site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28474 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 2024

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 New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The usual suspects are of course having a bit of fun with this one.

Maybe it's part of the prompt but the lighting on these is awful. They look like plastic action figures. Or like they're covered in vegetable oil and standing in front of a really harsh fluorescent light.

The "AI sheen" is frighteningly distinct. If you go onto NSFW imageboards, you'll notice it even in thumbnails. I hate how omnipresent it seems to be with AI images, I normally love seeing those kinds of lighting highlights in art, but I hate it now and it's kind of made me hate AI art in recent times. The associative negativity heaped onto AI art worked on me, I guess.

It's obnoxious if you're trying to get (mainstream) models to do anything without using style transfer or similar, since even if you want that sort of lighting highlights Gemini/Bard/Midjourney almost never get them right -- in this example, the rest of the shadows are too diffuse, but it's just as prone to have the highlights themselves be inconsistent.

I'm not sure if it's a result of ingested data (whether Pixar, a particular art style, or just ingest transcoding), or an upscaler involved somewhere on output, or what. Some of the furry models are better at avoiding it (esp if they don't have an NAI leak in their history), which just makes it weirder that it's so present for normal stuff.

Maybe the dataset on 17th century kings is a bunch of paintings, so it gave a strange faux-painted look. But yeah, weird it added a bright white light reflecting off their shiny skin. Like just out of frame are a bunch of fluorescent bulbs.

And for some reason it gave them all a smarmy grin.

Alternate timeline where Edward the Black Prince ascended to the throne.

Oooh this is good trolling. The "you did this to yourself" aspect is very strong here, despite it being obvious that the poster is creating this combination on purpose, which is precisely the balance that a good troll creates.

This is ahistorical. Back then they didn't have seedless watermelons.

Yeah, back a few centuries ago lots of foods were barely recognizable. Watermelons especially so.

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-giovanni-stanchi-watermelons-peaches-pears-a-5765893/?

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