site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11950 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 5, 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.

There's also what Scott called Moloch and I sometimes call the Darwinian principle. Basically, "we have to build it because if we don't, the other people will and then they'll conquer us".

As for risk-taking, well... if I was purely selfish, I think I might be fine going for a 50-50 risk of either AI-driven human extinction or Star Trek utopia. Why? Because I don't have kids, am not sure I ever will, and to me the chance of benevolent AI giving me a significantly increased lifespan and reducing aging problems seems really tempting even if the odds are low, since the alternative is accepting a normal human lifespan and normal human aging. If we stop AI progress, it means that AI will not destroy humanity, but I'm still going to die within a few decades so for me it's almost as if the world will end within a few decades anyway, unless there is an afterlife.

I am not purely selfish, but some important people in the AI space are probably closer to being purely selfish than I am. Which is not to say that longevity is necessarily a significant factor in their calculations. At least, they don't seem to talk about personal longevity much.

Basically, "we have to build it because if we don't, the other people will and then they'll conquer us".

Most people don't want to spend X dollars on building armies, but there's always one guy like Boney or Mustache Man out there that just can't leave it alone, so game theory it is. This genie isn't going back into the bottle.

You can get to a point where it's not possible to deploy AI in a way that creates a strategic advantage before your country is destroyed by invasion and/or nuclear bombardment.

Or, you know, they could just sign up for cryonics.

If the consciousness is stored in the balls maths as Yud seems to believe and the specific substrate or specific continuous process does not matter, why bother preserving the brain (imperfectly at that)? I can just wait while dead for the N aeons required and reincarnate wherever and whenever conditions arise for me to exist once more.

Same for the destructive upload. If anything, this would just increase my chances of existing in a dependent state of an infomorph who anyone with root access to the server can delete/fork/torture etc.

I can just wait while dead for the N aeons required and reincarnate wherever and whenever conditions arise for me to exist once more.

Because it would not be your consciousness. That's the lure of cryonics, it suggests your own consciousness may survive.

If one is attached to the idea of a creature with similar values and genetic makeup persisting after you pass away, the technology to create such a being already exists.

The cryonics bulls suggest that my consciousness effectively dies every time I sleep because yadda yadda brain activity halts, yet I don't notice, so why not halt it with cryonics?

The cryonics bulls also suggest that it does not matter if specific atoms are destroyed, because there's no such thing as specific atoms in physics.

If I don't believe the cryonics bulls on either of those two topics, then it is useless to bother with cryonics, since either way it will kill the person that I am only to spark another very similar one in the future (maybe, if the cryovat foundation does not go bust and the technology to revive arises).

If I do believe the cryonics bulls on those two topics, then they are not needed because my consciousness is as immortal as any particular maths concept, and can stop existing no more than the decimal number 25925893 can stop existing. It might be unlikely to be instantiated on Earth again without preserving the particular body, but that's not a problem for me because I will not be experiencing any time that passes while I am not instantiated.

The only problem here is that the multiverse might be finite in time, but this frankly sounds paradoxical to me.

That doesn't solve the problem. No one will be able to figure out how to bring people back from the dead without AI anyways.

Destructive uploading doesn't require an AI to figure out.

In any case, the plan is not to stop AI forever; just to delay for a few decades so we can make it safer (i.e., not completely suicidal).

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