site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   37681 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Many leftists believe, generally without quite putting it in these words, that humanity is already dominated by an inhuman hyper-intelligence and has been for a long time. It is what they call capitalism, the patriarchy, the world economic system, etc. They see themselves not as being anti-human, but as being pro-sentient being. They see themselves as people who are right now fighting against the cold machine logic of that inhuman hyper-intelligence. And to a large extent, while I disagree with many of their concrete proposals about how to improve things, I think that they are right to see things this way. Which is not to say that they are entirely right, or that right-wingers are wrong. The world system is neither left-wing nor right-wing. Left wingers look at it and dislike it and call it right-wing. Right-wingers look at it and dislike it and call it left-wing. It is like the story of the blind men feeling the elephant. What created the system to begin with was mainly not left-wing politics or right-wing politics but rather, simply technological progress. Politics is downstream from technological progress. The Marxists are right about that at least.

The world political/cultural/economic system really is a trans-human hyper-intelligence that makes decisions based on its own logic rather than based on the desires of individuals. Whether one takes orders from a literal machine intelligence running on silicon (which is the Skynet scenario) or from a gigantic system that is made of a combination of humans, communications and computer technology and the industrial infrastructure that sustains them, all running on the Darwinian logic that Scott Alexander called "Moloch" (which is the current reality) is maybe a difference more of degree than of kind.

That said, course it would be silly for me not to admit the possibility that a real silicon AI would have whims wilder and stranger than anything that the currently existing hybrid human/machine global intelligence has so far displayed.

I’m pretty sure there’s a Scottpost on “what if capitalism is the real AI,” but I can’t find it.

Maybe the Real Superintelligent AI is Extremely Smart Computers

Thanks!

Ended up coming in handy when the same topic was broached on the subreddit.

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