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 -
I don't mean to claim that you, me or everyone here is only here in an attempt to gain popularity. That's prima facie not true, though I could name names.
If I was optimizing for popularity over everything else, I wouldn't write nearly as much about AI. I'd stick to LessWrong instead. They're some of the posts I put the most effort into, for the least return in the form of upvotes. So be it, I talk about that because I care.
(Unlike you, I have strong opinions I never share. Not here, not elsewhere, not even anonymously, not even to people I know IRL. No point guessing what those are, but I don't come on here and say the opposite either, since that would just be lying.)
What I object to is the indiscriminate application of the word "propagandist" in a bid to apply the negative connotations while using an entirely unobjectionable definition and examples. Clear argument and rhetoric aren't Yudkowskian Dark Arts. Rhetoric can be part of the Dark Arts, but only when used to deceive or mislead.
Rhetoric is still Dark Arts even when you believe what you're saying. The problem is that you might believe it wrongly, and thus someone convinced by it might be convinced of a falsehood; it's a symmetric weapon. This also means it's not something the listener would necessarily, from an omniscient viewpoint, wish to be convinced by, and it's hence something the listener may wish to protect himself from; it's not necessarily co-operative. Hence, Dark.
You do realize that a listener refusing to listen to valid and true arguments (presuming they are) is the fault of the listener?
It is up to you, and anyone else calling him a propagandist to justify that:
a) His arguments are invalid, or logically valid but based on false premises.
b) That he has nefarious intent (above and beyond simply having politics you dislike)
Attempts have been made for A. I do not find them convincing. Fuck all has been shown for B.
Without that, you're just smearing by association, using an adjective so broadly defined that it covers anyone who tries to write online, let alone those who do so successful. Including people you like.
Further, it is trivial that convincing writing and good rhetorical technique is a symmetric tool. You need to demonstrate that is actually being used for ill in this specific scenario.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link