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 -
It's pandemonium again on twitter .
A tweet by musk about advertising got 70k likes in 10 minutes. To put this in perspective, a tweet he made yesterday about "small talk" got 70k but in an hour.
It's amazing how much people care about advertising.
My positions are: I don't think there is anything the left can do about the Musk threat, which is why I am optimistic. The left had 7 years to go after Trump and largely failed to stop him . https://greyenlightenment.com/2022/11/03/the-regimes-response-to-the-musk-threat-why-im-optimistic/
Second, I think people are over-estimating the implication as far as the government's response is concerned, but underestimating the social impact. I think this is a bigger deal than even the Russian invasion of Ukraine in terms of overall impact on society. As a force of sentiment , musk has raised conservative's odds by 10% or more.
The tweet in question:
Has he considered the possibility that it is not due to "activists" and, perhaps, is related to the fact that Twitter now has a CEO who shares easily debunked conspiracy theories?
This is somewhat unrelated to the topic of what's responsible for the drop in Twitter's revenue, but the article's bent is so typical.
Right from the get-go, their argument is "Musk's Twitter is bad because people on it might feel empowered to say unapproved things", and as the article continues there's a strong implication throughout that speech should be curtailed.
The rationalisation for limiting speech never amounts to anything more than a claim that we should make sure people can't hear certain points of view for the good of society. Instead of having people duke it out in a public forum wherein ideas can openly and freely be challenged and contested, the idea is that we shouldn't allow sentiments that are "wrong" and "harmful" (at least according to the person taking umbrage) to be promulgated in any way, shape or form, even in an environment where people can challenge it if they disagree. Some people might hear them and be convinced of their arguments, and that means they should be pre-emptively stripped of access to ideas that we don't like.
All I'll say is that I, for one, certainly see no way in which allowing a small group of people to have a disproportionate amount of sway over the informational environment would ever go bad and result in the widespread persistence of false but unexamined ideas that end up having a negative impact on society.
EDIT: clarity
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link