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 -
Roko was banned for revealing Alice and Chloe's real names. It's not hard to figure out their names, but I'll refrain from revealing them, to prevent the search engines from linking them to this.
I want to highlight this comment, contrasting the nonlinear environment with normal professional employment. Erica had the insight that Alice and Chloe might be "exploited immigrants," and indeed they are from Germany and Denmark.
Chloe is still active in EA, with a similar job title, but hopefully her current job is lower stress and more aligned with her interests. Her boyfriend from Puerto Rico has also continued in the EA space and has several posts on EA forums.
Alice has been deleting some of her online activity, and possibly changing her name. She frequents vegan restaurants and continues to be poly (amazingly, with prediction markets).
When the real names are that easy to find, the ethics of enforcing a prohibition on 'doxxing' get a bit weird. What, exactly, are you protecting?
Probably, most people are just lazy and won't look anyway, so it still has a significant effect on the number of peripheral people who know. But I think people feel like they're really protecting alice/chloe's names more than they are.
It's also somehow funny that he only got a 1 week ban from the forum. It feels very short.
(note: I only quickly crosschecked with your descriptions, not with the nonlinear post content)
When Scott wrote that the NYT article would make his job more difficult, I was sympathetic but curious. It's easy to find his previous handle yvain and his old blog and then his personal site where he has his name. Despite his poor op-sec of not making a hard break between identities, patients couldn't easily google his name to find his somewhat controversial postings. All was well until adding Scott's full name to Metz's article did more harm than good.
The current case isn't quite so clear. Starting with Alice and Chloe's real names, you quickly (without archive.org) find references to Nonlinear. But you have to put a few things together to connect with the current controversy.
Even without doxxing, it may be awkward when Alice/Chloe apply for their next job in the EA sphere. Upon seeing their résumés, the interviewer might ask, "was your experience at infamous Nonlinear as bad as Alice's?"
Of course, the reputations of Ben / Kat / Emerson are much more directly impacted. I think the common theme is that they didn't know (or care) about the normal standards for investigative journalism / employment. Not that I would've done much better, but spirited rejection of Chesterton's fences to escape local optima probably makes things worse.
More options
Context Copy link
Norms, generally. Deanonomizing people is something I'd rather not become allowable, and the incompetence of others shouldn't affect me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link