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 -
My man, I quite literally said, in the essay itself, that I used ChatGPT for help. That is not the same as using it to write an essay!
I am not an expert on geopolitics or economics. I asked ChatGPT for help with relevant theories (I do know about the Gravity model of trade and am tangentially familiar with Acemoglu). Why? Because nobody with more expertise brought this up first in a hot minute.
You do realize that's in the context of an essay with no AI involvement beyond feedback? I have few qualms about disclosing it when it's actually relevant, or denying my usage. You don't have to use GPT-Zero, which is an unreliable tool at the best of times. You can just ask. The honest answer here is I ran into a very interesting article, wrote a rough draft of an essay, asked multiple models for feedback and edit passes, then did the tedious work of checking for hallucinations. This was over multiple days, and several good points noted by the AI, such as the applicability of various economic models, was probably accepted by me into the final version. As far as I can tell, there are no hallucinations, beyond quotes from poorly sourced Chinese literature that I can't read (suitably signposted and kept as a joke).
The current moderation consensus is that the use of AI to generate all or even most of a post, particularly in an attempt to pad effort or mislead, is a clear violation of the rules. We have refrained from declaring what proportion of an essay or post must be AI written to be worthy of action. It is a ruling mainly made to dissuade spam or bad-faith actors, and using it for editing or proofreading is, as far as I'm aware, above board.
While it's very kind of you to say that you prefer 100% raw SMH, you haven't even seen the raw essay! How would you know if it's better? I don't, or I'd have posted it.
The previous essay on China was a throwaway written in the middle of the night, it lacks the spit and polish of an effortpost written over hours or days. You will see a lot of variance in my style based on how much effort I'm putting in.
Much like goods "manufactured" in Hainan, I believe I have added enough additional value to the base product to post without qualms. It is, after all, mostly mine. Or perhaps the AI added enough value to my base product. The day I throw raw ChatGPT output in here is the day I welcome public crucifixion.
I'll throw in my two cents and say that prompting things like "summarize the sequence of costs tariffs impose" is fine because it can probably provide a clearer summary, and in less time, than you. Your perspective + predictions are presumably your own and not just pasting LLM opinion on the state of things.
Ultimately I learned a lot from the post relative to the time reading it, that's what I care about most.
That they are, but I must admit that I feel a lot of Stonetoss_rope.jpg at you being the person backing me up here.
With that said, I'm the safest here from that accusation because no LLM would assist writing my posts or helping my arguments haha.
True, unless you go to the bother of finding a potent jailbreak or some OSS model tuned till the safety filters fall off. Unfortunately, I seem to recall @Amadan catching you using LLMs to generate "normal" posts and thus decrease the relative density of Joo-posting.
Sigh. With friends like these, who needs enemies? I feel like PETA would, if Hitler offered to do a public endorsement of vegetarianism. A very kind and humanitarian impulse, just... A lot of other things.
No, that was just one time I made an obviously generated comment reply (not a top-level post) to make a mockery of the dumb rule that was created to target me. It was an obvious protest and not something I have seriously done in any capacity.
You having to resort to prompt generation to not Jewpost is not the defense you imagine it is.
I did it once in a comment reply as an obvious protest, my defense is that it is not something have I done to generate "normal" posts at all even a single time. That is just not true.
Your protest rings hollow because you can seemingly not talk about any subject without bringing them up!
I challenge you to go a month - even a week! - without connecting the subject at hand to the perfidy and scheming of the Hebrew race. And this is a challenge that I believe you will fail because my Noticing powers didn't just stop at FBI statistics.
Give me some credit. Don't treat me like I'm stupid. I don't understand why you have to keep up a pretense when you obviously have an agenda. Heck, I even agree with you sometimes. But you're the Jew guy. You talk about Jews. That's what you're known for. You're the Semitic Outrage Poster. The Israel News Hour. The Rabbi Amber Alert. You have 1400 posts in your history that are strong evidence that this is the case.
If you're going to try and evade this, even after that, against repeated interaction and very public history of such behaviour, that is probably the most Jewish thing anyone has ever done on the Motte.
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