site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34608 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

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.

13
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

it's a victimless crime

I think that it's not so much a victimless crime as a non-coercive one. Suppose that a comedian is very good at doing impressions of Joe Biden. Imagine that the comedian's impressions are so good that Biden's public image suffers enough to flip a few states and enable Trump to win the 2020 election. Was Biden a victim, in a non-trivial sense? It seems natural to say yes, but even Biden wouldn't want the comedian banned on that basis. People do not have a right to a good public image.

Alternatively, suppose that a journalist sneaks into Biden's private residence, takes a picture of him on the toilet, and then puts that picture online. The journalist has violated Biden's privacy and should be punished. There's a crime, but not just because there was a victim of the journalist's actions.

Is AI nudes generation more like the first example or the second example? I think it's like the first example. There doesn't seem to be a principled distinction between good impressions/drawings/etc. and deepfakes.

However, if a deepfake is being presented as someone, then I suppose that could be a good target for the law. Similarly, if somebody who looks a lot like Biden does an impression of him going into somewhere that his voters would regard as sordid - like a conference for conversion therapy techniques - and presents a video of this act as the real thing, I can see grounds for punishment.

So is imagining what someone looks like naked/fantasizing about having sex with them a similarly non-coercive crime, then? Either way probably 'victimless' is the wrong word to use, but I'm not sure how much effect that has on my problem.

here doesn't seem to be a principled distinction between good impressions/drawings/etc. and deepfakes.

Maybe really good drawings of a non-consenting person's likeness having sex/naked are wrong to make as well, and should be illegal.

So is imagining what someone looks like naked/fantasizing about having sex with them a similarly non-coercive crime, then?

Sorry, I should have clarified my position: it is non-coercive and should not be a crime. If it were a crime, there would be a "victim" in the sense of someone harmed, but the Biden impression example illustrates how harm is insufficient grounds for criminalising an action.

A really good drawing of someone could make them a "victim" in some sense and some circumstances, but it should not be a crime. Deviantartists can rest in peace.

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