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 -
(reposting because new thread)
Is Twitter finally dead yet?
Usually, I'd be the last person to ask such a provocative question. I used to be one of the people who rolled their eyes or otherwise ignored sensationalized media stories surrounding Elon Musk and his takeover of Twitter, stories which have plagued the news cycle for the better part of almost a year now. It felt like you couldn't go a day or two without an article on the most mundane of things that were only remarkable because of Musk, like him going to the bathroom in the middle of the night.
But I have to - reluctantly - admit, maybe all the media's negative hype had a point.
The latest decision Musk has made is to rebrand Twitter to "X". The URL X.com will automatically redirect Twitter. Twitter is changing its logo from the iconic blue bird into a white "X". Apparently a tweet should now just be called an "X".
The obvious question is: Why? Musk's answer seems to be that he wants to change Twitter into some sort of "super-app" where one can do everything on it, similar to the WeChat app in China. This only raises further questions, like why people couldn't just use other apps, or why it had to be done in this why, or why they couldn't even just go the Meta approach where the company is renamed X (in fact, it's already been "X Corp." for a while) but Twitter gets to still be named Twitter and keep the blue bird logo.
The one thing that everyone in the Musk-Twitter discourse seems to agree on is that Twitter has significant value in its brand. Now, it might not even have that. Who really wants to talk about "'X'-ing on X" when it's far more idiosyncratic to say "tweeting on Twitter", which people have done for the better part of the decade?
But to answer my own question: No, I think it's the wrong approach to look at each change as potentially an outright Twitter-killer. I think the bigger picture should be looked at, and that in the long run, the demise of Twitter will be a death by a thousand paper cuts, where each change isn't quite so negative to kill it entirely, but it keeps Twitter on a downwards and downwards trend. And there's already been several paper cuts - fleeing advertisers, ratelimits, restricted guest browsing, etc.
My headcanon has always been that he's destroying Twitter on purpose as a favor to humanity. So far everything tracks. Shine on you crazy diamond.
I wouldn't mind that. Even with (slightly improved) freedom of speech Twitter looks like a net negative.
More options
Context Copy link
I dearly hope you're right. Twitter has been the worst thing that's happened to the political discourse in Finland by a large margin. I've said for years that politicians and journalists should have been forbidden from writing, reading or discussing anything on Twitter or seen there with the threat of a heavy fine or jail sentence.
Facebook is equally bad or worse, and it has been (sensibly) argued that any publicly accessible or accountable forum as such is a detriment to politics.
[before replying, please read the linked post , the excerpt does not explain the reasoning sufficiently well.]
Excerpts:
Facebook has effectively zero effect on the political discourse in Finland now that Covid is just another flu (it had a very small effect as a breeding ground for fringe groups but their actual effect was minimal). As for what effect Facebook has on that side of the pond, I simply don't care.
I don't believe that. Do the major political figures not use Facebook, or are their Facebook pages dead with little interaction ?
Politicians' FB pages are used more or less exclusively for preaching to the choir - that is, people who would vote for them anyway. Almost nothing on them enters the wider discourse in any meaningful way. Meanwhile most journalists and far too many politicians are constantly importing stupid ideas from US Twitter or reporting what this or that person posted on Twitter (to the extent that US domestic politics are given more space in papers than the rest of EU combined).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The excerpt contained faulty reasoning which immediately jumped out at me but when I actually read the article it became clear that the author didn't understand what happened in the first example that got brought up.
There was an actual conspiracy, it wasn't tiny, most of the people involved genuinely and definitively knew that it was garbage and they adopted the best tactics they could in order to make the false claims stick and hamstring Trump's presidency without putting themselves in too much risk. You can just go back and read the text messages that got leaked - so let's just do that (time read what were formerly private communications!) and compare them to what this author said.
Here we have one of the FBI agents who was involved with both the illegitimate surveillance of the Trump campaign and the Mueller investigation that followed - and he's directly, flat out contradicting the author of this piece. The publicly claimed positions were not internalised and the nature of the scheme meant that this couldn't happen. The intel people were not nuts and the Clinton team knew what they were doing and started the Steele dossier nonsense before they even lost. I'm sure that the people buying Mueller votive candles earnestly believed those public statements, but those people just aren't relevant to the decision-making process here. I disagree with the main thrust of the piece as well for the record, but I don't think I even need to get into that when his first example was so blatantly wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
Political factions keeping secrets can let them negotiate in private and prevent them from being second-guessed by ignorant members of the public. But that's not the only effect of political factions keeping secrets. Whether they know more than the public may be less important than whether they have the same interests as the public, and keeping secrets makes it easy to get motivated reasoning and principal/agent problems, or even just plain old corruption.
Principal/agent problems are inherent to a republican government, and public debate doesn't solve them one bit.
Consider for example the housing issue - where people prevent the new construction to conserve value of their own, or the pensions issue, where they're getting nice pensions paid for by money taken from wages of people who are never going to get anything once they're old.
But how does keeping secrets solve either of those issues?
You could probably be more likely to pass a reform of construction if you are able to lie about it. Developers paying off a party, even though it's going to suffer a short-term electoral setback is possible, because they know in the long term it's needed and they'll get something out of it.
Under public conditions, it's impossible, no? They'd get destroyed and coordinating a vote out in the open would be extremely hard.
You can probably be more likely to pass something to benefit yourself and your cronies and hurt the people if you are able to lie about it too, which seems like it would be a bigger effect.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link