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 -
Sometimes I wonder if "banality of evil" is just a way to downplay regular evil. In other circumstances, if someone commits or aquiesques to evil deeds for the sake of personal success, that just gets called evil. If an armed robber murders a clerk, they don't get the privilege of having their evil called "banal" even if it was done seeking personal gain. Perhaps confronting the alternative, that some 90% of Germans simply were evil with no qualifiers during the height of Nazi rule, is too politically awkward?
There's a certain sick irony to an article in The Guardian discussing the banality of evil after what transpired over the last few years in the UK with lockdowns. Then again, maybe banality is still the wrong word for it, given that at every turn they wanted the government to go even further, lockdown harder and for longer, and be even more aggressive towards dissenters.
I think of banality of evil more in line with the Moloch idea. And I also find it useless. For instance I think that everybody involved in transitioning kids is taking part in great evil, of course they think they are doing good. In the end most people involved ranging from receptionist in gender clinic to actual surgeon who chops off healthy organs of kids will be fine. They are not doing anything illegal presumably. Another example - everybody knows what is happening in Xinjiang, China and it does not mean squat. Disney executives had no qualms filming Mulan next to it, literally thanking Xinjiang government for their tremendous help.
I most probably would not do shit about Jews were I living in those times. I don't do squat about kids being tortured in North Korea or literal slavery all over the world. So there is that - am I evil for just watching Netflix while all that is happening around me, possibly even contributing by paying slavers money for their products? If yes, then I don't care, it is not my business to solve these injustices.
And this is where I differ. I regard my failure to remove Xi and similar figures from power to be a vague source of guilt, only dulled by the fact that it's not even remotely possible for me to do so. If there was a way for me to meaningfully contribute towards a cause with that goal in mind, it is likely I would do so, but what few possible avenues exist to doing that seem to have exceptionally dubious connections with that end goal. E.G Liberty in North Korea exists but their actions are so tangential to the actual goal in their title that I don't know how they intend to link the two. Free Joseon? How would I even help them? It's not like crowdfunding hits on Kim Jong Un is a thing.
I find this idea interesting due to what I perceive as the vast intellectual and financial resources of the commentariat here. North Korea reportedly has a GDP of $16 billion and a population of 26 million. I think that the productive and intellectual capacities of a few hundred 150+ IQ millionaires is probably more than that of North Korea in the long run, as long as NK stays the way it is.
I'm not sure crowdfunding hits on Kim Jong Un would accomplish anything anyways--it's not like the government would totally collapse with him. The country also seems quite well-protected by China, though it seems they'd be amenable to a reunification if the US backed off from SK. Having looked into the situation very little, here's what I would do:
Grease NK leaders' palms. Give them somewhere safe to go, or maybe even an honored position within reunified Korea. There should be an ironclad promise that they don't get punished should they cede the fight soon.
Arm the populace. Starlink internet for all, and millions of cell phones dropped from space if necessary into the country. This would probably be enough, but if necessary, when they looked ready to riot, I'd send guns in too to make them an actual danger to the government.
Seems very doable to (as a coordinated, intelligent group) raise a few billion dollars, either through charity or capitalism, and then get this sort of thing started.
I'd be missing the financial resources to make any meaningful contribution.
Regardless overthrowing the north korean regime is a sort of inevitable end-point of effective altruism even with a strong anti-coup bias. You eradicate malaria, you cure world hunger, you're living in a megastructure in the outer solar system... And the slave-masses of the country-sized concentration camp that is North Korea continue to scratch the dirt for a meagre near-starvation diet.
What is the net gain in QALY from switching the population of North Korea to living under the known next best alternative of South Korea. How much does each QALY then cost? Is dropping automatic weapons on North Korea the new malaria nets?
In this hypothetical you'd be hooked up with a great job by the Motte Cartel.
Agreed, but at a certain point this sort of decision becomes much more complicated than naive QALY work imo. There's a fundamental shift in ethics when you go from [doing what you can inside the system] to [working outside the system] to [designing the system yourself and breaking other systems]. Once you're not just buying bednets but also taking responsibility for determining a nation's future, the correct course of action becomes far harder to calculate. I certainly wouldn't trust an organization called "Effective Altruism" to wage war based on their ideals. Whatever super-organization creates Dyson Spheres would probably find it as morally justified to invade us for "backwards" beliefs as we find it justified to invade NK for humanitarian reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link