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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What do folks on the Motte think of the "Waves" glasses? Here is the link, quoting the short tweet:
The idea seems to be another in the long string of VC-funded tech companies who seek to make their name on being controversial in the beginning, and slowly becoming socially accepted. It's extremely frustrating that this profit model seems to work, but we can't deny it does (some of the time) at this point.
On the one hand I'm deeply incensed at the thought of other people recording me without my consent. On the other hand... we already waived these rights two decades ago with the Patriot Act, effectively allowing the government and major corporations to spy on us all the time with no repercussions. I personally find it hard to be sympathetic to outrage against these glasses when our nation's legal system has completely bankrupted any notion of a personal right not to be filmed anyway.
I'm not sure which side of the culture war this benefits either. As it stands, it seems a pretty predictable evolution of trends we've been seeing in privacy and technology for a while in the West.
I actually really like the idea of camera glasses that are always on, so I can capture cool moments that I see. Because too often I try to fish out my phone and it's already over. I actually got the snapchat snaptacles (which were almost exactly the same concept) back in the day but they were absolutely garbage to use.
The problem right now actually isn't cultural, but tech. Think of the amount of battery life a gopro gets - latest models get 2-3 hours recording at 1080p, and the unit is quite bulky. There's also the issue of overheating which is sometimes a complaint for gopros. Now try to cram all that into a tiny wearable that you plan on wearing for all waking hours.
It's just not possible to make camera glasses that people actually want to use.
The problem is absolutely cultural, in that I for one would fight hard to ban anyone from having a device which automatically records people like this one.
is it just the discrete/covert nature of the device that bothers you? because 90ish percent of people on the street already have a HD camcorder in their pocket at all times.
People are becoming more and more aware that using these cameras to record any manner of material can result in either financial gain and or positive notoriety. There is clearly a market for these always on recording devices and i just wonder why the nanny state needs to get involved on this one.
I understand defending these things is an existential concern for you Wave_Existence, but come on, this is the nanny state? The fourth amendment does still exist right?
Not a lawyer of course, but invoking the constitution in a situation where people could absolutely use this equipment legally seems insane to me. When the government demands i dont do something that is currently legal because it makes you feel a little uncomfortable, yeah thats pretty close to when i would start calling it a nanny state.
i hope you haven't wasted any mental bandwidth forming an opinion of me, i certainly haven't of you.
Lmao so cutting! And so ironic. The product is called waves, your name is Wave_Existence. Ease your mind, that was the extent of the mental bandwidth I expended on you.
Was it the nanny state when the government updated its laws about child pornography distribution in response to the development of p2p technology? When is it sane to invoke the constitution in your eyes, if not when there is a question about the potential legality of an action or technology?
I was using it colloquially to refer to the right to privacy, sorry for confusing you. But do you have any reason - at all - to assume the government won't use privately made recordings like they have tried to with ring cameras and bodycam footage?
It doesn't make me feel a little uncomfortable, it infringes upon a principle I grew up with and will fight for no matter how sisyphean the task. You might live such a tame and banal life you have no need for a general expectation of privacy in your private life, but I do not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link