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 -
The object-level issue for me is uncontroversial: there is zero damage from deep fakes, bans on technology to produce arbitrary content (without intent to do direct harm) constitute an unconscionable intrusion and the beginning of a civilization-ending slippery slope, people who support this censorious approach (or even have moral intuitions in favor of it) are barbarians, and I can only wish they be politically disenfranchised somehow.
Naturally, they think the same, or less, of me.
Maybe that's too harsh of me. I've skimmed replies to this tweet today and they left me a bit shell-shocked. Ion had the misfortune of his tweet showing up outside his bubble, somewhere in Normie Twitter. So... Well. Most of the time there is no argument being made, they just gloat about him being «ratioed», or ask sarcastically «would it be okay with you if someone made gay porn with your likeness» or say «imagine this was done to your mother/daughter/sister», assuming the shared intuition of obvious harm – and, by implication, hypocrisy and sociopathy in Ion's support for AI fakes of other people but not of himself. (There's also the rhetoric of consent/boundaries/violation, peddled by women and feminists, which IMO speaks to profound egocentric entitlement and belief that women are owed desirable perceptions, and this deserves more scrutiny, but I won't go into it).
Some responses provide a semi-rational steelman, though:
And here:
And my response is, that would be totally okay, I do not need low-value people in my life. If someone (not dearly beloved but clinically demented) cannot/isn't willing to distinguish real and fake images based on context, or just has strong emotional reactions to highly-likely-fake images and can change attitude towards me on their basis, that person is a long-term liability and should be discarded. This, of course, is the generic principle behind provocative behavior and – in the extreme case – the saying «if you can't take me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best», popular with crazy bitches. It's strategically sensible for them, because their life strategies are incompatible with being sanctioned for their worst. And disengaging with people who can't take the fake of me at my worst makes perfect strategic sense for me.
And then I realized how deep into a high-IQ, high-decoupler, high-trust bubble I am. For these normal (if very online) people, relations with others are quantitative in nature. They do not filter aggressively. Even if they themselves are more or less undamaged by fake stimuli, they can be materially harmed by losing «followers». They love their friends and family, among whom many are unable to mentally separate contexts. So these people's violent emotional reactions are attuned to their social reality, to the semi-magical realm of voodooist village or bullying in public school, where a literal straw man can go a long way in burying your reputation and, in the limit, you physically.
This just speaks to the need to separate society into more impregnable bubbles, I guess.
P.S. There's an additional, somewhat orthogonal aspect to this, explored e.g. by @SubstantialFrivolity downthread:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hajnal-type people, guilt-culture people, are fucking weird and freaky, and The Motte would do well to extend some charity to non-First Worlders who show little sympathy to them and readily join the anti-white brigade. They boast of individualism and freedom, but are chained at the very roots of their souls, and proud of those chains. They exoticize and mock Asian cultures for putting «face» and «shame» first, but it's much more healthy and, indeed, liberal and respectful to maturity of others (considering the inevitable consequence of moral blackmail) to care about your public reputation, than to agonize over concealed inner judgements – particularly by people who are not invested in being judicious, as is inevitable in modern societies that are just so much bigger than your dumb medieval Anglo village with a single parish. Their «Christian» morality is Harm OCD reified into a religion, a permanent backdoor inviting any psychopath to tinker and steer them (which inevitably happens in their collectives of substantial scale). Far from surpassing childish innocence, their moral code is more appropriate for ants than for adult humans.
But then again, they are the perfect substrate for building comfortable societies others will enjoy.
I admit that getting the population into the Goldilocks zone that combines dignity culture (which would allow people to fantasize, make and publish images without absurd social opprobrium), reasonable face culture (which would allow them to do so without OCD-like pangs of ridiculous inner guilt, so long as they don't intentionally harm anyone) and avoids utter atomization, degeneration and extinction, is probably a task for 200 IQ social engineers. Ones we (I hypothesize) have got pursue other projects. If it were achieved, it'd probably look something like Eastern Europe, only more functional.
P.P.S. One consideration those outraged people are missing, or perhaps deliberately staying mum on, is that more deepfakes = less deception. With the proliferation of highly realistic fake porn, the prior for a given image being real decreases. Right now a microceleb e-girl's never-before-seen nudes may as well be authentic leaks, and in fact most of the time they are (or self-promotional «leaks», as it happens). When manufacturing their near-equivalent is a matter of two clicks, the prior is «duh, nice GPU bro» and the reputational and emotional damage, even in their ostensible paradigm, trends toward zero. But for those who profit off exclusivity of their images of indecent nature... well, their woe is a separate matter, and undeserving of being laundered through this moral rhetoric.
I don't think the distinction here is 'hajnal-type people'. There are a lot of normal british white women saying the same stuff as indian women in the comments. If the distinction has cultural roots, it can spread rapidly, and it doesn't seem to have race-related genetic roots considering there was a lot more 'honor culture' in britain or germany a few hundred years ago.
They may be saying the same things, but this is an example of convergent evolution in actions rather than the two groups having the same beliefs. No different to how I don't kick random people in the street just like how Westerners don't kick people in the street. But in my case it isn't because of some misguided notion of "equality" as Westerners like to believe, but simply for the same reason that I don't kick a cat I see on the street: namely because it is animal abuse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the matter is more subtle than this.
I obviously think most people can, on the abstract level, distinguish between real and fake images. However I'm not willing to use this fact to jump to the conclusion that most people, including many people valuable enough to keep in one's life, wouldn't have strong emotional reactions to some types of even fake images depicting a person, especially images of a sexual nature. And again however much on conscious level they know the images are fake, I feel like the reactions many people have to these images could at least somewhat change their attitude towards the person ostensibly depicted in a real and meaningful way.
I think most people think differently about a person after fantasizing about having sex with them, than they did before such a fantasy crossed their minds. I certainly think that most people would think differently about them, and would almost certainly in some unconscious way treat them differently, after fantasizing about such a thing 100 times. And I think as much is even more true if they've had access to photorealistic depictions of this fantasy that are fake but produced by something other than their imagination, in other words, images that are much easier for their sexual-lizard-brain to believe are real even if they on a higher more abstract level know that the images are fake.
Other than that, you're right that legally these things shouldn't literally be banned. It was a mistake to include that set of questions in the body of my post. And you're right that I think most of the online discourse surrounding the subject misses the mark one way or another, which is nothing new when it comes to subtle moral/ethical issues.
Aside from all this, though, the disconnect I felt existed in my intuition was resolved by another commenter, who described the delineation as such: anything in my head or on my hard-drive, and exclusively in my head or on my hard-drive, is entirely my business. But as soon as I i.e. start to publish online what is on my hard drive, the probability that persons depicted in even fake pornography will find out that someone has done as much starts to approach 1. And, that's where I've started to cross a line. This is more or less what the quoted 'steelman' arguments you found on twitter are getting at, even if still for somewhat wrong reasons: publishing that material, making it highly likely if not certain that the depicted persons will be made to know of it, is what is wrong, at least morally/ethically. By doing so I've made it their business, where previously it was only my own. Regardless of the particular way in which they're affected, that you might personally think shouldn't matter to them, i.e. loss of followers, family/friends potentially seeing it and not knowing its fake, or at minimum, that they just don't like having to know about it -- ultimately it wasn't necessarily my right to make them deal with any of these things, even if I think they shouldn't care about them. The commenter who described the analogy I found so apt likened it to fantasizing about a person sexually, and then directly telling them that you have, in fact, have fantasized about them sexually. Maybe you think they still shouldn't care. But as far as I'm concerned, by doing this you've made something that was formerly solely your business, into their business, in a way I don't think you should.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link