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 -
Richard Hanania is a man whom I do not always agree with but do appreciate for successfully pissing off people both on the left and the right. The ability to piss off people from both of those groups is, in my opinion, generally correlated with being right about things.
Well, Hanania has allegedly been linked to a pseudonym. The allegation is that about 10 years ago, he was routinely saying taboo things about race and gender issues under the name "Richard Hoste".
Some quotes:
It's nothing very shocking for those of us who read dissident right stuff, and it's not even really that far away from Hanania's typical under-his-birth-name writing. But it may be a bridge too far for much of the more mainstream audience.
What I wonder is, which way shall Hanania go?
Own it, say "yes I am Richard Hoste and I did write those things"? He would gain praise from some people for honesty, but he would also stand probably a pretty good chance of losing book deals, interviews with some mainstream figures, and so on.
Deny deny deny?
Ignore it?
I think that it is an interesting case study, the attempted take down of one of the more famous examples of what is now a pretty common sort of political writer: the Substacker whose views are just controversial and taboo enough to have a lot of appeal for non-mainstream audiences but are not so far into tabooness, in content and/or tone, to get the author branded a full-on thought-criminal.
It's quite curious how rationalist (or rationalist-adjacent) figures will go through the trouble of creating a pseudonym, but then make basic mistakes in opsec that will link them back, thus rendering the whole effort pointless.
The article claims that he reused email addresses, which is a really serious basic mistake. Not only does doing this assume that every website the email address is used on will never suffer a data breach or some other exploit that leaks users' email addresses, it also risks "crossing the streams" where you absentmindedly start doing things meant for one pseudonym on another. And it's really easy to avoid this mistake, too. Just create a new email account.
There's a couple other rationalist figures I have in mind that have had poor opsec, but it's probably best to not name them or go into detail (unless people here are really curious about opsec and want to learn more). Although, all the information I would post is public anyway.
TBF Scott's "pseudonym" was originally only intended to block prospective bosses from finding his blog on cursory name search; it wasn't really intended to protect against cancellation. It achieved what it was supposed to i.e. getting him hired.
Also, a decent chunk of these people were literal teenagers at the time that they made those mistakes, and this is hardly limited to Rats.
It's preposterous, and a sign of the times, that one needs to be well-versed in opsec in order to freely speak their mind. The highest degree of opsec is to simply never share your thoughts, never post anything online, ever.
Alternatively you could don the mask and assume a digital alter ego, extraverting all the opinions of orthodoxy while suppressing your more controversial takes. Dissociative identity disorder for the digital era.
Both modes of living are fundamentally dishonest, misrepresentative, and, indeed, miserable.
Freedom of expression without fear of cancellation and censure is required for one to affirm their identity. Anything else is robbing one of their ability to authentically express their identity and who they are.
Maybe it's a sign of the times, but this isn't anything unique to the internet. The Federalist Papers were published under pseudonyms.
Arguably, it's a sign of the times that a significant many on the internet aren't practicing opsec. When the internet first started, people were just screen names in ephemeral chat rooms. Now, they use their real names, with real photos of themselves, leaving behind permanent posts on social media sites describing everything in detail for the entire world to see.
Technically true, but that's like saying the highest degree of transport safety is to never drive or get in a car, ever.
(And before the urbanists go "this but unironically", might I point out that bikes, trains, trams, and planes still have accidents too, so the technically-true highest degree would also avoid those.)
I don't see how this follows. There's nothing fundamentally dishonest or misrepresentative about adopting a pseudonym. It also doesn't have to be miserable. 90% of opsec is shutting up, and that could get many people by for many years. You would only have to do the remaining 10% if you're really paranoid.
I don't find much value in having my identity affirmed or expressed.
I know this. I grew up on IRC, where the first rule you learned was never to use your real name or give out any personally identifying information on the Internet.
This changed when Zuck came along, and normalized the exact opposite behaviour. Now, if you don't have any digital persona attached to your real name due to stringent practice of opsec, you are automatically regarded with suspicion.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you have no presence online, people assume the worst anyway. I'm tired of hiding behind a pseudonym, as I have done since I first logged onto the net in the mid 2000s.
Sure. Never express yourself, just keep everything held down.
This seems to be one of the most pertinent problems of our time.
That is not what I meant. What I meant is that, for example, if you don't want to reveal to others where you live, you shouldn't mention the name of your city or town. Basic stuff like that. You can still express yourself.
How is it a problem? Arguably, it's the other way around, and wanting your identity affirmed or expressed is the problem. The entire trans movement and its externalities stem from a misguided goal to affirm and express their identities.
Except, it's not your self being expressed under a pseudonym. It's your digital simulacrum.
I mean, yes. But arguably even if you do link your real-life identity, it's still a digital simulacrum, because typing text is different than saying words in real life. Is there a standard by which if you reveal enough details on a pseudonym, it's no longer considered a "digital simulacrum"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't much of this downstream of irl rewards accruing to people who post online?
On Facebook circa 2006, the reward was being cool and maybe getting a date. On Twitter and Instagram circa 2022 it became getting enough followers to monetize and move into the real media like a JomBoy or a Hanania.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No it's not, the weird moment in the late 90s/early 00s where the rest of society hadn't quite caught on to the existince of the internet was just that. A weird momemnt. What we are seeing now is a return to the status quo.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The biggest example I have in mind is of someone who didn't make opsec mistakes as a teenager, only as an adult.
Fair enough.
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