site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34989 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Kanye West is banned from Twitter. So obviously any definition of free speech absolutism doesn't include him.

Snark aside - and the anti Elon crowd is quite snarky - the whole free speech for people in meltdown or not quite mentally stable is interesting question. My approach to human rights have often been - approve of them as long as I get to define who the humans are. So it turns out that my approach to free speech is that while I will go to extremes to protect the free, I don't consider the incoherent ramblings of a drunken hobo as speech.

On the other hand while it is easy to say "Cut his access to the social networks until he has cool down, so he stop hurting himself" and probably it is the best thing to do - I can see how a policy of for your own good can be used to cull all the edgy content.

Ye's post that Musk identified as an "incitement to violence" was a swastika embedded in a Star of David, to signify how both sides should love each other. I don't understand why he'd identify that as an incitement to violence, and I think it'd have been better for Musk to just admit he's doing this because Ye is off his rocker.

Yeah I find it amazing that the exact same principle ("incitement to violence") that they used to ban Trump based on flimsy logic is now being applied to Ye with a similarly flimsy connection between his tweets and "violence".

Yea the pretense of the incitement principle is what offends me here, he should lean into arbitrary caprice and just say "Okay fine, no direct incitements to violence OR posting swastikas."

I agree. Honestly there's no way Twitter can remain viable to advertisers if people are posting swastikas or the n-word everywhere, so obviously there's gonna be a hate speech restriction of some kind, whether explicitly or practically. I would love a Twitter where everything was allowed except what a court ordered them to remove, but it isn't in the cards.

On the one hand, they might as well own up to it and write it into their policy.

On the other hand, it's all a continuum, and it's very easy to start by banning hate speech in the traditional sense of the n-word and similar, and end up banning anyone who doesn't agree with every element of the progressive catechism. So maybe the best way to resist is with a bit of dishonesty. Take down the n-word under the untenable pretense that it's a direct incitement to violence, and then just don't make that same mischaracterization with respect to misgendering or deadnaming or whatever.

On the third hand, I don't know how this latter approach works when you need an army of T&S people handling user report tickets. Surely there's gotta be some internal document that spells it out just to maintain any kind of consistent approach.

So maybe the best way to resist is with a bit of dishonesty.

I'm calling for the opposite here, the sort of ruthless honesty that makes very specific dictates and doesn't bother explaining them except with a "you know why". Own the fact that you're the owner and you run the place how you like. Then there's no ambiguity or slippery slopes. Imagine if Elon just said, "New rule: no posting swastikas. This applies ex post facto to Ye who is now banned." Not only would that be funny, and maybe have a few people learning some civics on their talking head shows the next day, but it would establish Elon's freedom (it's a truism that you have to make a few bold freedom moves to "maintain" your freedom, if only psychologically) AND have the begrudging approval of the left. And just have people talking and joking and all excited. And be the right move.

I don't know I just see no real advantage to noble lies in this case.

I like it!

Take down the n-word under the untenable pretense that it's a direct incitement to violence, and then just don't make that same mischaracterization with respect to misgendering or deadnaming or whatever.

So you're arguing that a company should be intentionally dishonest and use their biases to explicitly allow one type of hate speech while banning the other?

First of all, how is that any better than how Twitter used to be? Isn't that the sort of thing that you'd want to avoid?

Second, I'd argue that your system is far worse than Twitter's old system. At least the old system had written rules and warnings instead of letting intentionally dishonest 'personal opinions' to be the determining factor.

Which of the three hands that I offered are you taking as my position? If there is a way to author a comment that is less prescriptive and more descriptive than what I did, I don't know what it is.

I don't want Twitter to ban even swastikas or n-words (or "fag" -- I'm an equal opportunity free speech absolutist). But that's about as useful as not wanting fire to be hot or water to be wet. It dies without advertising dollars, simple and lamentable as that.

It dies without advertising dollars, simple and lamentable as that.

Unfortunately, that means they have to sign on to full leftist censorship, because that's what the activists who control the advertising budgets want.

Maybe. Brand advertising is weak in a crappy economy, but when the demand is there, competition will push them into reasonable ad space.

There's no competition; it's a cartel. All the big advertisers use the same few ad agencies, who are all full of wokies.

So maybe the best way to resist is with a bit of dishonesty. Take down the n-word under the untenable pretense that it's a direct incitement to violence, and then just don't make that same mischaracterization with respect to misgendering or deadnaming or whatever.

I'm referencing this - endorsing intentional dishonesty to allow 'harmful' speech for some groups but disallow it for others.

I don't want Twitter to ban even swastikas or n-words . . . but - It dies without advertising dollars, simple and lamentable as that."

So advertising dollars would be your way to determine what forms of 'harmful' speech you'd allow? If old Twitter told you that they banned deadnaming due to advertiser concerns, would you support that move?

So advertising dollars would be your way to determine what forms of 'harmful' speech you'd allow? If old Twitter told you that they banned deadnaming due to advertiser concerns, would you support that move?

Simple necessity (via the brand advertising market) would be my way to determine how close the product can come to the absolutist free speech ideal, yes. If I were Musk, I'd go as far in that direction as I could without blowing up the economic viability of the product, forcing bankruptcy and leaving it in the hands of creditors, who are likely to more resemble Larry Fink in their outlook than @Home or @VelveteenAmbush.

I don't understand why he'd identify that as an incitement to violence

He did because he has to. He just made nice with Tim Apple, and if he lets something outrageous like that stay on Twitter, it could mean outright "war". Not to mention the risk of Jonathan Greenblatt "partnering" with US regulators again.

I wish he'd been open about that.

Not to mention the risk of Jonathan Greenblatt "partnering" with US regulators again.

What are you referring to here?

Presumably the ADL working with regulators to force censorship on Twitter.

It's ironic to see free speech warriors pulling the same move the wokes do: yes, we're for free speech however some things just can't be tolerated but are still being defended as speech so we're going to use the "incitement to violence/harassment is not protected speech" exception.

Let's wait and see if it takes on the utterly stretched, mutilated character "danger" has in woke discourse as the need for exceptions grows.

This assumes that Musk is, or ever was, a "free speech warrior." Actual free speech warriors are in fact extremely skeptical of claims of incitement to violence, and insist that that exception be extremely narrow, and certainly not nearly narrow enough to encompass that post. Most obviously, see the relevant Supreme Court precedent

I was going to say that Musk framed his takeover as being about a new day for free speech but I went looking for examples and he also says:

“By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.” he wrote, in a series of tweets, “I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376

So...by this standard he'd be fine with German anti-Nazi laws? I suppose it's the only viable position for a global site but I think a free speech warrior would appeal to some basic principle besides legality.

Even still, imo, he is still exploiting the danger/harassment loophole: I don't think US courts would ban Kanye's comments.

Yes, he is certainly going far beyond US law, but not beyond non-US law

We can think of things like free speech is binary or on a continuum.

If you think of it as a binary, then Musk doing this action means he doesn’t support free speech.

If you think of it like a continuum, then Musk is providing more free speech while trying to balance other priorities.

And the latter view is consistent with what Musk said from the start.

Right, but I find it frustrating that people are just now realizing this. People on the left have been saying the same thing forever - It's not that we don't support free speech (we do), but, like Musk & nearly everyone else, we think that there should be some limits placed speech when it comes to the internet.

Musk isn't doing anything new or different here. It's what's always been done. Twitter has always moderated content that they believe to be harmful. Musk is doing the same exact thing but he just has a different definition of what 'harm' constitutes. If you agree with his new definition of harm, great. But you should at least realize that this is still a highly circumstantial process and is fully susceptible to bias as it's always been.

Well, I think the difference is most people on the left were moving towards less free speech (in really objectionable ways).

As a concrete example, people on the left supported labeling as misinformation tweets about covid that disagreed with government data. That seems like a central example of free speech that is so far on the continuum that it ceases to be free speech (eg only government approved speech allowed). That’s a bit Different compared to this.

I think there's a little more nuance than that. While I can't speak for every case, most of the warnings I saw were placed on tweets whose sources were fully or partially unknown. Now, the government certainly isn't all-knowing, but in terms of getting the most reliable data, it's hard to argue that numbers from hospitals submitted to the government were as questionable as random unverified sources. (Note: this is all dependent on wether or not you think the government intentionally and maliciously doctored the numbers to manipulate people. If that's what you think I don't think we'll be able to see eye to eye).

We also need to consider the unique nature of the pandemic - If people get bad info, they put themselves & others at serious risk. In that sort of scenario, it's hard for me to justify using bits and pieces of less verified data instead of government data (as we have in the past). I don't think it's an easy decision at all and I also can how bad it looks from the other side. But if you frame it as "Private company opts to promote verified data in attempt to save lives" it's not as bad.

Getting wrong info often has spillover effects. Once you allow for that and start saying “only government approved sources because it is too dangerous” you have no free speech.

Also questioning data doesn’t require believing that the government is lying (eg you argue with methodology). Or bringing up other data / idea (eg lab leak).

More comments

Sounds like No True Scotsman

Nope. This is an issue that actual free speech advocates have dealt with forever. In addition to my previous link see eg here and here

Yeah, there's a long history here. I'm squishy enough on the matter that I'm not entirely happy with Brandenburg v. Ohio's test, but I don't think there are any really plausible reads that make the publicly-known posts clear violations.

I expect Musk is more directly under pressure from German/EU environments where this does violate standing law -- German law in particular has a ton of rules related to fascist symbols -- which has been Musk's publicly repeated standard, but it also shows the problems with that standard.

((And, tbf, I'm 50/50 on whether Ye's having a genuine mental breakdown and/or doing some Springtime With Hitler-level punking, but the odds of the former are high enough that I could see the argument for intervening as a friend, albeit perhaps a better argument for intervening with the help of some men with white coats bearing extra-long sleeves.))

Eh, I can see how that schema of placing the logo of (group whose raison d'être is violently eradicating group X) inside the logo of (group X) looks a bit too questionable no matter the stated intention. Would photoshopping a rioting BLM protester into the Trump tower not register as calling for Trump's possessions to be smashed, despite any protestations that this is to say that the two sides should love each other?

The symbol is more than likely related to Black Israelism that his beliefs seem to mirror. Basically they believe that Africans are he true Israel, and that the modern Jews aren’t. They also despite being Christian are bound by the Laws of Moses. It’s an odd belief system, but it’s not that dangerous.

Ehhhhhhhhh, every once in a while one of them goes off and does something really dangerous, like that kosher market massacre in New Jersey a few years ago.

Idk if that's why he was suspended - but 'star of david swastika' is relatively normal edgy humor, and isn't a threat of violence at all.

TBH that combo of logos is just accusing israel of nazi tier shit for their apartheid like treatment of palestinians.

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