site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18883 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Another social experiment regarding AI art: A Twitter user posts a real Monet painting and says it's AI. The results are about what you'd expect. A few people say they can't tell the difference, but a lot of people arrogantly claim the "AI-generated" image is complete trash. Lots of very confident-sounding nonsense about "composition", color theory, brushstrokes, random little details about the plants, etc. Reddit discussions are here and here. The response afterwards seems to mostly center around a motte-and-bailey that pretends nobody made any claims about how AI does on the formal qualities of artwork, but that human art is still vastly better due to vague notions of "artistic intent".

The Left's antipathy towards AI art is well-known by this point. I did a small experiment to see if the Right was as susceptible and can report that at least some users are. It seems like the Right is split with some users being open to AI art on pragmatic grounds, some liking it simply due to the Left hating it, and some are just as opposed as the Left and let it cloud their judgement. I posted some modded AI artwork for Slay the Spire 2 on /v/ and had a decent chunk of users saying the usual "ugh this looks terrible". Then I started including official card art from the game for comparison while still implying it was all AI-generated, and the response got even worse. The card art for Abrasive, Squash, and Secret Technique attracted particular scorn. Again, this is human-made art that revealed preferences show nobody really has a problem with, yet the responses they got when people thought they were AI included the following:

You're posting stuff your average pixiv prompt jockey would consider low quality.

That genuinely looks like MSPaint quality.

This looks like shit doe. But I guess AIjeets don't have taste.

By "this good" do you mean like cheap clip-art? Or do you think that's actually good art?

It's funny to watch people squirm, yes, but plebes making a bad argument for their position doesn't mean there aren't good arguments for it. The bottom line is "Well, you can't tell the difference" is not actually an acceptable criterion for an ersatz, and AI is not even related to this principle.

If you walk into an artisan coffee shop and the baristas correctly sniff you out as an unwashed peasant, that in no way justifies them replacing your high-altitude Kenyan light roast with Folgers ash and sniggering at you as you blissfully drink up. If a nearby patron looks over to see who's smoking and gracefully informs you that you may have been bamboozled, you'd be rightly upset. If the baristas respond with "Look, we assumed you couldn't tell the difference and decided to save money. But if you insist, we'll do a proper double-blind test, and if we can reject the unwashed peasant hypothesis at p=.05, you get your money back, but if not, sorry," you'd be justified in being incensed at them at never returning to that establishment again, despite the fact that they're correct. This is basically the AI scenario above, just without any AI, which shows that the argument has nothing to do with AI (you just gotta add AI to everything nowadays and pretend it was relevant). The same principle applies everywhere: a jeweler selling quartz instead of diamond, a luthier giving you a street cat instead of a Strad, etc.

Now, as this is a rationalist forum, I have to assume at least half of people are going to be like "um, but I personally am totally fine with drinking ash, decorating my home with pyrite, and listening to my daughter summon the street cats, so what's the big deal?" Well, I'm glad you asked:

First, just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference, and being consistently exposed to correct labeling is how you learn to tell the difference! You can, in fact, with relatively little effort, learn to tell the difference between a good Kenyan coffee and Folgers ash, but you can only do this if these are honestly labeled in the first place. Having a malicious barista exploiting your lack of culture inhibits you from learning the difference and becoming cultured.

Second, quality is usually grounded in general principals that actually make a lot of sense. For example, good coffee beans are largely a matter of exploiting stress responses in bean development, and bad coffee beans are basically fat beans (much like the People of Walmart buying them, incidentally), which is why high-quality beans often come from high-altitude plantations -- it's difficult for the coffee to grow there! -- and why they tend to be expensive. The fact that there is a pretty real correspondence between "good/poor quality human" and "good/poor quality coffee bean" and that this is basically consistent with other interesting trends in agriculture is the kind of thing you never notice if your worldview just stops at "Well I couldn't tell the difference."

Third, provenance is an essential form of discrimination for learning about the world. I can fabricate a bunch of Egyptian artifacts and sell them to you under the logic "well, you clearly can't tell the difference, so what's the big deal?" The big deal is by studying my fraudulent artifacts, you will likely come to false conclusions about what was actually going on in ancient Egypt. And yes, this is a constant source of trouble in fields like anthropology and paleontology, which often gives these fields a bad name, but the problem isn't the fields themselves: it's that polite society prevents dealing with fraudsters at the level of violence required to actually prevent fraud. Fraud of this sort is destruction of knowledge about the past, in the sense that information can be destroyed by burying it in enough noise (aka, "Is the Library of Babel full or empty?" Well, it contains zero information entropy!)

Anyway, part of the reason progressives have such difficulty articulating their case is that being concerned with authenticity and provenance is not at all compatible with the rest of what they do. Concern with authenticity and provenance lands one squarely at "Ok, then transwomen aren't women, Africans with German passports aren't German, and fresh agitprop from Disney released under the Star Wars brand they bought isn't Star Wars." You can't whine about the value of artists and faithfully representing their intent, then march off and re-release Classic WoW with the male and female genders removed.

This is mixing two different issues. You're arguing against fraud, as in the buyer was promised one thing and was given another (e.g. quartz vs diamond). Provenance matters in that case because the transaction is explicitly about provenance.

That's not what happened here. Nobody was sold a counterfeit Monet. The problem was that people claimed they could identify AI art by looking at the image, then confidently condemned a real Monet as obvious AI slop. The lesson is that many people are laundering provenance anxiety as aesthetic expertise. When they think something is AI they suddenly "see" flaws that don't exist.

"Ok, then transwomen aren't women, Africans with German passports aren't German, and fresh agitprop from Disney released under the Star Wars brand they bought isn't Star Wars."

I was with you until then. Rogue One, the first two seasons of the Mandalorian and Andor were some of the best Star Wars stuff since the 80s. And as much as the sequels were soulless derivative nonsense, you can’t say “only the good shows/films are Star Wars” otherwise you’d have to discard 90% of the franchise including the prequels too.

otherwise you’d have to discard 90% of the franchise including the prequels too.

I rather liked the first season of Mandalorian (never got around to watching the second) but discarding the prequels would be a complete no-brainer. Jar Jar Binks, anyone?

otherwise you’d have to discard 90% of the franchise including the prequels too.

Your terms are acceptable.

Rogue One bored me shitless. I don't even remember anyone's name. The kind of thing that would have been a comic book or something back in the day.

Rogue One, the first two seasons of the Mandalorian and Andor were some of the best Star Wars stuff since the 80s.

Well, yes, relatively speaking, they were best among the class of "Star Wars stuff", but they were ultimately just ... okay, not particularly amazing. And make no mistake, creators of Andor were intentionally packing it with liberal-leftist agit-prop. People just have forgot propaganda can be done well.

Sure but how is that not in line with what Star Wars is all about? George Lucas wasn’t exactly shy about the leftist political messaging, he admitted being influenced by the Vietnam war with the rebellion being the Viet Cong and the Galactic Empire the US, he compared the Emperor to Nixon. Imagine if he’d made the films while Trump was president.

Like c’mon, the main arc of the prequels is about democracy being willingly handed to an evil strongman dictator over a manufactured threat!

George Lucas wasn’t exactly shy about the leftist political messaging,

I think it is more "Democracy, Fuck Yeah" than left-wing - the aesthetics of the OG Empire are generically evil rather than distinctively Nazi* and the reading of the original trilogy where the Empire is the USSR works just as well (hence Reagan using it in his famous speech), and Lucas moved between endorsing and not endorsing it depending on the political winds. The Empire of the prequels is a consolidating dictatorship following an autogolpe, again with generically evil aesthetics - Lucas cited Napoleon and Caesar (who are not obviously left or right-coded in 2026) as inspiration as well as Hitler. The First Order is obviously fascist, but that is just lazy filmmaking. Lucas gets the thing Orwell gets in a way the makers of the sequels don't - that it is the nature of tyranny and not the political rhetoric used to justify it that matters.

If "Democracy, Fuck Yeah" comes across as a left-wing political message to you, that says more about the right-wing in your country than it does about George Lucas.

* The only scene in the original trilogy directly ripped off from Triumph of the Will is the finale of ANH where the Rebels put on an awards ceremony with aesthetics that Hitler would have approved of.

The aesthetics of the Empire in SW:ANH were definitely Nazi; of course, that was (and remains) an American's conception of "generic evil". What they didn't have is the Nazi's signature Jew thing; the Empire was human-supremacist but they didn't really play that up.

Democracy isn't really a big thing in ANH either. We hear the Empire dissolved the Senate, but the Senate contains aristocrats and royalty (like Princess Leia). The whole elective royalty thing in the prequels is a total retcon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the human supremacist thing is mostly an EU thing, it wasn't really part of the movies?

Agree that the original trilogy at least was basically apolitical and the empire is portrayed as 'generic ruthless tyranny' with Nazi aesthetics being there mostly because they look cool.

It wasn't an explicit part of the scripts, but they did pointedly only have humans as Imperial officers, never any aliens. I don't know if that was a worldbuilding decision, so much as wanting the dour totalitarians to all look alike while the plucky ragtag goodies come in all shapes and sizes because it's useful visual shorthand; but it was by no means a retcon.

More comments

If you walk into an artisan coffee shop and the baristas correctly sniff you out as an unwashed peasant, that in no way justifies them replacing your high-altitude Kenyan light roast with Folgers ash and sniggering at you as you blissfully drink up.

That's because paying money imposes an obligation to not cheat you regardless of how good your reasons are. Reading reddit is free.

First, just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference

It isn't absolute proof, but that's a general problem with proving anything that's hard to measure. Widespread enough inability to tell the difference is certainly evidence that there's no difference.

And yes, provenance matters, but where do you draw the line between "they can't articulate their reasons but they are good" and "their reasons are bad"? (Ignoring for the moment the issue of Monet losing his eyesight.) You can't just indefinitely steelman bad reasons. At some point you have to be able to say that someone's reasons are bad and not make up better ones.

(I also think your examples aren't provenance. Even for transwomen, if we had Culture-level technology or magic that could completely change someone's sex so that the only difference was that transwomen had different provenance, the trans issue would be very different.)

(I also think your examples aren't provenance. Even for transwomen, if we had Culture-level technology or magic that could completely change someone's sex so that the only difference was that transwomen had different provenance, the trans issue would be very different.)

What about psychology? The male brain is very different from the female brain, in multiple ways. At the level of transhumanism we are talking about, you could give transwomen a female brain as well, I guess, but could they still be meaningfully said to be the same person after that?

From "Changing Emotions" by Eliezer Yudkowsky:

What about sex? (Somehow it’s always about sex, at least when it’s men asking the question.) Remapping the connections from the remapped somatic areas to the pleasure center will… give you a vagina-shaped penis, more or less. That doesn’t make you a woman. You’d still be attracted to girls, and no, that would not make you a lesbian; it would make you a normal, masculine man wearing a female body like a suit of clothing.

What would it take for a man to actually become the female version of themselves?

Well… what does that sentence even mean? I am reminded of someone who replied to the statement “Obama would not have become President if he hadn’t been black” by saying “If Obama hadn’t been black, he wouldn’t have been Obama” i.e. “There is no non-black Obama who could fail to become President”. (You know you’re in trouble when non-actual possible worlds start having political implications.)

The person you would have been if you’d been born with an X chromosome in place of your Y chromosome (or vice versa) isn’t you. If you had a twin female sister, the two of you would not be the same person. There are genes on your Y chromosome that tweaked your brain to some extent, helping to construct your personal identity—alleles with no analogue on the X chromosome. There is no version of you, even genetically, who is the opposite sex.

And if we halt your body, swap out your Y chromosome for your father’s X chromosome, and restart your body… well. That doesn’t sound too safe, does it? Your neurons are already wired in a male pattern, just as your body already developed in a male pattern. I don’t know what happens to your testicles, and I don’t know what happens to your brain, either. Maybe your circuits would slowly start to rewire themselves under the influence of the new genetic instructions. At best you’d end up as a half-baked cross between male brain and female brain. At worst you’d go into a permanent epileptic fit and die—we’re dealing with circumstances way outside the evolutionary context under which the brain was optimized for robustness. Either way, your brain would not look like your twin sister’s brain that had developed as female from the beginning.

So to actually become female...

We’re talking about a massive transformation here, billions of neurons and trillions of synapses rearranged. Not just form, but content—just like a male judo expert would need skills repatterned to become a female judo expert, so too, you know how to operate a male brain but not a female brain. You are the equivalent of a judo expert at one, but not the other. You have cognitive reflexes, and consciously learned cognitive skills as well.

If I fell asleep and woke up as a true woman—not in body, but in brain—I don’t think I’d call her “me”. The change is too sharp, if it happens all at once.

Transform the brain gradually? Hm… now we have to design the intermediate stages, and make sure the intermediate stages make self-consistent sense. Evolution built and optimized a self-consistent male brain and a self-consistent female brain; it didn’t design the parts to be stable during an intermediate transition between the two. Maybe you’ve got to redesign other parts of the brain just to keep working through the transition.

What happens when, as a woman, you think back to your memory of looking at Angelina Jolie photos as a man? How do you empathize with your past self of the opposite sex? Do you flee in horror from the person you were? Are all your life’s memories distant and alien things? How can you remember, when your memory is a recorded activation pattern for neural circuits that no longer exist in their old forms? Do we rewrite all your memories, too?

Well… maybe we could retain your old male brainware through the transformation, and set up a dual system of male and female circuits… such that you are currently female, but retain the ability to recall and empathize with your past memories as if they were running on the same male brainware that originally laid them down...

Sounds complicated, doesn’t it? It seems that to transform a male brain into someone who can be a real female, we can’t just rewrite you as a female brain. That just kills you and replaces you with someone re-imagined as a different person. Instead we have to rewrite you as a more complex brain with a novel, non-ancestral architecture that can cross-operate in realtime between male and female modes, so that a female can process male memories with a remembered context that includes the male brainware that laid them down.

To make you female, and yet still you, we have to step outside the human design space in order to preserve continuity with your male self.

And when your little adventure is over and you go back to being a man—if you still want to, because even if your past self wanted to go back afterward, why should that desire be binding on your present self?—then we’ve got to keep the dual architecture so you don’t throw up every time you remember what you did on your vacation.

Assuming you did have sex as a woman, rather than fending off all comers because because they didn’t look like they were interested in a long-term relationship.

But then, you probably would experiment. You’ll never have been a little girl, and you won’t remember going through high school where any girl who slept with a boy was called a slut by the other girls. You’ll remember a very atypical past for a woman—but there’s no way to fix that while keeping you the same person.

And all that was just what it takes to ranma around within human-space, from the male pole to the female pole and back again.

What if you wanted to move outside the human space entirely?

In one sense, a sex change is admittedly close to a worst-case scenario: a fixed target not optimized for an easy transition from your present location; involving, not just new brain areas, but massive coordinated changes to brain areas already in place.

It might be a lot easier to just add one more emotion to those already there. Maybe.

In another sense, though, a sex change is close to a best-case scenario: the prototype of your destination is already extensively tested as a coherent mind, and known to function well within a human society that already has a place for it (including companions to talk to).

It might be a lot harder to enter uncharted territory. Maybe.

I’m not saying—of course—that it could never, ever be done. But it’s another instance of the great chicken-and-egg dilemma that is the whole story of present-day humanity, the great challenge that intelligent life faces in its flowering: growing up is a grownup-level problem. You could try to build a cleanly-designed artificial grownup (self-improving Friendly AI) to foresee the pathway ahead and chart out a nonfatal course. Or you could plunge ahead yourself, and hope that you grew faster than your problems did.

That post is a bit funny when you remember that HRT is a thing that already exists, and although it’s not anywhere close to a fantasy trans humanist gender swap, it really does push you a decent % of the way towards the opposite sex in terms of physiology and psychology.

There’s a few studies out there studying the changes in brain structure pre and post-HRT, and there’s also measurable personality differences and differences in traits like verbal and spatial fluency.

I can easily imagine a sophisticated futuristic treatment that drastically increases neuroplasticity in the brain and fully rewires it over a few months. No weird mind uploading necessary.

You’d still be attracted to girls, and no, that would not make you a lesbian; it would make you a normal, masculine man wearing a female body like a suit of clothing.

At first yes, but you’ll quickly notice a massive drop in libido from the lack of testosterone. Then over the course of many months, maybe years, your sexual desires will likely start changing, you won’t be attracted to women the same way, you might even start to find men attractive. Going from 100% straight man to 100% straight woman is pretty rare but at least a point or two on the Kinsey scale is expected. And of course you’ll find the way you experience emotions is going to be quite different.

What happens when, as a woman, you think back to your memory of looking at Angelina Jolie photos as a man? How do you empathize with your past self of the opposite sex? Do you flee in horror from the person you were? Are all your life’s memories distant and alien things?

I think I can answer that one. No, you will most likely not empathise with your past self. Maybe the closest thing would be remembering things you did while drunk that you’d never do sober?

then we’ve got to keep the dual architecture so you don’t throw up every time you remember what you did on your vacation.

Is it really that disgusting for a straight man to think about having sex with a man?

Is it really that disgusting for a straight man to think about having sex with a man?

I think that's generally a comorbidity with being straight, yeah (complaints about miscegenation have a similar root back when race was a purity thing). I get that the enterprise world has tried to tamp down expressions of 'yeah that's disgusting', and it's not, uh, PC to say it- but(t) in places that don't care about that you'll still hear expressions of it.

It's definitely a queer thing to even consider much less actively pursue; hell, if most women take it as an active cost to have sex with men [and I'm pretty sure most men understand this to some degree], why would a man want to do it if he's not getting the other stuff women are, traditionally, supposed to get out of sex? At least with women you usually get wine'd and dine'd, men just hear the Grindr ping and proceed straight to the bath house (or whatever- I get that's a simplification but, like, is the stereotype that inaccurate?).

The only time it's not gay for a straight man to think about it is if they're 2D and pulling off the female uniform well, but that's also purpose-built superstimulus. Most men don't look or act like that (outside of the rare femboy, and attraction to those is generally waved off as "anything that makes my dick hard is a woman"- like, we get it, that's why it's funny to fluster each other over "traps are gay")[1].

it really does push you a decent % of the way towards the opposite sex in terms of physiology and psychology.

This is where you lose me, because of the people that I know that are on HRT, none have changed in this way. Now, I guess you could say that "well, doesn't that just prove they have female brains all along?", but their general mannerisms do not suggest that was true to begin with. (Which is why I generally tend to think of them as, well, ex-men.)

[1] Though I will point out that, especially if they're tall, easily-flustered, and have a cute face... I mean, it's not like I wouldn't consider it (and I suspect that the emotions I feel when considering it are closer to what women [are supposed to] feel about men, though I am suspicious enough of the "euphoria boner" effect that I'm unwilling to say the mental pathways being activated here are not just projection). Not like I haven't been exposed to it from some other ostensibly-straight guy being attracted to me for what in hindsight may have been similar reasons, either, but then again most LGBT discourse/definition is so incredibly selfish and destructive that the categories have no explanatory power beyond a means to justify the same so I can't in good faith claim any of this fits the bill.

hell, if most women take it as an active cost to have sex with men [and I'm pretty sure most men understand this to some degree], why would a man want to do it if he's not getting the other stuff women are, traditionally, supposed to get out of sex? At least with women you usually get wine'd and dine'd

Seeing it in those transactional terms is a bit sad. But I’m sure you get that it’s not like wine and dining, or romance in general, is the reward while sex is the cost, it’s more like it sets the scene for sex to actually mean something and be enjoyable.

because of the people that I know that are on HRT, none have changed in this way.

In what sense, they haven’t noticeably changed at all, both physically and mentally? Or just their mannerisms/personality? Because unless they’ve got a terrible endocrinologist (unfortunately quite common though) or are terribly unhealthy, there should be obvious differences like a deeper voice and facial hair for trans men, soft skin and different fat distribution for trans women.

they haven’t noticeably changed at all, both physically and mentally?

Yes. To be fair, he was pretty girly (and pretty big) before. I guess she smells the part now, though that's complicated by failing to take regular showers and living in a house that has a strong natural odor, and the transition isn't as clear moobs to boobs.

it’s more like it sets the scene for sex to actually mean something and be enjoyable.

Hmm, I guess the collaborative model should suggest men are supposed to do that as well. (At the risk of doubling down on a poor argument), maybe I'm just thinking the setup for the sex is what's doing the getting off if the partner is themselves not particularly attractive/somewhat obnoxious during the sex.

(It also reminds me that hookup culture is probably better seen as a low-risk way to have a bunch of different glimpses into how this works and not "just a step up from masturbation". I guess that requires nuance or something.)

Is it really that disgusting for a straight man to think about having sex with a man?

Scientific study from year 2017 (news article):

  • 120 male participants viewed photographs in six categories: neutral items (e. g., a binder clip); disgusting items (e. g., a bowl full of maggots); man+woman public displays of affection; man+woman kissing; man+man public displays of affection; and man+man kissing. Afterward, their disgust was measured through levels of a digestive enzyme that appears in the saliva of a stressed human.

  • A statistically significant increase in enzyme level was found only when comparing man+man kissing to neutral items (p < 0.2 %), comparing man+man kissing to man+woman public displays of affection (p < 2.0 %), and comparing disgusting items to neutral items (p < 3.6 %). This result was obtained among all participants, not just among the ones who self-reported as disliking homosexual men in an online survey that was administered prior to the experiment.

Presumably, actual sex would prompt an even greater response than mere kissing.

Is it really that disgusting for a straight man to think about having sex with a man?

Generally, yes.

At first yes, but you’ll quickly notice a massive drop in libido from the lack of testosterone. Then over the course of many months, maybe years, your sexual desires will likely start changing, you won’t be attracted to women the same way, you might even start to find men attractive. Going from 100% straight man to 100% straight woman is pretty rare but at least a point or two on the Kinsey scale is expected. And of course you’ll find the way you experience emotions is going to be quite different.

This is really fascinating. I've heard similar commentary online, but it's hard for me to imagine "finding the way you experience emotions to be quite different."

I think you could write down a list of assumptions about what people would expect a magically perfect gender swap to include. And I think this list would be reasonably consistent from person to person, even if Eliezer can't compress that list of assumptions into an algorithm which says "for every gender-specific trait no matter what it is, do X".

I think the problems are deeper than you suggest, even in the presence of gender swapping surgery that actually works (which is a fantasy for the foreseeable future). For one, I'm told "lived experience" is important: even if I change my gender to female and get a functioning uterus, I still know what it's like to jerk off, to piss on the toilet seat while sleepy, etc., and as a woman, I'm not supposed to know that.

But it gets thornier than this: when you gender swap, your phenotype is now a dishonest presentation of your genotype, which messes up the dynamics of sexual selection. Rather than dating a beautiful woman who is content as she is, you're dating a synthetic facade: the actual selection effect at play now is not "beautiful woman", but "mentally-unstable person who spent lots of money to try to convince others they're a beautiful woman." Not the same at all!

I don't see how magitechnology helps you escape this. Provenance really does matter.

A perfect impossible change would change your genotype as well.

I'd also imagine that if sex changes truly worked perfectly, they wouldn't be a magnet for mental instability. People who got them wouldn't have to fool themselves into believing that the inaccuracy doesn't matter, since there would be no inaccuracy.

The writer imposes the cost of attention on the reader, just as the barista imposes a cost of money onto the customer. These costs aren't the same but is not sufficient to brush that analogy off with, "Well, they are a paying customer!" There are more ways to pay than with money. There is still some level of duty a writer has not to defraud their reader, commensurate with this cost the writer imposes.

The cost would really only be relevant if there was some reasonable expectation for honesty or accuracy on the internet - especially on social media - like there is in a paid transaction, though. And there is no such expectation. In fact, it's such a cliche that the internet is filled with lies that the one thing Abraham Lincoln is loved for, the very reason he was iconic enough to be put on the penny, is that he warned us not to believe everything you read on the internet over a century before the internet even existed.

Everything imposes some trivial cost. The cost for viewing a reddit post made up of mostly a picture is negligible, even if it's nonzero.

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