site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   20894 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 18, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So detective work? Anything a human can do, I do think an LLM can do. People are not that good at hiding who they are under scrutiny.

did you actually read that paragraph I wrote? I am feeding it pictures of these people, and asking it to come with personality archetypes based on their pictures alone, and then asking the LLM questions about how the person would approach real-life situations. The LLM even guessed which one in the friend group has experimented with polyamory. Note that I made sure to not feed any additional information except a simple picture with no obvious giveaways featured, all my friends look like the average simple adult and we all dress/present rather simply, nothing too flashy and no obvious personality trait leakage is present in our appearance, at least on the first glance. Most strangers would not be able to guess that the individual in question is into polyamorous dynamics, there is no obvious giveaway in their appearance, absolutely nothing that would align with the common stereotypes in media about poly-people, yet the LLM guessed accurately.

I did. And as I pointed out, unless you're like a detective, most people look at other people and don't notice anything. But clearly, detectives do. Investigators do. Police do. Researchers do. Scientists do. They are trained to pick up on details and infer information that normal people don't. And training meant written down and was probably part of LLM training data. So yes, I am not surprised that LLMs know things about people based purely on images.

and doesn't that induce a 1984-esque scare within you? it can accurately guess your opinion on pretty much every topic out there, taboo ones, political issues or even something as frivolous as opinions on pop-culture debates, all using a simple picture. I will be using this on Hinge-matches next

Think of what it will be able to do in 6 months to a years time. I do think there is something to the position of: "we already have AGI we just don't know it yet".

here though I am busy asking it some real dumbfuck questions like ''what do they think about body hair?'' or ''will xyz stay with their broke boyfriend?'' GPT has been surprisingly accurate with it's lens of perception, it said that xyz would indeed be loyal to their broke boyfriend during transitory periods but would not stay with someone who's default orientation is being a bum

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