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 -
I'll be damned. EA might just be the one left-leaning space that will survive wokeness in perpetuity. The response to the Hanson deplatforming was inspiring, and support for Bostrom actually seems pretty strong at the forum. This might even be a good thing for them. As they get tarred as a den of reactionaries, woke sympathetic people will become less interested in engaging with them, and the entry of future enemies into their ranks might decrease.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/
This probably should have gone into the general Bostrom thread. Note that there is some dissent (one wonders what's going on on more private channels) and I'm very much not sure your prediction will pan out; votes as well as major voices seem to skew in the other direction – perhaps heterodox EAs are already too savvy to upvote in the direction of wrongthink, but it may as well be a genuine indication of the group sentiment. And some clear defenses of Bostrom are downvoted to hell – including your ones.
In any case, thank you for the link – it confirms what I've already believed. People who cannot deal rationally with a trivial topic like HBD 101 don't have any business devising policy for longtermism and against existential risks; they are at best a liability, and at worst, useful idiots in someone's scheme. Like in that RAND guy's scheme.
It's also mildly surprising, in that EAs have apparently taken the idea of elevating BIPOC voices to heart – like the good Hajnalbots they are. Results are dismal as they always are this deep into the «Sociopaths» stage of The Cycle.
Shakeel Hashim («Head of Communications at the Centre for Effective Altruism. Previously: News Editor at The Economist; journalist and growth manager at Protocol; journalist at Finimize» – basically a slick establishment/Cathedral/PMC type, so prominent in current-year EA) is quick to «unequivocally condemn» Bostrom in eerie HR-speak. Habiba slams Bostrom with verbiage like «When people in positions of privilege use or mention slurs lightly they are able to do so because they are blinkered to the lived experience of others», «I am deeply uncomfortable with a discussion of race and intelligence failing to acknowledge the historical context of the ideas’ origin and the harm they can and have caused», «When you are willfully disengaged from the empathy that underlies common decency» etc., with links to some misleading popular commentary. Ginera refreshingly comes to Bostrom's defense with a sensible meta-level analysis, without endorsing his object level opinions; a Nigerian Igbo, I gather. This is not cherrypicking – those are all active threads on the topic that I've seen at a glance!
Oh, actually there are more. Megan Nelson, a vegan/social worker/community builder, in a highly upvoted post reports being tired. In general, politically active women wield their purported exhaustion as the ultimate argument, it's the post-highschool equivalent of an eyeroll, combined with suggesting she'll accuse you of scaring her next. Absolutely unacceptable manipulative behavior IMO, as deserving of censure as thuggish threats by men – but what do I know. Specifically she complains of the following:
This is really a treasure trove of a mindset. In Megan's world, good epistemics is doubtlessly in line with good behavior; and good behavior is that which does not incur social ostracism that she and other «community builders» will have to quell by apologizing on behalf of «the movement». She's in EA because she wants «the world to be a better, kinder, softer place». Or maybe she just wants to be praised for doing things that authorities will recognize as such. Not the «movement's» authorities – there, Bostrom is, or was, near the top of the respect hierarchy – but those in the broader society; or rather, normal Megans and Karens parroting their doctrines like common sense. She's tired of smart people, see. I bet she's also tired of «the myth of the lone genius» and thinks intellectuals are worth less than accomodating, nurturing teams. A somewhat common belief.
As long as these people are «community builders», EA will only be as good and efficient as the discoursemongers who pull Megan's strings allow it to be.
The troll on my left shoulder wants to remark that perhaps she'd feel less exhausted all the time if she reconsidered her veganism.
But substantively... what do you expect from EA? It is not a movement of technical achievement, even though its ranks are full of tech people, because EA isn't about building, it's about extracting others' wealth and spending it.
Scott Alexander's travails in persuading people that the media is generally dishonest without lying speaks to the interpersonal innocence of his tech-centric community. These are people who work in collaborative environments, whose defenses are weak to the finer modes of interpersonal manipulation because their passions and competencies lie elsewhere and they are unaccustomed to having resources that other people want to take from them. So a community that exists centrally to extract wealth from that community is going to feature activists who are best at manipulating that community. And one of the strategies suited to that project is performative female vulnerability. Megans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link