site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44989 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But the NYT continues to make the mistake to this day. Has their hosting provider terminated them until they delete the article?

And posting PII is pretty easy to do. NYT reports the names and cities of people every day. That is PII. Did they check on each one to make sure it is okay?

"Yeah but that information was already public" you will say, sensibly, but that is the typical KF response. In many cases they are just doing open-source reporting and find the account said their real name in public at some point. (This does not cover every thread. Some people there have access to PI databases, I think.)

If a real-life terrorist is captured and put in jail, even if he is the devil on earth, someone at some point should be able to name the crime he is in jail for, and not say "well if not this rule then probably some other one, who cares."

This is the problem with "you cannot post PII." I have suggested the rule being that you cannot publish the street address with enough specificity that a rando could walk up to their door. And I think that is a pretty objective and legible rule! (A lot of person-lookup websites violate the rule right now, but maybe that is not a big loss.)

But when I suggest that rule to people who want KF off the internet, they never seem happy to accept it. Perhaps because they want the rules vague.

they could opt not to cross and they'd have a lot more friends.

Sure. I do not expect any of the many people who have had threads made about them on KF to spend a single second carrying water for them.

Sure, alright, I'll bite your bullet, not that I ever was a big NYTimes supporter. You can increase your counter of people who want KF dead and accept that NYT also deserves that by one.

This is the problem with "you cannot post PII." I have suggested the rule being that you cannot publish the street address with enough specificity that a rando could walk up to their door. And I think that is a pretty objective and legible rule!

This is probably a fine definition of doxing. I like this rule. Let's use this one. We'll no longer say that NYT Doxed Scott, instead they 'unmasked' him. KF also unmasks people's internet handles.

And posting PII is pretty easy to do. NYT reports the names and cities of people every day. That is PII. Did they check on each one to make sure it is okay?

Generally, the NYT will try to contact a person that they write about, like all journalists. Are Kiwifarms victims afforded the same advance notice that Scott was afforded about the article being written about him? Do they offer people a chance to tell their own story?

But when I suggest that rule to people who want KF off the internet, they never seem happy to accept it.

If KF redacted personal details like address, contact info, and other obvious conduits for harassment, I still wouldn't like them, but I wouldn't call them... dangerous. I wouldn't say they ought to be knocked offline. They would day that this would hobble their ability to gather information, and they might be right.

Perhaps because they want the rules vague.

You could well say 'it's all OSINT' or 'other services host this type of information.' But come on. Kiwifarms is a site devoted to bullying with a severity and scale that makes them an outlier. The thing about bullies is they'll always find a way to justify their actions. You can't argue your way out of being bullied. I'm not sure if you've ever been in such a situation, but I have, and the way out is to hit back.

That's exactly what happened. someone used Internet-asshole tactics to frame them and get them knocked offline.

All in all, stupid games / stupid prizes.

I like this rule. Let's use this one.

Great!

the same advance notice that Scott was afforded about the article being written about him?

Well, I wasn't talking about being notified or having the chance to respond. Those are nice but I am not sure it is a good rule to say "it is not doxxing if you give them the chance to respond or advance notice it is happening."

Do they offer people a chance to tell their own story?

Yes! Absolutely yes!

If you are the subject of a thread there, you can sign up, and, well, the first thing that happens is that the mods will lock your account, because lots of fakers show up. But within an hour or two the admins will reach out and verify your identity, and announce that it is really is you. You get a special flag in the forum called "Verified Participant" or something like that.

If the site was up I could find some examples for you.

You could well say 'it's all OSINT' or 'other services host this type of information.'

Yes, and this is why I worked so hard to come up with a definition of doxxing! Everyone says "it is not doxxing when our side does it!" They come up with all sorts of bullshit reasons. "It was already public!" can apply to nearly any fact if you abuse it enough.

That is why I like "no posting the home address." We know that rule means and can ask a third-party to adjudicate that rule. We can add many more rules like that one, too, but each one needs to be understood and able to be used against anyone.

Any 'our side' that puts Kiwifarms on one side of the fence and NYT, WSJ, Fox, and let's say Newsmax on the other is questionable.

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