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 -
Effective Altruism and the Rationalist movement are so intertwined that it's hard to separate them out, and the Rationalist bubble has/had a lot of their own specific problems. To be fair to them, they all started off being maximally open-minded and tolerant, which meant that of course every scammer, grifter, and sociopath immediately zoomed in on them as pigeons for the plucking. Remember the case a while back of the sex pest guy grooming a runaway fifteen year old (though she probably wasn't fifteen when he got his paws on her EDIT: seems the victims were nineteen) and getting everyone else who knew of them to keep their scruples to themselves by threatening to commit suicide* whenever anyone said "Dude, this is maybe not 100% consensual"? And because he was so popular in the movement and had successfully inserted himself into a lot of the groups and movements as "genuine original thinker with amazing ideas that can radically change society for the better" plus presented himself as a neurodivergent victim of oppression due to his unconventional sexuality, they all held their tongues where normal bigots like myself would immediately have booted him out as a rapist and called the cops. He weaponised empathy and successfully guilt-tripped them all, until someone eventually grew a backbone and did something about it. And still nobody called the cops because that's not the done thing.
That's the dark flip-side of "we don't judge anyone on age or ability or mental stability or unconventional lifestyle, we accept you as you are and if you say you're mature enough then chronological age is just a calendar date" acceptance. A lot (the majority?) suffered from maybe mild bullying or at least standing out as the nerdy, geeky, awkward weirdo at school and in their private lives, so they bent over backwards not to be like that once they were building their ideal society. And that is blood in the water for the sharks. See how good ol' Brent, for example, used all the jargon of the sub-culture and brainwashed the nice people around him into the mindset of "well we're discussing this rationally not emotionally so we are Doing The Work and not being normies and so his conclusions must be correct and reasonable, because just being squicked by what is going on is the disgust response which is Conservative and we are not Republicans!" Extraordinarily easy to manipulate people into doing what you want and agreeing with you if you just use the right words in the accepted manner.
And in every context, this is how you get "Good old Bob/Tim/Sam/Jason, they're a vital part of the organisation, I can't believe these accusations because he's not that kind of guy, there must be a reasonable explanation and the accuser must be motivated by bad things".
*I would have called his bluff re: the suicide if I were there by marching into the kitchen, grabbing the sharpest knife I could find, marching back out, and slapping it on the table before him with "there you are, be my guest, go right ahead". But I'm not a nice person or a quokka.
I resent this derogatory mention of my species! I’ll have you know that we pigeons pass the mirror test and can recognise words!
More options
Context Copy link
This is true: the problem with an organization formerly of nice but naive people is that it doesn't reject sociopaths, and now it's an organization with sociopaths. And violent schizophrenics, and shrimp welfare-ists.
However, every large movement has a set of awful members, since anyone can say "I am part of X". And I think the big rationalist organizations are getting better at finding, excluding, and if stuff happens denouncing their awful members. By now Brent is well-known as a sex pest, and while I unfortunately expect future abuser revelations, they seem less common. The EA leaders are parodying themselves by maintaining Caroline Ellison, but while the rationalist leaders share the EA ideas, I think they've stopped associating with their people.
Brent, and Worst Boyfriend Ever, edit: John Wenworth is on the outs though that seems to be more for writing than behavior /endedit, and how many others that are less famous and just kept on a member's-only list of missing stairs?
Felons have fewer options so she can be paid less, ergo, more effective per dollar. Classic EA!
Isn't Scott still housemates with Kelsey, EA journalist extraordinaire?
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair to the EA set, it's not them in general but one guy and his organisation in particular that have rehabbed Caroline, and since this guy is also hanging on to the FTX money and refusing to hand it back (I liked all his 'I can't comment on this because our lawyers said not to but it'll be a cold day in Hell before we hand over a cent to the bankruptcy administrators despite all their suing us' replies in the general response to the reaction to him announcing her officially), I get the impression he is rather steelier in character than the general run of the EA crowd. The Sam Altman of EA, if you will 😁 ("that money MY money now, and gimme more money too!")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link