site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 18, 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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://www.independent.co.uk/space/elon-musk-russell-brand-caroline-dinenage-mps-twitter-b2415346.html

Social media site X has been asked by a senior MP if owner Elon Musk, who changed its name from Twitter, “has personally intervened in any decisions on Russell Brand’s status on the platform”. Following rape and sexual assault allegations being made against Brand, online content platforms that host his content including YouTube and podcasting company Acast said that he will not make money from advertisements on their sites and apps. Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairwoman Dame Caroline Dinenage has written to other video hosting sites and social media outlets on Wednesday to ask whether Brand can make “profit from his content” on their platforms.

In the communication to X chief executive Linda Yaccarino, Dame Caroline said: “We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand monetises his content and, if so, we would like to know whether X intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.

“Given Elon Musk’s response to Mr Brand’s tweet regarding the allegations, where he wrote ‘Of course. They don’t like competition’, we are also keen to understand whether Mr Musk has personally intervened in any decisions on Mr Brand’s status on the platform.

“We would also like to know what X is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.”

https://twitter.com/CountDankulaTV/status/1704607541852844072/photo/1

I think that it is important. But I am at loss of words so I am not even sure where to begin to make it effortpost. It is outrageous, indefensible and at first I though it was satire.

Do think this is rogue action? (my guess no), Will there be punishment for the MP for overstepping greatly any boundaries? (also no).

It's amazing that seemingly overnight, a norm was kayfabed into existence that people accused of sex pestery should be deplatformed/demonetized off all social media. Like this has always been the case, and has been applied in a politically neutral way. Despite, to my knowledge, this is literally the first time it's ever happened.

The political motivations for this are naked as can be. Even in the initial reporting, it was included in the article that none of the women chose to come forward, they were sought out by reporters. At least that's what I heard reported at The Hill, still can't read the initial article due to paywall and archive links not working for me for some reason.

The MP in question is a Conservative ex-Minister (under Cameron, May and Johnson) while Brand is an anti-establishment Marxist (to the extent he is anything). So if there is a political motivation it's might not map exactly to what people may think.

This is like Google confessing to the censorship of the World Socialist Website to prove how neutral they are. The UK conservatives in particular are an especially bad example of opposition to the woke establishment.

Conservatives (most of them at least) are the establishment, how "woke" they are varies. In many cases political stories in the UK are better explained by looking at establishment vs anti-establishment than left vs right.