site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   33325 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Whether or this standard enables banks to do such—I would not expect them to jump on the opportunity. They are businesses, and what’s the motive for shooting themselves in the foot?

This is no longer a sufficient objection. Social media companies make money off views and attention. Why do they keep banning people that bring them lots of views and attention? Game companies make money of gamers, why do they keep insulting them and telling them if they don't like their liberal agenda, don't buy their games? Why do media companies keep acquired IPs to harness the profitability of their fanbase, and then putting writers on the project that hate the material and the fanbase?

The world is replete with companies in industries ostensibly "shooting themselves in the foot" if their only motive were raw capitalistic profit seeking. We have near a decade of them doing it anyways. Obviously, we do not live in the framework they teach in Econ 101.

Once again, Scott Alexander called it.

I might need to re-read that, but... no he didn't. He's calling the opposite, the same old "it's just clicks for attention, bro" theory WhinningCoil is criticizing.

I wasn't posting it as a counter to WhiningCoil, but as an agreement: this has been "known" for a while, corporations do things that should rightly harm their bottom line and yet get rewarded anyways.

I don't think that's his point. As far as I can tell, they aren't getting rewarded, which is why the Econ 101 model is wrong.

Strong agree, and it really shows you how wrong most people's model of capitalism is.

Company executives operate for their own benefit, not for the benefit of shareholders. Unless you are Blackrock or something, a shareholder has absolutely no ability to voice their concerns at all. All they can do is vote for or against a slate of directors chosen by management. Nevermind that most people own shares in an index fund anyway.

Company executives have no desire or need to answer to shareholders. They act for their own social and financial aggrandizement. For a CEO to keep their job, it is necessary only to please the board of directors - a group consisting of social elites often chosen by the CEO themselves. That's why a company can "shoot themselves in the foot" by turning away paying customers with no consequences whatsoever. And its why Twitter can have 1000% as many employees as it actually needs. Because there is no need to return profits to shareholders. Shareholders have zero power and will take the scraps they can get.

Shareholder capitalism is an illusion.

Thank Marty Lipton for that. Corporate raiders were great agents of cutting fat. Lipton largely introduced measures to prevent agents from doing so.

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