site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   15631 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I liked Ancillary Justice. The premise is fun once you know what the author is doing. The ship can't properly identify as a human and understand gender distinctions for the same reason the empire folks (or whatever they were called) couldn't understand the native culture of the swamp planet enough to anticipate the brewing shitshow there. And why the ship didn't initially understand the plot. That disinterested misunderstanding was a big theme in the book.

This strikes me as like saying "well, it has evil Jewish bankers in it because that's part of the premise". The premise was created by an author, and premises with some in-story backing can still be created in a contrived way for political reasons.

"The AI just happens to misunderstand gender in a way which just happens to let the story appeal to real world social justice advocates, but that's purely worldbuilding, and has nothing to do with actual social justice advocates" seems like an unlikely scenario. There's a long tradition of sci-fi using proof by fictional evidence to have aliens (or in this case AIs) come to the humans and say how from their objective alien viewpoint untainted by human biases, some difference between humans which humans care about just isn't very important. Even evil aliens or AIs often do this. Is the AI actually shown to be wrong, in a strong enough way that this is not what's happening?

The (bad colonizing meat-robot-creating) culture that has practically no gender is shown in a pretty unsympathetic light whereas the one with a concept of gender is shown in a more sympathetic light.

It's often villains who do the "look objectively at human society" thing. There are a number of variations: the villain's only motivated by base motives so he doesn't care about complex human distinctions; the villain's outside society so human distinctions don't matter; the villain's naive and can't be tricked by human sophistry surrounding distinctions because he doesn't understand it.

The question isn't really "is the no-gender AI evil" or "does not understanding gender have negative consequences", it's whether the narrative treats it as a deficiency which makes it less than human, as if it couldn't understand grief or it had no appreciation of poetry.

I would say that it's treated as a deficiency, but not a dehumanizing one. In fact, the AI is one of the most human characters in the story, despite it's initial attempts to be above such things.

The irony is that both hardcore SJ crowd and anti-SJs miss any such implications.

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