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 -
Scott has a new post on AI and money in politics. I'd like to take a step back and talk about how we got here.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that there are essentially no constitutional limits on political spending and advertising. At the time, it was widely anticipated that this would turn American politics into the wild west of corruption, crony capitalism, and corporate propaganda. But in the years after the decision, the feared corporate catastrophe failed to materialize. Trump didn't win in 2016 because of corporate support. In the primary, he bragged that he was self-funding his campaign and so wasn't beholden to special interests. On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders got a lot of milage out of constantly reminding people that he didn't have a SuperPac.
In 2019, Scott wrote the prophetic Too Much Dark Money in Almonds, in which he pointed out that wealthy actors are probably underspending on politics and then brainstormed ways to turn money into political influence. By 2022, we started to see serious attempts at using previously-unheard-of amounts of money to systematically affect the political process. Sam Bankman-Fried was too-clever-by-half donating money he didn't technically own, but Elon Musk's aquisition of Twitter ended wokeness overnight and likely won Trump the 2024 election. If Scott is to be believed, the cryptocurrency and AI industries are well on their way to fulfilling SBF's dream of rooting the state.
Why did it take 10+ years for this to happen? My hypothesis: cultural inertia (and shame).
Despite being purported as the main beneficiaries of Citizens United, big corporations weren't really trying to spend large sums of money on politics. Exxon Mobil didn't park an oil tanker full of cash in the Chesapeake waiting for the signal to shower Washington in oil money as part of their dastardly plan. That just wasn't how buisinesses operated. It took time to develop both a theoretical framework for how to turn an abritrarily large amount of money into political power (it's a lot more complicated than simply buying ads), and to develop a philosophical framework for why this isn't cartoonishly evil.
I think a big reason money in politics didn't manifest the way the doomers predicted is because money in politics just isn't that effective when employed the way envisioned by the doomers. Taking out hundreds of hours of ads just doesn't move the needle all that much. Instead, as Elon showed, what actually matters is institutions. Buying twitter isn't really something exxon or disney is realistically going to do.
The question is, for political purposes, is any of this affordable? Can you buy Harvard and the rest of the Ivy league? Probably not. Can you buy disney, youtube, etc? For most people, the answer is going to be no. And even if you can, like Bezos did with the Washington Times*, you'll discover your ability to influence the influence your institution wields is still limited by staff.
Edit: Meant the Post.
You could buy an astroturfing campaign.
I sometimes wonder why this isn't more common. It should be very cost-effective, given how few people participate in online discourse, social-desirability bias, and crowd behavior dynamics mean you only need ~5% of that small minority to start forming consensus around something.
You could, with a small team and a stock of authentic-looking sockpuppet accounts, own the reaction comments around some political podcast, the chat for popular streamers, the topics in political subreddits, etc. For a pittance in paid subscriptions to influential writers, you could maybe even turn the direction of their output - audience capture is a thing.
Astroturfing doesn't work, the ground withers if theres no traction. No amount of leftist 'trans women are women' in vidya or policy or media made trannies more popular, the only thing that made trannies popular was bailey jay for a brief while in the mid 2010s.
Influential writers lose influence when they start pushing stupid points, Jordan Peterson went downhill when he became weird lobster medicine man, Ibram X Kendi and all the antiracism shills died when the thermostatic moment passed and you didn't get cancelled for not doing the public prayers.
Creators botting up their numbers lose real humans because real humans aren't sheep just following a flock, we don't even care about comments unless we're validating our own biases. Left wing news media are the ones that curtailed all their comment sections, right wing media all let their comment sections run free. Astroturfing comments to talk about how Mirpuris aren't actually grooming kids and its actually white pedos largely responsible for CSE doesn't make people go 'oh wow thats true I was just being racist' it makes people go 'fuck these gaslighters'.
Astroturfing is easy to blame for outcomes because it externalizes blame - we don't need to change we just need to stop the evil baddies from doing their bad thing and our Good Easy Moral Message will come forth! Staying the path is easy if you don't actually care about how destroyed your entire reputation is on the path.
Now that's a name I haven't heard for a LOOONG time, a more recent example would be Sarina Valentina (pre-bogging) and Natalie Mars. Funny enough, all three were active posters on 4chan.
Anything that makes my dick hard is a woman. The failure of the modern trans movement is to have ugly failed men be the face of the movement instead of fuckable femboys. Get the trans movement to be astolfo crossplayers, and schedule an anime cosplay competition at the same time as the NRC. Republicans will be singing the tune of femboy superiority in no time.
Can't tell if you're joking or serious, but hard disagree. It's just homosexuality with better costumes. I think the particular modus you are describing is the method of grabbing 'feminine' status/power to avoid a low status position. I honestly read it the same way as those fitness videos where the now muscular bro lambasts their previous scrawny self.
To take a different approach if you're really into dudes, find them totally interesting, fascinating, say you have a non-trivial oriented preference. Finding out a person you thought was a dude, actually isn't, means you lose interest regardless of their appearance.
Yeah, about that. Also, tomboys in general.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link