site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30895 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ethics question: how evil would it be to develop a payload for a mechanically suitable off-the-shelf remote-control multirotor drone that would enable a remote user to pierce a car or truck tire and render it irreparably leaky?

For numbers, let's say:

  • the drone is viably controllable up to a quarter-mile from an off-the-shelf controller station (read: phone or lap, maybe with a radio dongle)

  • the drone is not autonomous outside basic flight stability and safety features to other humans, so it has to be guided to a tire and the knife triggered by the user

  • the knife can be triggered 4 times per flight

  • the drone's battery and knife can be replenished within a minute by the user

  • the knife is captive, so it can't hurt anything the drone isn't immediately adjacent to, and magically can't be modified to do otherwise by end users.

  • the drone and ground station are readily replaceable for <$10K, so accessible for a small organization or an org with donors, but not a typical individual.

This is prompted by my trying to inhabit the viewpoint of modern dirtbag left activists, such as those who protest by gluing themselves to roads and suchlike.

Factors I can think of offhand:

  • This enables grassroots enforcement of no-car, no-truck zones for the anarchistically-inclined

  • This makes destruction of property safer for the perpetrator

  • This enables wider-scale destruction of property viable for a single user

  • The payload designer isn't hard to replace, since the payload is easy to design, but the payload only needs to be designed once and then plans distributed

  • Obviously, this makes hit-and-run violence easier and safer, but that rate is already low and dropping, but maybe someone out there is only held back from a spree by having to be present for the attacks in person? If so, why aren't they a sniper on a spree already?

  • Once the payload is built, how much harder is making the entire thing autonomous? To the degree of "here's a car-shaped thing, slice the tires"? "Here's a geofenced area, slice the tires of all car-shaped things in it"? "Here's a geofenced area, slice the tires of all cars without a badge"?

Hmm. Some of these asks are a bit contradictory.

Okay, I was about ready to dive into engineering options, culture war be damned, when I realized you were asking about the ethics. Setting aside the plausibility of a weapon which can slash 4 tires but not a human eyeball, this is a pretty unwholesome device.

The cost of 4 tires, or even 40, is not actually all that high. This device isn't a game-changer for wholesale destruction compared to something like gasoline. Instead, it's quite targeted, and It's also strictly less useful for legitimate purposes, meaning I'd expect it to be regulated pretty heavily.

Outside of niche law-enforcement usage, it is best suited for vandalism and vigilantism, AKA enforcing one's will on others or their property. I count no-car anarchist compounds in that category, though I really doubt they're a large contingent.

From an engineering perspective, this isn't viable without a gun or gun surrogate mounted on the drone. Piercing a car tire is difficult; it requires a lot of force. A multi-rotor drone simply isn't able to generate enough horizontal force to do it with just the use of it's propellers.

you can see the recoil of a drone when a gun attached to it is fired here. I'd agree that the drone wouldn't have enough force to stab the tire. But what about something like an electric spinning saw attached to the drone. That might be able to cut the tire.

Pretty much. I was thinking captive bolt pistol.

That will just propel the drone backwards.

Same as a gun of equivalent energy, no?

I think the idea is to avoid consistent pressure like you’d need to cut. Though I’m not sure round, clean holes are a good way to cause irreparable damage.

Captive bolt guns have much less energy than projectile-throwers. In particular, a much lower velocity.

I’d think that a captive bolt driven by, say, a .22LR blank would have similar energy in the short run, assuming the same “barrel” length. So a revolver, not a rifle. Giving the bolt 100x the mass would lead to 1/10th the velocity for the same KE.

I honestly don't think drones can mount any weaponry that would generate any significant recoil impulse. Maybe dangerous laser pointers or small rockets, but at that point, you are likely to risk getting the full fury of the law dropped on you (or the wrath of the FAA, but that's probably the same thing).

That was my thought, yeah. Some style of Derringer-style action with a captive spring-loaded blade or piston, which is what drove the small handful of pierced tires between visiting a human.

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