed. I personally get no real value from avatars/banners/image hosting and I suspect most people don't; if it makes the jannies' lives easier to turn it off (at least until better resourced), I'd applaud that choice.

As far as the image hosting goes, it's one of the Laws of the Internet that any free/pseudonymous image hosting will soon be used for CSAM. It's a grenade that might go off at any time.

Computer science and math seems right up the motte's alley.

"Live senate hearings and child pageants, tonight on CSAM-2!"

posted down below https://www.themotte.org/post/155/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/25033?context=8#context

Sorry I thought I checked thoroughly but I missed 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