site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26705 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 20, 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.

7
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Either something really strange is going on behind the scenes (like a pseudo government take over) or the board are complete clowns.

My bet is on them being clowns. Or, more charitably, out of their league. How many of them actually have any experience in boardroom intrigue? To loosely quote one journalist about a similar experience:

My first intimate encounters with the police were quite sobering. Here you are, a relatively famous journalist being questioned by a dull-looking criminal investigator. You are the master of the written and spoken word, you are, if not very smart, then definitely smarter that this uniformed oaf in front of you that can't use more than one finger to type your answers. You know what you should never say to the police, so you carefully choose every word of your replies, which the investigator dutifully records. And yet he then glances at the screen, looks at you and asks you a question that leaves you dumbfounded. How could you let yourself be led into this trap when you were his intellectual superior? And yet you yourself answered A to the first question, B to the second question, so C and D, which both prove your culpability, are the only possible answers to the third one.

I don’t know if they were out of their leagues. And I don’t think Toner was even wrong. But our entire system is made to push things forward and one side had better cards. AI Safety died to the system.

If I were an AI researcher with 8-9 figure pay package on the line I probably would have favored the Sam/Msft deal even if I had very serious safety concerns. It too hard to turn off the human drive to move forward and achieve.

"Obviously I'm smarter than this guy, therefore there's zero danger when I play his game, on his turf"

Where did you get that story from? I’d love to read the rest of it.

It's from Arkady Babchenko, https://pastebin.com/9xw4R2PW

That reiterates the 10 words everyone needs to know when dealing with the police:

"I'm not answering any questions, and I want a lawyer."

Then you shut your trap.

See also Nathan Burney's excellent Self-Incrimination Flowchart, which lays out in detail exactly how to avoid incriminating yourself in the US.

https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897

English, courtesy of GPT4: https://pastebin.com/UPGRajKA

Thank you. GPT4 blows DeepL out of the water, I didn't expect this level of quality.

Thanks! Now I am curious about real or fictional record of such interrogation.

I get that it can be done, now I am curious about how it works in practice. And not so curious to go to Russia (or irritate FBI) to look at it in practice.

Here you go

https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=1607 - the second half of the don't talk to the police talk.

Eventually - you are in a room, nervous with persons that have all the time in the world to grill you. And they can do it until you are tired, sleepy, dizzy or whatever. All while your adrenaline is rushing and you feel helpless.

Por que no los dos?

Fair enough.

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