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 -
Senator Josh Hawley:
Huh? For reference, section 230 is here. In short, section 230 says that companies aren't liable for information posted on their websites by third parties. This means that Google can't be sued for showing ISIS.com on your search results, because ISIS is a third party, and ISIS.com is their content, not Google's. Section 230 doesn't apply to generative AI because generative AI isn't a third party. If Google Gemini replies to your prompt with, "Thank you for joining ISIS. Recommended pipebomb targets in your area are X, Y, and Z," Google can't use section 230 as a defense if Y sues them for being bombed, because Google generated the information.
If I were to steelman Hawley's point, I guess it would be that Google as a company benefits from section 230, and so repealing it would punish them for creating "woke" AI and cut off a source of funds for AI development, but I don't think Hawley's use of the phrase "these AI companies" is easily read as referring to only "AI companies which are bankrolled by social media products."
If you are familiar with simulacrum levels, you may have had a bit of difficulty grokking level 4. I think an intuitive definition of level 4 is, "politician speak that doesn't fit into levels 1, 2, or 3". Which level is the tweet by Hawley on? It's not 1, because it isn't true. It's not really 2, because it's not trying to convince you of a proposition. It's not 3, replace "conservatives" with "liberals" and "Google Gemini" with "𝕏", and it could be from AOC. That leaves 4. It's just word associations. Woke AI is bad. Tech companies make woke AI. Section 230 something something big tech censorship. Put it in a box, shake it up, let the manatees do their thing, post whatever comes out to Twitter.
One formal method might be creating a body against historical falsification or radical ideology in AI to fine companies. Or you could have various agencies find trouble with companies that don't uphold the party line, informally demonstrate the penalties for unorthodoxy. You could prevent state funds buying Google shares or withhold govt contracts.
Texas took steps to curb funds that were anti-oil/gas.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/07/texas-investment-funds-teacher-retirement-system-esg/
But realistically this won't happen because the state isn't really opposed to this kind of thing. Hawley hardly seems to care either, he wants to let somebody else try to do something about it! Repealing 230 is barely related to the issue, it's milquetoast and pathetic. To be fair, he says that Big Tech controls the Senate so it's beyond his power:
A very obvious problem is that any “Ministry of Truth” will only be able to be as neutral as the chosen historian and those who choose the historian will be in full control of what is considered “Truth” in a historical context (at least in this case, though any official fact checking runs into this problem), and it would be basically a political position appointed by the people running the government at any point.
To give a real quick example, well, Trump. To the Right, especially the MAGA wing, he’s a great president, did lots of good things and is being persecuted for being Biden’s political rival. To the Left, he’s an embarrassment, wants to be a dictator, racist, caused an insurrection, and committed lots of crimes for which he is now being held accountable. Depending on which party gets to appoint the historian, Trump is either the greatest president ever, or the Antichrist. And much like Supreme Court justices were vetted almost exclusively on Roe vs. Wade opinions, the historian will be vetted on his opinions on controversial topics in American history. Do you think 1/6 was an insurrection? Do you think Indians moved to reservations was genocide? Do you agree that Zionism is good or bad? Go down the list and you can absolutely find topics that while they’re about history, one’s political ideology colors how they see the events and even if they occurred at all.
I'm sure that everyone (Nazis included) agrees that the SS was not full of blacks. Maybe Netflix thinks English Kings circa 1300 were black but their opinions are not shared by the historical community.
Furthermore, states have opinions about politics and ideology. Schools teach ideology. State media teaches ideology. States use their influence to strengthen friendly voices and suppress opposing voices. It's absolutely routine, including in the US. They already put this stuff in school textbooks, that Jan 6th was an insurrection. Flinching away from using state power is a sure way to get state power used by someone else against you.
The US clearly thinks it's good. They've devoted enormous effort to supporting and advancing Zionism and suppressing its critics.
But that’s exactly the point. Having any sort of historical “fact checker” just means the politicization of history even more so than it is today. As it is with most other things. Even with funding, you can easily end up with the Official History and only paying for things that support whatever the Powers that Be want to be true. And therefore I think it’s a question of being careful what you wish for because you just might get it, only to find it weaponized against you. It would become a highly politicized and subjective interpretation of history that exists at the behest of the state and would be used to condemn the alternative viewpoints as misinformation and the mainline opinions of the state become The History (much like weaponized science today) where you will be shamed and silenced and fact-checked for saying things not in line with The History whether or not its actually true. The case for masks was ambivalent at best, yet because the official line was “masking works and saves lives” people were shamed, bullied and silenced for questioning it. Posting a cloth face mask and showing that your breath escapes from the sides (which is true) became something routinely deleted and modded to the point where I still see people wear masks in public.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link