site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   27822 thread views

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
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 seems terrible in that allegations are enough to demonetize someone who earns income from the internet meaning their ability to fully defend themselves (legally and in court of public opinion) is curtailed.

I hope Dame Caroline is accused of something, loses her income streams as a result, cannot defined herself, and goes to prison for something of which she is innocent.

Edit: I don’t know if Brand is innocent, guilty, or somewhere in between. I do know that what Dame is doing is wrong.

If you want to nationalize a content hosting platform that no one is allowed to be kicked off of, or set up a decentralized Tor-alike platform with no moderation possible in principle, or etc., I am 100% in favor.

If we're going to use for-profit private companies as markets, then I don't know, the invisible hand of the market pretty much determines what happens, and a lot of consumers don't like people they think are probably rapists.

It seems just fundamentally incompatible to me to want these platforms to both be private for-profit enterprises governed by market forces, and to enshrine absolutist free-speech principles. I mean, it would be nice if that was something the market did on its own, but obviously it doesn't.

That's why we have a government with a constitution and a Bill of Rights, because those are the things that won't happen spontaneously if things are left to market forces alone.

  • -12

If we're going to use for-profit private companies as markets, then I don't know, the invisible hand of the market pretty much determines what happens, and a lot of consumers don't like people they think are probably rapists.

The invisible hand of the market isn't exactly the relevant force in play when government officials are checking in with a company regarding whether someone will rid them of the meddlesome misinformer. In fact, one might say that it's the entirely visible hand of the government.

If the government were using or even threatening to use legislation or the courts to attack or compel the company, than sure.

I would like that hypothetical world a lot less than the one we're actually in.

In the world we're actually in, the politician is just trying to publicly embarrass the company, with the threat being that consumers who agree with their politics will turn against the company and use it less. The threat is to their brand equity, not their liberty.

  • -13

If the government were using or even threatening to use legislation or the courts to attack or compel the company, than sure.

Which is what they were doing and why the Biden administration has been forced by a court to stop talking to social media companies.

I don't think this case illustrates that, but yes the government has been threatening for a while.

I'd like to answer but I don't know what court order you're talking about, can you link?

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