site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   18863 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 17, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is this because of a rational calculation or because communist twitter artists have been throwing up a nonstop alarm since the second stable diffusion was able to generate furry smut art for pennies undermining their only marketable skill?

Let's not pretend that the heads of the AI companies haven't been boasting about the hundreds of thousands of jobs they've already eliminated, and the hundreds of thousands more they are soon to eliminate. Further, it's not like the vision of the future that these heads are selling (the best case scenario being that humans are some form of pet or cattle, to be dispensed on the whim of an AI overlord and the worst having already been tastefully adapted by James Cameron) are particularly attractive to these people either.

Further, it's not like the vision of the future that these heads are selling (the best case scenario being that humans are some form of pet or cattle, to be dispensed on the whim of an AI overlord and the worst having already been tastefully adapted by James Cameron) are particularly attractive to these people either.

Not spending a third or more of your life in toil should be attractive to everyone. Cattle, give me a break, the median American is working for some company whose mission they don't care about doing some cog level work. We work to live not live to work. A world where AI does all the meaningful work and lest the people living in luxory is a strict improvement to 99.9% of people and the remaining people that must position themselves as superior to other for self definition can do some neosport for the same sensation of superiority.

Not spending a third or more of your life in toil should be attractive to everyone.

It's attractive, but there's almost no shot of that happening even if the tech is everything people believe it is. Come on, man, these tech companies are run by sociopaths. If they have an incredible AI that can do the things they say, they will use it to put all of us peons in the dirt serving them. There's no outcome to this thing which results in "John Smith gets to live his best years in comfort", it's either "the tech doesn't actually work" or "the bastards in charge of the tech use it to screw us all".

  1. I think a lot more people than you think derive meaning and value from their work. Maybe not a majority, but I'd say a large minority.

  2. I, and a lot of people, don't even believe AI will ever allow the majority of us to live in luxury. Personally, I believe that if AI were as good as it's touted as being, there will be a culling in the best case scenario. Worst case scenario would still be Skynet. (Bit of a tangent, but part of me actually thinks that if AI gave us functional immortality and infinite luxury, that that result might be a worse hell than any other. This isn't based on anything other than my feelings.) But if nothing changes, and things simply continue to be as they are, it would still be a disastrous result as that would mean that hundreds of thousands of people have lost and will lose their livelihoods and futures because we as a society were sold a bill of goods by an entire industry of charlatans.

All that is to say that we've sacrificed the livelihoods and futures of people today for future benefits that I don't think exist. And if these benefits do exist in the future, I don't think the vast majority of people will ever be party to them.

I think a lot more people than you think derive meaning and value from their work. Maybe not a majority, but I'd say a large minority.

I think this is a lot of cope. If we didn't have washing machines I think a lot of people might derive a sense of personal definition from being responsible for keeping people's clothing clean. Now that this labor isn't necesary it is a trivial thing. People will find a way to self define and fine meaning without the need to do labor.

I, and a lot of people, don't even believe AI will ever allow the majority of us to live in luxury. Personally, I believe that if AI were as good as it's touted as being, there will be a culling in the best case scenario.

Why? If it can do our work trivially why would there be a culing? We don't cull people currently who can't or won't do value added labor. Many of these people live lifes of relatively luxury to those in the distant past and that's with few voters feeling direct kinship with them. The idea that people who are themselves threatened with unemployment are going to vote to cull unemployed people beggars belief.

Worst case scenario would still be Skynet.

If you're taking this seriously then data center moratoriums are trivially not sufficient and you should absolutely be advocating for bilateral treaties with china to cease frontier development. If you're not advocating for that then I don't want to hear about random data center blocks which will not and cannot prevent this.

But if nothing changes, and things simply continue to be as they are, it would still be a disastrous result as that would mean that hundreds of thousands of people have lost and will lose their livelihoods and futures because we as a society were sold a bill of goods by an entire industry of charlatans.

I'm sorry, are they delivering the goods or not? Because if they are delivering the labor replacement then they are not charlatans. Your lot have this weird way of accusing them of being hype artists while your premises buy entirely into what they're selling. If they can indeed substitute all labor then that is incredible and they are fully vindicated for the rhetoric. If they aren't then we don't have to worry about any of this. It's a very clear sign that what you're actually concerned about is hurting them because you hate them and are not thinking clearly at all.

Why? If it can do our work trivially why would there be a culing?

I think the question whoever in charge of AI would ask is if AI can do our work trivially, what's the point of having so many people around at all?

The idea that people who are themselves threatened with unemployment are going to vote to cull unemployed people beggars belief.

Keep in mind that is scenario would be that AI eliminates 99.9% of jobs, as you described. In this hypothetical future, I don't even believe there will be any voting. Society will essentially be controlled by the AI and the few who actually still work to maintain or guide the AI. That's what I mean by turn people into pets or cattle.

If you're taking this seriously then data center moratoriums are trivially not sufficient and you should absolutely be advocating for bilateral treaties with china to cease frontier development.

I do, and I would support a politician that made this a part of their platform. I'm only a private citizen, however, without a platform. So I can only reach as far as my immediate circle.

We're getting points mixed up because I've described multiple potential scenarios and did a poor job of separating them. Here are what I see as likely futures under three different scenarios:

AI is everything the marketing says it will be.

Under this scenario we have three likely futures.

  1. AI is benevolent and everything works out like you appear to believe it will. This is probably the best result. It's also the least likely, in my opinion.

  2. AI is benevolent but only for a select few. This is the culling scenario I describe. The AI heads or AI itself eliminate 99.9% of all jobs and look around and start wondering why they bother keeping all these people around. This is the second most likely scenario if AI is all it's cracked up to be, in my opinion.

  3. AI is malevolent. This is the scenario covered by James Cameron. Obviously this is probably the worst result. If you ask me, this is the most likely out of the three described so far.

AI is pretty good, but not the paradigm changing technology we were sold as.

I'd say this is where we currently are. Productivity is slightly up, but we've also created an increasing underclass. Productivity is not up enough, however, for us to implement UBI or similar policy, meaning these people will just have to suffer as a permanent underclass. In this scenario, The AI heads would still have oversold and underdelivered. Maybe we haven't been sold a complete bill of goods, but we'd still have greatly expanded the permanent underclass for what? A 20% increase in GDP?

AI is not and will never be as good as the marketing.

Under this scenario, we've done like I said. We've ruined hundreds of thousands of lives and been sold a complete bill of goods. In this scenario, I'd be advocating for public executions of the major AI executives.

Edit: I didn't address one of your points

Now that this labor isn't necesary it is a trivial thing. People will find a way to self define and fine meaning without the need to do labor.

Do people do this right now? If you took someone off the street and told them that they don't have to work in the future and everything they need will be paid for, do they find a way to self define and find meaning? Do lottery winners self define and find meaning? If people don't do this right now, what will have changed between now and the omniscient AI that will cause them to self define and find meaning in the future?

I think the question whoever in charge of AI would ask is if AI can do our work trivially, what's the point of having so many people around at all?

It is already the case that half of all people are not net tax payers. Where is the culling?exist

So I can only reach as far as my immediate circle.

Organizing against local datacenters, or worse American data centers in general, will do less than nothing against xrisk. It's acting frantically impotently to discharge your anxiety. We don't e on a sprectum where relative resistance to American data center buildout moves any levers on chance unaligned ASI is reached.

It is already the case that half of all people are not net tax payers. Where is the culling?

It hasn't happened yet because there isn't enough control yet. I'm not sure that you appreciate just how big of a change your ideal AI future will be. In your ideal AI future, the levers of power would necessarily be concentrated with the AI or the people responsible for its decisions. I'll pose a question to you. Suppose you can tomorrow, with a snap of your fingers, make your ideal AI future become reality in the US. But in the process, you'd have to liquidate the bottom 10% of the US population. Would you do it? What about 20%? 30%? How much of the population are you willing to liquidate to realize your ideal AI future?

Organizing against local datacenters, or worse American data centers in general, will do less than nothing against xrisk

Ok so what do you actually suggest I do? Say I'm a private citizen who one, doesn't not support the AI future and two, would like to stop AI development world wide. How do you suggest I act to achieve these goals?

I think this is a lot of cope. If we didn't have washing machines I think a lot of people might derive a sense of personal definition from being responsible for keeping people's clothing clean.

There is a difference between less tedious busywork and having no contribution to your own upkeep. There is a reason there is a death spike shortly after retirement. It's hardly crazy to suspect we have relevant instincts here. The survival advantage is obvious.

We evolved from creatures that hunted in bands and were probably murdered by our kin shortly after we could not longer provide for ourselves. I'm confident in a post work society we can conjure up meaningful games to substitute for the drudgery of what is currently required to upkeep society. Tons of people today make their living in some way derivative of professional sports and many people generate a great deal of their identity from sports teams. Same for celebrities or entertainers. A lot of the economy has already been separated from what is required to survive.

We evolved from creatures that hunted in bands and were probably murdered by our kin shortly after we could not longer provide for ourselves.

vs

I'm confident in a post work society we can conjure up meaningful games to substitute for the drudgery of what is currently required to upkeep society.

Hmmm...

A lot of the economy has already been separated from what is required to survive.

It provides a value that can be traded for what is required to survive. I think you underestimate the psychological impact of being wholly redundant and superfluous.

Somewhere between 40 and 80% of Americans are already not net tax payers. Being redundant and superfluous is a spectrum that all of us are on. There are precious few who if they disappeared today would break the system badly enough to cause a blip. We're a long way from when most people worked on the farm and had a tangible hand in their own survival. As far as most of us are concerned food production is already functionally automated. Most of the basic necessities are already functionally automated. Besides housing, because it's rivalrous, what it took too survive in the 1800s could be provided by the state pretty trivially and with a bit of focus for a couple years with minimal human input. It's just not the case that humans need to be on the beating pulse of survival to find meaning in their lives. We'll be perfectly find with whatever social hierarchy game we entertain ourselves with once our survival is guaranteed.

and the remaining people that must position themselves as superior to other for self definition can do some neosport for the same sensation of superiority

This neosport has already been invented. It's called "politics".

Unfortunately for you, politics is a blood sport, and it's extremely popular. Men fight, women cheerlead.

The US did a case study 6 years ago about how long a population-wide UBI could buy peace in the face of mass unemployment.

The answer was about 3 months. After that, citizens started playing the aformentioned blood sport in city streets nationwide, and those games would continue even after the UBI ended.

You can tell yourself that it was only 0.01% of the population that was responsible for that, but I think 0.01% is closer to the number of how many city-dwellers didn't start chimping out.

You can tell yourself that it was only 0.01% of the population that was responsible for that, but I think 0.01% is closer to the number of how many city-dwellers didn't start chimping out.

When all the other entertainment venues are closed, what else are you going to do in a city but riot?

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