site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34512 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023

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.

16
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I guess I'm personally resigned to the golden cage but I just want to make sure that I'm not denied my basic needs (esp sex) for some safetyist nonsense. I mean, do you think that a woke feminist or conservative Christian, if they managed to get in control of the AI, would allow us the sexual utopia that we have a right to? This is what I'm afraid of.

But I totally agree with you: humans should be free to, for example, colonize Mars even when its dangerous because the infrastructure isn't there yet. I too worry that safetyism will prevent us from taking risks, being part of the forefront of civilization, exploring the universe.

the sexual utopia that we have a right to

Who says you have a right? From whence do you derive this right? Explain to me how this is a right akin to the right to life?

It does depend on whether the assertion is being made from the position of "I can't get anyone in the real world, so my only hope is the simulated world where an AI character will pretend to love me" or "I want to have all kinds of sex beyond what is possible now, I am jaded and want infinite stimulation, hyper porn".

While one set of circumstances might be treated more sympathetically than the other, what right are you claiming? You can survive without sex, you can't survive without food, water or air. Maybe we all have a right to $50 million, to be tall and handsome/slender and beautiful and incredibly smart and successful and all the rest of it, but we're not all going to get that. Unless you are pinning your hopes on AI magic producing abundance and a way to get humans into some kind of "better than reality" virtual world where they can all be tall, handsome, successful, smart, rich people with tons of loving and willing partners, you can declaim about your "right to X, Y or Z" all you like, but you're not gonna get it.

The right to sex is not really about sex. It's about protecting normal people from moral busybodies that will ruin our lives by publicly proving that we have a sex drive. Once "so and so said something sexual once" or "so and so had sex (in an unapproved way)" is not a basis for public humiliation or losing your job, our lives will be so much better.

It's interesting to me that asserting a right to sex can a reaction from you. Are you afraid of people getting their needs met? Or is power over other people's sex lives something you need for some reason?

It does depend on whether the assertion is being made from the position of "I can't get anyone in the real world, so my only hope is the simulated world where an AI character will pretend to love me" or "I want to have all kinds of sex beyond what is possible now, I am jaded and want infinite stimulation, hyper porn".

While one set of circumstances might be treated more sympathetically than the other, what right are you claiming?

This is a complete aside: I agree with you that one would be treated more sympathetically than the other, but I'm curious what's your intuition on which one that would be? My intuition points to the latter being the one to receive far more sympathy than the former, which would actually receive close to none and actually attract antipathy.

Haha, this is exactly I don't give a shit about these people's sympathy.

I'm pretty sure this is an assertion of a negative right, derived from (among others), the right to privacy. Ie, if he can make it himself (or convince others to make it for him), what gives you the right to prevent him from doing so?

I think you're viewing this as "A says they have rights to B's body", whereas parent is viewing it as "C is saying they have the right to prevent what A and B want to do with their bodies."

Exactly, thank you.

denied my basic needs (esp sex) for some safetyist nonsense

Besides mods which alter the creators vision getting banned, as @tikimixoligist shows, mids which adhere to it more closely are forbidden from being distributed by mainstream sites: https://gamebanana.com/mods/430053, https://varishangout.com/index.php?threads/fire-emblem-engage-localization-fix-mod-removed-by-loverslab-gamebanana.1737/

I suspect sex would be reasonably safe. But we already have a preview of what might happen if your personal utopia does is not what the zeitgeist wants. There was a Rimworld mod called "European Phenotype and Names Only (White Humans)" which modifies a single player game. It's banned.

https://www.eurogamer.net/paradox-pulls-discriminatory-stellaris-mod-that-made-all-humans-white

We embrace the idea that players mod the game to best represent how they want to play, we do NOT however wish to enable discriminatory practices.

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