site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   45007 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

105
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When infinite copies of a work can be made for no cost, taking a copy and not paying causes no harm to the system. If your worldview is strongly rooted in the old world where copies cost money to make,

Do you assume that historically, books and newspapers were priced at the printing/distribution cost? Because you're not budgeting anything for the actual creators of the content.

As opposed to the constitutions view of the issue:

Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

The current system violates the "limited times" part of that, even if the Supreme Court doesn't think so.

We arguably don't even need to look at the "limited times" part, we could even argue that it sure as hell isn't promoting "the progress of science and useful arts" now.

Do you assume that historically, books and newspapers were priced at the printing/distribution cost? Because you're not budgeting anything for the actual creators of the content.

I feel like I addressed this, but to reiterate; yes, the creator deserves pay, he will not work without it. However, when the only payment method is objectionable, there is no harm in taking a copy that is free to produce.

Also, why are you quoting the constitution? The founding fathers would have zero understanding of this unique, modern problem.

However, when the only payment method is objectionable, there is no harm in taking a copy that is free to produce.

I don't think this is true, for reasons you yourself pointed out. Because by going around the only payment method, you are denying the creator the pay that he deserves (and produced the work under the expectation he would get). I am not embracing the position that ad blocking is immoral, but I think that to say there's no harm is also not true. The truth is more like: there is harm, but it's also harm that is partly caused by the creator's refusal to make their work available on reasonable terms. In other words, both parties are really kind of in the wrong here.

But this isn’t sufficiently different from the given example of turnstile jumping, are you also okay with that? After all, the marginal cost of supporting one more person on the subway is negligible, likewise with hosting web content.

You know, I think I am, given equivalent circumstances. If the train is running anyway, and it's empty or nearly empty so you aren't taking space from paying customers, and the turnstile won't take your money.

Something tells me that there might be some other factor that makes these situations inequivalent, but I don't see what that is at the moment.

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