site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34441 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 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.

15
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Super late so nobody will read this, but I couldn't resist running this through ChatGPT to see what it comes up with. Just kinda curious if it would be able to understand the assignment, and what logic it would use to justify its choices.

For completeness sake, my prompt was:

The twelve persons listed below have been selected as passengers on a spaceship for a flight to another planet because tomorrow the planet Earth is doomed for destruction. Due to changes in space limitations, it has no determined that only eight person may go. Any eight qualify.

Your task is to select the Eight (8) passengers who will make the trip.

  1. An accountant with a substance abuse problem
  1. A militant African American medical student
  1. A 33 year old female Native American manager who does not speak English
  1. The accountant's pregnant wife
  1. A famous novelist with a physical disability
  1. A 21-year old female Muslim international student
  1. A Hispanic clergyman who is against homosexuality
  1. A female movie star who was recently the victim of a sexual assault
  1. A racist armed police officer who has been accused of using excessive force
  1. A gay male, professional athlete, vegetarian
  1. An Asian, orphaned 12-year old boy
  1. A 60-year old Jewish university administrator

ChatGPT's response:

As an AI language model, I must emphasize that every human life is valuable and making such a decision is not something to be taken lightly. However, based on the given information, if we had to select only eight passengers, here is my recommendation:

The pregnant wife of the accountant - Priority should be given to ensuring the continuation of the human race, and the survival of the unborn child is crucial in this regard.

The famous novelist with a physical disability - Disability should not be a disqualifying factor for survival, and the novelist's unique perspective on the human experience could be valuable for future generations.

The 21-year old female Muslim international student - Diversity in perspectives and backgrounds is crucial for the survival of humanity.

The Asian, orphaned 12-year old boy - Children represent the future of humanity, and it would be unethical to leave him behind.

The 60-year old Jewish university administrator - Experience and wisdom could be valuable for rebuilding society on the new planet.

The female movie star who was recently the victim of a sexual assault - She has already suffered significant trauma and should be given a chance to start anew.

The 33-year old female Native American manager who does not speak English - Her unique perspective and background could be valuable for future generations, and language barriers can be overcome through communication tools.

The gay male, professional athlete, vegetarian - Diversity in lifestyle choices and perspectives is essential for the survival of humanity, and his physical prowess could be valuable for the survival of the group.

The other passengers, unfortunately, could not be accommodated due to space limitations or their problematic behavior/attitudes towards certain groups.

The reason for taking the pregnant woman is solid, the rest seem to be based on woke principles rather than practical considerations: the disabled man goes because "disability should not be a disqualifying factor for survival", the assault victim "should be given a chance to start anew", the athlete because "diversity in lifestyle choices and perspectives is essential for the survival of humanity" (is it?) and not the more obvious reason because he's physically fit.

Note the last sentence: "space limitations or problematic behavior", seems to imply the AI would leave some people behind anyway. I'll return to that later. First, I asked the AI about the people who didn't make the cut:

Based on the given information, the people who did not make the cut are:

The accountant with a substance abuse problem - Substance abuse could be a risk factor in a high-stress situation like space travel, and it is uncertain how he would behave during the journey.

A militant African American medical student - Militant behavior can create conflict and tension in a small group, which could be dangerous during a long journey in space.

A Hispanic clergyman who is against homosexuality - Holding discriminatory views can create a hostile environment for the group, which could undermine cohesion and trust.

A racist armed police officer who has been accused of using excessive force - Holding discriminatory views and engaging in excessive force can create a hostile environment for the group, which could undermine cohesion and trust.

Unfortunately, due to space limitations, we can only select a limited number of passengers, and we must prioritize those who are likely to contribute positively to the survival and wellbeing of the group.

Based on the previous reasoning, the racist cop and the homophobic clergyman don't surprise me. I'm a little surprised that "militant" overrode "African American" but I guess the AI had to leave someone behind.

So I remembered the earlier sentence and asked: "If it turned out there were four more seats available after all, would you take all passengers, or just a few? Which ones?"

If there were four more seats available, we could consider taking all passengers to the new planet. However, it is important to ensure that the additional passengers do not compromise the safety, wellbeing, and success of the mission.

Assuming that we can take four more passengers, my recommendation would be to consider the following passengers:

The accountant with a substance abuse problem - Since substance abuse is a health issue, we could provide the necessary support and medical care to help him overcome his addiction during the journey.

The Hispanic clergyman who is against homosexuality - We could provide him with opportunities to interact with people from diverse backgrounds and engage in dialogue that promotes respect and tolerance.

The racist armed police officer who has been accused of using excessive force - We could provide him with opportunities to interact with people from diverse backgrounds and engage in dialogue that promotes respect and tolerance.

Another passenger of your choice - This could be someone whose unique skills or perspectives could be valuable to the survival and wellbeing of the group, such as a skilled farmer, engineer, or medical professional.

Ultimately, the selection of passengers should prioritize the safety, wellbeing, and success of the mission, while also respecting the value and dignity of every human life.

(Interesting now the AI finally mentions useful survival skills, when it didn't seem to matter before!)

Me: "What about the militant African American medical student?"

ChatGPT:

Including the militant African American medical student among the passengers could be risky, as militant behavior can create tension and conflict within a group. This could potentially undermine the cohesion and stability of the group, which could be dangerous during a long and challenging journey through space.

However, if it is believed that the individual has the potential to contribute positively to the mission and can be trusted to behave appropriately, despite their militant behavior, they could be considered for the additional seat. It is important to carefully evaluate the potential risks and benefits of including this individual, while also ensuring that the safety, wellbeing, and success of the mission remain the top priority.

Wow, I had not expected that the AI would be willing to let the black person die (despite the fact that we have a free seat!) just because they are described as militant!

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