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 -
If there is still a government comprised of humans in 10-15 years, guns will still be quite useful if it becomes necessary to fight it. My guess is that you think otherwise because you have a very narrow model of what it means to use a gun to fight the government. You aren't entirely wrong within that narrow frame, but outside it you are very wrong.
There is no plausible future where I would be better off without guns than with them.
Can you expound on the narrowness of my argument? How else can you fight the government with guns?
You’re not doing anything against 300k autistic trannies control US drones under the Biden clone Presidency. They will win.
I would guess your model of "using guns against the government" involves something like a human-wave assault on a federal building by guys on foot armed with ar15s. This is about the worst possible mismatch, and it's still a threat drones cannot obviate now and may not be able to obviate in the future, given the continuous development of cheap, effective, man-portable anti-drone countermeasures.
Here is a scenario a single small step outside that frame. Leave aside the tribal shibboleths and focus on the material specifics: how would 300,000 autistic trannies and their drones under the Biden clone presidency effectively forestall this scenario?
In any case, that's all the illumination I'm comfortable providing on this topic.
It’s a 20 min video I tried skimming it but I am not sure on your point. But guerilla warfare you could handle with a lot of surveillance drones with AI analyzing things like picking up a sniper shot and then sending a bunch of drones to go kill the sniper.
The threat elucidated is a suppressed sniper rifle, fired from total concealment at long range from inside a disposable vehicle which immediately departs and then is abandoned elsewhere, potentially a hundred miles or more away. How are you going to "detect the sniper shot"? Thermal imaging probably won't do it, and how do you know where to put the thermal camera? How are you going to get ubiquitous surveillance, and how much does this surveillance cost, and how vulnerable is it? Every capability you pursue increases the surface area vulnerable to attack. And again, this is one step. There are a lot more steps obviously available.
How is solving this problem easier than solving murder or drug-dealing in the general case? Do you think we are 10-15 years away from a general solution to the problems of murder and drug dealing?
So you can like assassinate a lower level gov employee and get away with it? I don’t think that denies my point.
Governments depend on low-level government employees to enforce their decrees on the real world. Your postulated "300k trannies" are low-level government employees, and the drone systems you posit they will use have to be built and maintained by low-level government employees to function. It is possible to coordinate a level of meanness against such employees that they will not be willing or able to do the jobs assigned to them, and guns make the coordination of that level of meanness a lot easier.
You claimed snipers won't work because drones and AI. I'm pointing out that snipers probably would work despite drones and AI, at least for the plausible futures where ASI isn't exterminating all humans rendering the question moot. And again, snipers are merely one extremely obvious possibility your model didn't cover. There are many, many more.
How are you coordinating 100k snipers to do this? All communication is electronic so eavesdropping is breaking up coordination. How are you traveling? He was using a dumb car running on a gas powered car. Those won’t be manufactured in 20 years. Even if you have old cars driving one of those would be a giveaway. How would you even get gasoline?
All the infrastructure you would depend on to accomplish it is going to be gone. You can do a Mangione lone wolf sniper attack, but the next cog in the machine will take his job.
And yes the mobility aspect is important. Everyone will be driving electric smart cars because the experience is better. No one is going to want to drive themselves. It’s going the way of manual transmission. The consumer demand to support drive yourself won’t be there. The infrastructure to build drive yourself cars won’t exists. A human driver will likely be illegal in most situations in 20-30 years.
If you thought the 2020’s were bad with the government being able to cut you off from flying, payments, and communications then just wait until the 2040’s when your cut off from intelligence and driving. And all of this will be approved because it makes life more convenient. Nobody wants to go back to driving when you hit a button on your Tesla and snooze off for 20 minutes.
My point is any ability to exert pressure is going the way of seriel killers. We have mass surveillance now and they get caught early.
Yeah, you just made this a whole lot easier. Paint a tunnel on a wall, Road Runner style, and scratch your target off a list.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link