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 -
I'm going to make the same point I've just made to Bombadil: the point of the meme reference is that the third party in this case has zero relevance to the transaction. There is party A, wanting to buy AI services, and party B, wanting to sell AI services, and then party X, saying that the demand doesn't actually exist and this transaction isn't real.
I'm not trying to make a fully general counter-argument against regulation here, and the above example would be different if party X felt that the AI services being traded carried dangers or externalities for the wider public. But for the specific quotes above, no one is making that case, they are simply claiming that because they don't see a value in a product or service, the value must not exist.
The problem is party X is impacted - by electrical infrastructure upgrades whose costs are often spread throughout the community, by construction blocking traffic and making noise, by the eyesore on the way to work. There are concerns about water usage, which might not be based on facts but the impression a lot of party X has is that their water pressure could decrease and there's nothing they can do about it.
And in return they get.... maybe five janitorial jobs while the bulk of the "new jobs" go to people on the coasts. And a construction crew who will likely be lead by people out of town and will hire less-skilled local labor for two years before trapezing away with those paychecks.
And the taxes, how do they tax the data centers? If a data center in Ohio is responsible for a billion of dollars of sales made in California, who gets that tax money? What is the tax revenue of a data center after its built?
Maybe someone would be ok with these problems if they felt like they were contributing to a better future, if they thought everyone was benefiting in some way. But if they honestly believe these things are making everything worse, they are not worth the sacrifice.
Consider the possibility that people in small towns have a pride. Being the home of a GM factory was a source of positive identity and worth some sacrifices for the greater good. Being the home of a world-destroying machine mind is not.
Typically the local tax revenue is via property tax, to which the end usage of the datacenter is irrelevant. It's assessed based on the fair-market value of the land and improvements.
More options
Context Copy link
As per my earlier response, this is not a claim that externalities don't exist or that local communities have no right to regulate local construction. I am remarking on the argument that construction shouldn't proceed because there is no demand, and this lack of demand is unevidenced and based entirely on the vibes of the objector
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link