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 -
AI Propaganda, Deepfakes, and the Law of Undignified Failure
A few days ago, a video appeard on Twitter of two white Scottish girls, 12 and 14, yelling, "DON'T TOUCH US," at an unseen cameraman and weilding a knife and a hatchet. Allegedly (though not shown) the cameraman was a migrant or other ethinc foreigner, was trying some form of assault or harassment, and the girls were trying to defend themselves.
The video is real. The event, insofar as it was depicted in the video, is real. Scottish police really did charge a 14 year old girl with brandishing a bladed weapon.
What is not real is this AI-generated image of a young girl emblazened with Scottish garb and Celtic war paint defending her home and honor with sabre and battleaxe. The image does not even purport to be real. No one could possibly believe that this is a real image. And yet, this fake image (and the countless others in the replies below) elicits much stronger emotions and sympathy from me than the real video. I know that the AI image is not real, it is operating on me at a cognitive level below logical propositions concerning real entities and events. One might say that the AI image represents certain ideals and concepts in a more-or-less true way (a sort of "truthiness" if you will), but the image itself is not evidence of anything.
Unless you are brand new to internet political discussion boards (in which case, welcome aboard) you have heard the concerns that AI-generated images and video will usher in a brave new post-truth world in which you can no longer trust the evidence of your own eyes and ears. Concerns typically center around some sort of incindiary event which is in reality totally fake, but which is indistinguishable from reality due to the photorealism of the AI media generation (so-called "deepfakes"). More sophisticated commentators point out that even just the threat of such "deepfakes" renders all multimedia depictions of events questionable, since it would no longer be possible to use the media artifact itself to determine the underlying truth or falsity of the events it depicts.
The sad truth is that none of that shit matters, because reality itself hardly matters. The law of undignified failure states that, "when plans and people fail, they do so in a less dignified way than you imagined." Perhaps you imagined that the forces of goodness would fight valiantly against the forces of epistemic darkness, only being finally overwhelmed by an exploitable quirk in the degeneracy of the vectors that make up abstract image space. In undignified reality, we get done in by anime girls waving flags.
You might object, "yes, but the rape of white British girls really is that big of a deal! We need propaganda to get across how bad the problem is." Maybe! but I hope you can see that this is not exactly an asymetric weapon as far as truth is concerned. I do think that AI-generated propaganda helps the right more than the left in the current environment, if only because conservatives live in more of an inherently audio-visual culture compared to liberals.
I think it does demonstrate that people are starved for a heroic/mythic figure to rally around or organize under and to inspire them to collective action towards some (ideally) righteous goal.
We're really short on such people these days. No politicians really live up to their own hype. Trump's reality warping field is strong enough that people DO find him inspiring. But he is simply not a 'leader of men' in the sense that one can't imagine him at the front of a cavalry charge on a battlefield or marching into a conquered city to personally accept terms of surrender.
Unlike, say, George Washington or Ulysses S. Grant.
Made all the worse in the U.K. which has a literal king who has a literal sword and in theory has the ability to deploy the military inside and outside the kingdom.
But, and maybe some British Citizen can clarify, its also impossible to imagine the British military rallying under the king's declaration to purge the isles of the invading hordes or what-have-you. Just, wouldn't happen under the current structure of things and social expectations.
And so, the right is really groping around for ANY figure that could possibly rouse their tribe to war and actually hold the coalition together long enough to rout the hated enemy. And they grasp upon a 13-14 year old girl with behavioral issues as their long-awaited queen.
And hey, the U.S. does it too. Rittenhouse, Daniel Penny, Shiloh Hendrix... just 'normal' people who happened to pull off a 'win' in a very specific place and time, and weather the onslaught of publicity and scrutiny, and did something that lefties really didn't like.
They get elevated to the status of 'heroes' but man, they pretty much fade out once it is clear they don't have the chops for maintaining the spotlight, much less being the core of a movement. And who does? Who can you actually imagine being dynamic enough to challenge existing power structures, stable enough to not fall to personal scandal, and somehow also strategic enough to win meaningful, repeated victories when it counts.
AI is good for creating imagery from that slightly-more-idealized world you wish you lived in. I do it pretty often, to create a vision of the future that I find appealing and would like to live in/escape to. But I try not to very directly make alternate versions of the present, especially one that supposes people or individual persons are different than who they really are.
That is, I don't want my actual perception and memory of reality to be supplanted by a version that I prefer but that simply isn't correlated with the truth. Believing the true things even when you'd prefer the true things be something else means NOT believing the false things even when they are exactly what you would prefer be true.
No. A 14 year old girl is not going to rally a nation to war, no Trump is NOT a divine instrument of retributive justice who also has six pack abs and a ten inch penis (he does alright, regardless, mind), no Zelenskyy is not some genius defensive strategist who can beat back Russian invasion via sheer grit and guile (and billions of dollars of aid and western weapons), no Luigi Mangione is NOT an avenging Saint, so on and so forth.
But people do, really really do, want that idealized version to be real and true, which is probably why they're ready to accept the digital fictions so readily. Which spells very, very bad things for our shared epistemic environment.
The last British King to rally the troops against his domestic political opponents was also called Charles, and ended his reign noticeably shorter than he began it. I don't think Charles III is going to be following his example.
Charles II managed just fine, although admittedly his coup-d'etat was done from afar and not necessarily under his aegis. The trick is to let people get a good, long look at the alternative and then to march in your armies when nobody can stomach fighting to defend the status quo.
Thankfully, that bears no resemblance to anything that might be happening nowadays.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Charles I was actually able to rally an army and fight a war for several years, though. I'm suggesting the current Charles doesn't even have the juice for getting a warband together in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This little girl has absolutely had it with the rapacious diversification. That she has had to arm herself to protect her sister is a kind of condemnation on UK society we can't even come close to making ourselves.
I kind of doubt that's the main reason, actually.
I'd guess its the same reason why a lot of lower-class Americans walk around with a gun tucked in their waistband (and I do mean that, not holstered, just jammed in there). They're worried about self-defense, but mainly from each other.
We have young girls that like to knife fight too, after all.
I remember that video well, it was actually one of the first (well, not the first, but certainly one of the more acute) cases which really shook me from the lefty consensus I had grown up in. I was already drifting away for various other reasons, and had always disliked SJWs (as they were then called), but the SJ race-war reaction to this incident was so ludicrously indefensible, and the left-leaning pushback so conspicuously absent, that it really stuck with me.
For anyone who hasn’t seen the video, the cop absolutely unequivocally saved the other girl’s life; the one who got shot literally had her arm up mid-stab (and going straight for the heart) when he opened fire. It was quite heroic, really.
It was just such an obscenely naked case of “black lives matter, but only when it makes a white person look bad”. It’s not like anyone would be saying that other poor girl’s life mattered if she had been stabbed.
Yep.
I'm critical of a good number of officer-involved shootings. I can remember that one that started shooting because an Acorn dropped on a car hood, for example.
But if there's ever a 'good shoot' its taking out someone who was literally in the act of trying to kill someone else.
Also, I train people in self-defense professionally... and knife attacks are the scariest and hardest to defend situations. Which is to say it is not reasonable to expect the officer to intervene and try to subdue the person with the blade, so shooting them really does end up as the best option, if you don't have a full-body stab-proof suit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not the particular tweet I was expecting, but amusingly enough it was the incident I was expecting. I was expecting this classic Tweet:
LOL I was trying to find that specific one, but settled for one that was kind of close.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
wait, explain Shiloh Hendrix to me?
https://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/crowdfunding-campaign-for-alleged-woman-involved-in-viral-tiktok-garners-over-100k
For context, this happened right after Karmelo Anthony, a black teenager, stabbed a white high-school student to death at a track meet and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars via fundraising sites. Hendrix also started a fundraiser to cover relocation expenses, and it went viral in the aftermath of the Anthony incident. From the sentiment I saw on social media, it seemed like mostly spite donations and people supporting her refusal to cave to the cancellation mob. There was a concerted effort to get her fundraiser above the Karmelo Anthony total, and it ended up raising something like $800k.
And just as it seemed like her 15 minutes of fame were up, she was just charged with three counts of disorderly conduct, apparently for simply using the n-word.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Technically she was around 16 years old…
Why does everything in the UK seem to revolve around underage girls, if they aren't being trafficked to a crown prince by foreign intel agents, they are being gang groomed or assaulted by immigrants, or leading crusades, now they are wielding skyrim tier bladed weapons. Will the UK soon have a squad of teenage girls in uniforms battling in the streets for their country's freedoms?
Because both men and women alike are completely obsessed with teenaged girls; men because biological imperative (literally what the male sexual attraction model selects for), women because... also biological imperative (sexual competition and insecurity about the former).
This is why women are, in aggregate, far more accepting of teenaged girls being gang groomed or assaulted by immigrants than [native] men are- that's just what you do to sexual competition.
More options
Context Copy link
Magical girls are more of a Japanese thing.
More options
Context Copy link
It feels like it’s actually Americans who have the hang-up about underage girls, and that this cultural disconnect is what is driving a lot of the “WTF is going on in the UK” discourse from American commentators.
Pardon? You think we look at videos like the one you linked, and go "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed", or something?
American attitudes about teenagers having sex, especially female ones, are legitimately much harder than British.
...and it's completely irrelevant to cases such as thus one...
Plus, honestly, at this point, are you sure? This seems to have been true 20-ish years ago, when conservative culture in America had some slrt of presence. Nowadays? I'm not sure I'm seeing it. Do you have any examples in mind?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am not sure if the UK has any other demographics that some significant part of the population won't feel comfortable, or even compelled by their position, publicly expressing disdain for.
More options
Context Copy link
Wait, which UK underage girl led a Crusade?
More options
Context Copy link
-Rudyard Kipling
More options
Context Copy link
Charlie’s (Underage) Angels
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