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 -
This is standard ITAR and EAR rules. And yes, other countries could recruit people to build it there. Still illegal for me to in any manner transfer ITAR or EAR restricted designs to China or South Sudan. I can transfer it to any US person; by which they mean citizen, green card holder or asylumee.
In a better world there'd be some "clear, consistent, and logical rationale" standard bureaucracies are held to. Instead they just make up rules then change their minds and make up contrary rules. See the ATF for examples. Given laws creating bureaucracies and empowering them to make relevant rules, this is what we get.
There is an easy and obvious workaround especially given that it is on the internet, so these specific rules would not be meaningfully effective. So why were they chosen and not something far more extreme that would directly achieve the intended effect?
Luckily if there was a national security issue, Anthropic willingly took down Fable for everyone instead of complying with ineffective halfway measures.
Republicans control all three branches right now, they don't have to sigh and say "ugh if only we had that better world". They can make it, right now! Now you and me, we can sigh and say that. Cause we know that this administration doesn't care to make it any better either. And most likely the next one won't, and the next one after that, and so on.
But the only way for the better world to come is to have people in power who actually want that better world. We haven't had that in a long time, and we probably won't for a while.
I get ITAR rules could be easily violated. As simple as sending an email. I could do it right now. Lots of laws are that way. You could easily violate them and maybe possibly get in trouble if you are unlucky. I don't expect anything more from the government since they lack a panopicon able to catch me. As a practical matter there's not much they can do other than occasionally fining a company caught exporting these designs.
Every employer I have had takes it very seriously. Multiple times per year retraining strictly warning against doing anything involving South Sudan. So sure you could easily violate these rules, but these AI devs won't.
More options
Context Copy link
Please point me to the person or party who controls Trump, Thune and Johnson, and Roberts.
Trump controls the party, not the other way round, but Thune at least completely resents Trump and refuses to be controlled by him. Neither of them, nor the party itself, has any means of applying leverage to Roberts, who sits on his hands doing bupkis and denying the only legitimate use of his court (disputes between states).
This is just dumb. No one "controls the party" unlike the Democrats the GOP is explicitly organized as a coalition of otherwise sovereign entities rather than a top-down organization.
The formal organisation of both main US parties is almost exactly the same - the DNC and RNC are both federations of state parties, the state parties in each state are organised in approximately the same way because of the requirements of state electoral laws, the independent Congressional committees work in the same way etc.
This Tanner Greer post makes the opposite of your argument - Greer is a conservative but he is partially relying on academic research by dissident leftist Jo Freeman. The thesis, which I think is correct, is that the formal leadership of the GOP (including the President when applicable, Congressional leadership, the RNC Chair etc.) matters more than it does in the Dems because the influence of "the Groups" - organised interest groups which are de facto part of the party constitution but operate entirely outside its formal structures - provides an alternative power base in Dem politics which the GOP doesn't have.
My take is that GOP elites see the GOP as the place where America's natural ruling elite come together to justify their existence to the sovereign voters, whereas Dem elites see the Democratic Party as a coalition of disadvantaged groups working together to secure their respective fair shares of the pie. I think this goes all the way back the the Civil War, and predates the GOP being consistently to the right of the Democrats. I'm not sure how much Trump changes this story.
Formally? perhaps. In practice? Not at all.
Greer and Freeman are trying to model the GOP from the perspective of outside observers, and their models fail because they have failed to grasp the simple fact that constituent interest groups of the GOP are not "an alternative power base" so much as they ARE the power base.
If formal leadership even mattered even half as much as Greer and Freeman suggest Trump would've never been the nominee, and "your take" reads as you naively believing liberal propaganda from 10 years ago. Sure, perhaps if you were to ask Jeb Bush and Liz Cheney they might characterize themselves as "America's natural ruling elite" but that's also why they are now on the outside looking in.
Formal leadership tried to fight the constituents and formal leadership lost, Decisively.
What are the organised interest groups in the GOP that wield the same level of power that unions, feminists, black urban political machines, or the Ford and Hewlett-funded NGO borgs wield among the Democrats? Alternatively, what are the "otherwise sovereign entities" you mention in your first post? In the Greer/Freeman model the state parties are part of the "formal leadership", not an alternative to it. These are kind of meant to be the same question - you clearly have a model of how power works in the GOP which is something other than "Registered Republicans nominate candidates and elect party bosses, and the electeds and bosses come together to run the GOP roughly according to the rulebook" and I would be interested in knowing what it is.
MAGA is the formal leadership of the GOP and has been for almost a decade, having taken control through the formal democratic processes of the party (in particular, the 2016 primary, which was a genuine act of internal party democracy).
Trump ran the campaigns he wanted to, just as Romney ran the campaign he wanted to. Someone made Biden run like a campus progressive in 2020 even though he is an old-school machine politician. The point I am trying to make is that there is no equivalent of that someone in the GOP.
The application of the Greer/Freeman model to the last decade is that the GOP went MAGA as a result of grassroots Republicans voting in primaries, whereas the Dems went woke-prog as a result of the machinations of the Groups. I think this is obviously correct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So he doesn't control the party?
Do you think that if the Republican controlled Congress passed a bill with clear and explicit rules around AI national security regulation and Trump signed them into law, that Roberts would strike them down? If you don't think that then he has no relevance to this question and we're back to "republicans could do it if they wanted to".
And at the very least they could try. Trump has already shown he doesn't care about trying unconstitutional things with his tariff policy, so why does he not apply the same process in implementing a clear and consistent AI policy? The easy answer is "he doesn't want to."
He wants tariffs so they'll be pushed through time and time again with different obviously flimsy excuses each time one gets struck down. He doesn't want clear and consistent AI regulation, so they don't bother.
He doesn't control the party, but the party also doesn't control him. There is no control.
I think Roberts cannot in any way be understood to be part of a republican trifecta that includes Trump.
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