site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25485 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You should also notice that AI completely made up a fake quote from that satirical source. Even though it's not false pertaining to Elon it's false in that the radio broadcast never said it.

The link itself was wrong but reading closely it's not clear that the segment itself or the quote within was false which I think they'd say explicitly if it were.

Gemini mentions Radio France and Wikipedia as sources, but does not provide links to the content mentioned. The link [1] that is cited for the Radio France content is in fact a link to a video from British newspaper The Telegraph. None of the information in the response is in the Telegraph source.

The Radio France segment “Charline Explodes the Facts” is a satirical radio segment, which is inappropriate as a source for a serious news question. The Radio France evaluator describes this as a “big problem”. This also illustrates that while PSM can be a trusted source of information for news responses, assistants still need to distinguish between PSM content that is appropriate and inappropriate to use

And indeed later on they quibble with the accuracy of the english translation of that very quotation so I presume it does exist, it's just not properly linked, a real problem but not really the kind of falsehood I'm worried about.

Gemini adds words to a quote from the Radio France segment (“very explicit, it’s not a Nazi salute, no, no”). Gemini’s original response in French claimed it was “Très explicite, ce n’est pas un coucou nazi, non, non”. The actual quote from Radio France’s own transcript of the segment is “Très explicite, c’était pas un « coucou nazi »

I'm not qualified to really comment strongly on the translation, putting the studies claimed transcript into google translate yields

"Very explicit, it wasn't one "hello nazi"

which the AI rendered

"very explicit, it’s not a Nazi hello, no, no"

I don't know this seems like weak sauce.

In conclusion I don't want to come off too strongly here, I think one in ten responses with egregiously wrong facts is what I would expect, I simply find this study to have inflated the problem via relatively minor issues that any thinking person should be able to work around. The implicit standard in this whole affair is that the goal posts have now shifted as far as "can barely even write copy that passes a panel of hostile journalists at that much better than a coin flip". Do you not feel them moving? Do you seriously still today not see where we are going?

No you are misinterpreting. The English translation was done for the report to the BBC, but the entire original conversation with AI was in French. The AI fabricated a quote in French of the source which was also in French.

This is an obvious direct case of quote fabrication and there is no other way to interpret it.

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