site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25514 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How does the fact that Rust has a 'woke' council credibly threaten ... anything to do with the programming language (end user experience, developer experience writing in it, etc)? What does the council even do I guess is my question.

There's some casual drama, but a lot of the concern as an outsider depends on exactly how paranoid you are.

Rust's governance is complex, but it can be roughly understood under a hierarchy where the the Leadership Council determines what consists of membership of each Leader's content-specific teams, and each Team's membership controls what RFCs will be accepted by their respective areas of focus: in practice, the members on the Leadership Council generally at least have eyes-on for any serious RFC. (This structure is post-2022; there was some weird drama with the moderation vs core leaders in 2021 that afaik has never been aired publicly).

In theory, this should just mean that material goals, changes, or fixes to compilers or core libraries are likely to reflect the material goals of the Rust Foundation, which is pretty standard, even if not always so explicit.

In practice, there is a very distinct philosophy about community interaction, in the sense that it has a direction. So far, most of this tends to just be intracommunity drama stuff that doesn't impact casual devs and maybe even non-turbo-Red-Tribers who did seek an RFC, but the classical lodestones for principled behavior have been the presence of Palantir devs inside the governance structure. There is definitely a segment that believes that needs to change. (and tbf).

At the moderately paranoid level, Rust is Apache-MIT minus a bunch of copyright cruft (and some other licensing for LVVM), and rust-lang has been aggressive about copyright enforcement in the past. On top of the ugly questions about how much these licenses can really limit the management from changing them in the future, or even bind seriously, if Rust does something like an ethical use license or a common crate requires all users to have a Rust Trans Flag displayed in UI-presenting code. (edit: as an example, a proposed trademark policy (cw: gdocs link) last year required Rust-trademark-bearing conferences to "prohibit the carrying of firearms, comply with local health regulations, and have a robust Code of Conduct." and Rust-trademark-bearing free swag to be "in good taste and compatible with the values of the Project." -- it largely got dropped for other reasons.)

At the aggressively paranoid level, you start to think about changes you might not notice.

Wait, what’s so bad about palantir?

To steelman (and this is something I've seen in the wild, albeit sometimes buried in other arguments), Palantir is a barely-private-sector defense industry asset, and very close to just being an unofficial part of the US government's intelligence agencies due to its funding sources. A Palantir-employed dev has a lot of motivation to insert esoteric vulnerabilities and less than ideally secure settings tracking opportunities; a Palantir-employed governance council member and especially leader has a lot of motivation to recognize RFCs that would include those. This sorta attack is known to have happened to RSA during Operation Orchestra, and remains popular (though denied) for Heartbleed.

To... be less than perfectly charitable, Palantir's use by ICE is controversial: Actual Rust Programmers consider the organization somewhere along "proven to act out genocide against immigrants", and the business's relationship with domestic policing falls into similar lines.

There's been other lower-profile efforts aimed at other development-related businesses -- there's similar drama everywhere from colleges to FIRST to FOSS stuff about Raytheon RTX funding, for one that's moved things at margins -- but for Rust Palantir's funding is one of the big obvious lodestones that both the pro- and anti- side pretty clearly see as the culture war point.

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