site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32788 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Effective Altruism drama update:

You may remember a few weeks ago the article Effective Altruism Promises to Do Good Better. These Women Say It Has a Toxic Culture Of Sexual Harassment and Abuse was published in TIME (Motte discussion here).

It's been a hectic two weeks on the EA forum. Meta community posts have been consistently getting more engagement than object-level posts about actual charity. There is a palpable tension on the site between the hardcore rationalists and the mainstream liberals. Vote counts swing on an hourly basis depending on who has the upper hand, but overall the discussion has remained civil (mostly). A few days ago, the (in)famous Aella posted "People Will Sometimes Just Lie About You", a devastating screed against prudes, anonymous allegations, and haters of eccentric Bay Area parties. Eliezer himself even shows up, taking a break from doomscrolling to deliver a supporting bombardment against the mainstream press.

There's nothing EAs care about more than cute poly girls and AI. Once Aella and Eliezer weigh in, case closed right? WRONG.

A statement and an apology

EV UK board statement on Owen's resignation

In a recent TIME Magazine article, a claim of misconduct was made about an “influential figure in EA”:

"A third [woman] described an unsettling experience with an influential figure in EA whose role included picking out promising students and funneling them towards highly coveted jobs. After that leader arranged for her to be flown to the U.K. for a job interview, she recalls being surprised to discover that she was expected to stay in his home, not a hotel. When she arrived, she says, “he told me he needed to masturbate before seeing me.”"

Shortly after the article came out, Julia Wise (CEA’s community liaison) informed the EV UK board that this concerned behaviour of Owen Cotton-Barratt;[1] the incident occurred more than 5 years ago and was reported to her in 2021.[2] (Owen became a board member in 2020.)

One of the perpetrators from the article has been identified. So who wins?

Well, its too soon to say. This seems to be the first sexual misconduct allegation confirmed against an official EA leader, so you can't really call the TIME story which broke it to be a complete pile of journalistic garbage. It does seem like a pretty minor infraction though. After reading Owen's statement it seems like it could fall under the "weird nerds trying to date" umbrella, but maybe you can't use that excuse when you're a board member.

One aspect I haven't seen discussed is that this is the same guy who was behind the controversial decision to buy Wytham Abbey for 15 million pounds (see here). In light of current events, it sure looks to me like EA officials decided to blow millions on a luxury venue in Oxford in order to impress women.

After that leader arranged for her to be flown to the U.K. for a job interview, she recalls being surprised to discover that she was expected to stay in his home, not a hotel. When she arrived, she says, “he told me he needed to masturbate before seeing me.”

I can understand how hearing that may seem creepy in that context, given that she just found out she would be staying with him, but in general, masturbating in a situation like this is a great idea. I have long though that men should masturbate before doing something important that involves women, sex, etc., to prevent their brain being overpowered by their penis.

It doesn't "seem" creepy. It is creepy. How would you feel if you walked into an office for an interview and your potential boss (male) said "Just be a sec, I gotta go jerk off"? There may possibly be some jobs where "oh hey here it's we're all guys together", but I think you might come away from that going "Hm, that was odd".

How would you feel if you had a friend with whom you regularly discussed sexual stuff, they referred you for a job at a place they didn't work at, you visited the city and stayed in their house, and then they brought sexual stuff while you were visiting?

Fixed that for you.

This has happened to me, BTW, and it was totally unremarkable. A bro with whom I regularly discuss banging chicks referred me to a job. I visited him and he told me about how he's banging a cool rocker chick with big tits (or something like that, this was long back and I forget the details). The only difference here is that instead of being bros who bang hot chicks in a mainstream manner, it was weird nerds doing weird nerd stuff in a subculture that the establishment wants to attack.

But of course, I actually read the detailed statement and apology (linked in the OP) instead of just the hit piece: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QMee23Evryqzthcvn/a-statement-and-an-apology

He was not her potential boss or involved in the decisionmaking process.

I was employed as a researcher at that time

My role didn’t develop to connecting people with different positions until later, and this wasn’t part of my self-conception at the time

(However it makes sense to me that this was her perception)

I was not affiliated with the org she was interviewing at

I’d suggested her as a candidate earlier in the application process, but was not part of their decision-making process

The interaction did not happen in an office, and the implication that they only knew each other professionally is false. This was one interaction in a long personal relationship in which apparently many such interactions took place as part of a weird social experiment:

We had what I perceived as a preexisting friendship where we were experimenting with being unusually direct and honest (/“edgy”)

Including about sexual matters

There was what would commonly be regarded as oversharing from both sides (this wasn’t the first time I’d mentioned masturbation)

Our friendship continued in an active way for several months afterwards

They do seem to be different cases. This is classic "he said, she said": he's saying "we were pals", she's saying "he's the guy interviewing me for a job".

And your bro was telling you about chicks he was hitting on/fucking. He wasn't going "Bro, you are so hot, hang on a mo, gotta go jerk off because that's the effect you have on me".

They do seem to be different cases. This is classic "he said, she said": he's saying "we were pals", she's saying "he's the guy interviewing me for a job".

It isn't "he said, she said" because Time Magazine didn't say he was the interviewer or her prospective boss. Time Magazine did not say anything at all about the presence or absence of a preexisting relationship. They said:

"...an unsettling experience with an influential figure in EA whose role included picking out promising students and funneling them towards highly coveted jobs. After that leader arranged for her to be flown to the U.K. for a job interview, she recalls being surprised to discover that she was expected to stay in his home, not a hotel."

I can totally understand how you drew this (most likely false) conclusion, but technically Time Magazine did not lie.

They simply exploited the fact that you believe that they would have mentioned a preexisting weirdo rationalist relationship with odd social experiments if one existed, and that they would have mentioned the interview was with someone else entirely.

Also, I do not believe that the guy is lying about either a) being her interviewer or b) the preexisting relationship. These are both easy to prove one way or the other and if he were lying about such easily provable things, one would expect someone to call it out.

But I'm happy to be proven wrong: if the accuser claims he is lying and he doesn't dig up texts/FB messages/etc to prove they were friends before and after, I will consider her case to be proven. Similarly if the accuser claims he's lying and digs up an interview schedule listing him, I'll consider her case proven.

And your bro was telling you about chicks he was hitting on/fucking. He wasn't going "Bro, you are so hot, hang on a mo, gotta go jerk off because that's the effect you have on me".

Yes, he was following a pattern for which there is a mainstream "script" so you can easily pattern match it. Other similar things he has said include "damn bro back that fine ass up let me get it on camera". Entirely work inappropriate and inappropriate for some friendships, but totally reasonable for him to say to me at the gym after filming my first successful 4 plate deadlift.

Weirdo rationalists are weirdos and making up their own script that you are unfamiliar with. Is anything non-mainstream fundamentally illegitimate and evil? One must not do it even with the full consent of all involved?

Other similar things he has said include "damn bro back that fine ass up let me get it on camera". Entirely work inappropriate and inappropriate for some friendships, but totally reasonable for him to say to me at the gym after filming my first successful 4 plate deadlift.

Are you sure you didn't miss out on a blossoming love to last the ages by thinking he was admiring your muscular prowess instead of delicately courting you? 😁

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