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 -
Disingenuous, unless you think the concept of, say, drawing a picture of Taylor Swift is incoherent. You can generally tell whether a picture is of Taylor Swift, and among people who know her the same is presumably true of this girl.
I don't see how having an AI do it instead of a human changes anything morally relevant; at the very least you need to make the case that it does. You seem to just assume it as a default, but I see no reason for doing this.
Sure. Just like Devil Wears Prada is a fictional work that is nevertheless unmistakably about Anna Wintour.
Drawing a picture of Taylor Swift isn't a photograph. It's is not a depiction of something that really happened. You can draw a picture of Taylor Swift wearing a swastika-emblazoned sombrero while she drowns a puppy. Also fictional.
This seems totally different because no one could mistake it for real footage of Anna Wintour, whereas the whole reason the AI-generated image controversy is a thing now is that there is no longer any (easy) way to tell if an image is fake or not.
So on this theory if these images had a visible watermark (or other signifier) saying “AI GENERATED” then all the controversy would be extinguished?
Not really, as watermarks don't mean all that much, and don't prevent a realistic-seeming image of a real person from being lodged in viewers' minds.
If it was a cartoon version of a nude and therefore manifestly not real, there would be reduced controversy (though there'd still be some, especially if a large corporation assisted in helping a boy create it).
I'm having a real time figuring out what your mental model is here.
Wouldn't TDWP also cause a realistic-seeming image of a real person in the viewers' mind that is nevertheless fictional?
Putting images in people's heads is one aspect of the injury done. In the case of particularly life-like sexual images, it may make people look at someone differently, even if they don't want to. Deceiving people about whether someone actually posed for the pics is another aspect. Injuries compound.
I don't see the need to have a quickly describable mental model here, as there are overlapping questions of harm, consent, reputation and victimisation at play in this story and making all the relevant distinctions would require an essay.
To your question though, I do indeed think that "putting unfavorable images in people's heads" in fiction such as in The Devil Wears Prada (I haven't seen it) may be injurious. It may also be satire, or a truthful depiction (and these categories aren't mutually exclusive).
Whether that's bad luck for the target or deserving of punishment/damages depends on a host of details.
The problem with this kind of "overlapping questions" claim is that it resists actually being pinned down.
Moreover, I think most of it fails the TDWP test. Certainly Anna Wintour didn't consent to having a fictional depiction of her in a book/movie. It probably contributed a lot to her reputation, possibly rising to the level of harm.
Anna Wintour could perhaps find a legal case (again, I haven't seen it). She's an adult. But imagine a film that character-assassinates a real, non-famous 13 year old. There's no reason anyone would make such a film, but if they did it would be outrageous bullying to the point where I'd think there should indeed be legal consequences.
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
Yeah, perhaps our culture will get to a point where a nude image of someone will be assumed to be fake. In which case creating a fake nude image of someone won't particularly harm them and therefore won't be treated as a serious wrong.
At a minimum, cultural (and legal) norms are going to have to catch up with these technological advances.
Rape was "worse than murder" crime because genetic testing, pregnancy testing and contraception did not exist. It still is, because of norms did not update.
I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. Arguably the potential sentences for murder are, generally speaking, more severe. I agree that people often get more upset about rape, but part of this is because rape is perceived as a crime that men commit on women.
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose a man tortures and kills a random woman without raping her in any way. Would it have been perceived as worse if he had only raped her?
Last time I read about case of real rape when a soldier raped a woman killing her husband's first. Femininsts were be like how it again tells how mysogynistic our society is. To my knowledge, when "socioeconomic factors" lead to woman being murdered, few people are worried.
The very case that original post is about fake images of nudity and not about fake images of murders, is telling.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Can you give me an example of a "socioeconomic factor" murder you are referring to?
Also, what's your take on my thought experiment:
Suppose a man tortures and kills a random woman without raping her in any way. Would it have been perceived as worse if he had only raped her?
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