site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   20198 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 6, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If AI is going to kill everyone unless some fantastical global regulatory regime that won’t happen is magicked into being, what are these people even doing?

Go to the beach, touch grass, spend time with people you love, drink good wine. No atheist (which pretty much all rationalists are) who believes the world is about to end should spend their final months playing cassandra, to mostly deaf ears.

They don't want AI to not kill everyone. They want fantastical global regulatory regimes.

This is what we would term uncharitable thinking on any other post

Yeah, probably, but it's fun to dunk on the "AI safety" nerds

Honestly all of us just think you guys are making yourself look plainly retarded by making obviously fallacious arguments. If I feel any embarrassment as a result of these posts it's that I'm vaguely associated with the sort of discussion forum with people who post like this. Somehow people whom I have explained the economics of inference too multiple times continue to falsely claim that inference is unprofitable and never will become profitable. And then there's the bulverism, "people who are concerned with ai safety just want regulations" have you ever met literally anyone involved in this field? Seriously? They're one of the highest concentrations of libertarians one could select for outside of an Ayn Rand fan club.

Yud is one of the leading voices in the "AI safety" crowd and "Bomb the datacenters" is one of his literal proposals for dealing with rogue ASI. Now you can argue that Yud isn't representative of that crowd but he's absolutely one of the biggest figures for it in the public eye.

Yes? That's how treaties work? In a world with Iran and Russia, it's just transparently silly to say that "bomb the dangerous production plant" is somehow beyond any sort of boundary when countries have been doing it casually for decades.

Yes? That's how treaties work?

@IGI-111 's comment that kicked off this chain:

They don't want AI to not kill everyone. They want fantastical global regulatory regimes.

@IGI-111 is implying that the AI safety people aren't motivated by preventing everyone from dying to AI, but because a fantastical global regulatory regime is the real end. It's complete conspiracy nonsense. How else could you possibly interpret these sentences?

More comments

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