site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   28591 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 25, 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.

Basically I think that social media does the opposite of what it's supposed to do. Instead of being social, it's anti-social. Instead of drawing us together by helping us connect, it forces us into either bitter arguments or monotonous echo chambers. Instead of getting regular people to post their own stuff ("you" tube), it encourages us to watch the viral videos from others. It's essentially just television now, but with no commercial breaks and an algorithm to make it more addictive. It makes us passive, alienated, and dissatisfied. We abandon our real social connections, feel lonely, and try to fix the loneliness through a parasocial pseudo-relationship with these influencers on social media who we can't interact with in any meaningful way.

One option might be to go even harder and have a social network where there's a hard limit on the number of people you can connect with. Myspace used to sort of do this with their "top ten friends" list back in the day. It could also require the relationship be two-way, so that I can't follow a celebrity unless they also follow me back. I'm just sick of our culture being more and more driven by celebrity worship.

Who decides what it's "supposed to do"? What gives any such person the right to dictate that?

For that matter, how do you know there aren't already sites that work exactly the way you think, but you don't know about them, because they aren't as popular or well-advertised? That would imply that the way all existing well-known sites work is exactly how their users and their owners think they should work. I think private chat groups, as exist in pretty much every messaging app, are much more like this, but by their nature aren't well-known.

So by saying you want a law, as an "interesting experiment". Laws mean people will be fined, potentially lose their livelihoods, get thrown in jail, etc. Somehow I don't think the people who would be affected by such a law will find this "experiment" quite so "interesting". Particular when you are forcing every site and all of the users to do things they actively dislike to satisfy your notions about how they "should" work, when there are already alternatives that work that way.

My response is going to sound kind of hostile, but that's just because I don't know how else to format it. You're asking me a lot of questions, and they're good questions, I just think they've been discussed enough already that I can short-circuit the answers.

Who decides what it's "supposed to do"?

me. Or: me as filtered through the democratic process.

What gives any such person the right to dictate that?

The first amendment gives me the right to state my opinion about anything

how do you know there aren't already sites that work exactly the way you think

I have searched and not found any

That would imply that the way all existing well-known sites work is exactly how their users and their owners think they should work.

No, that would imply it's a market failure, where short-term profit incentives make everyone worse off. Just like how the prisoner's dilemma makes both prisoner's lose, no matter how smart they are. The market is not perfect.

Laws mean people will be fined, potentially lose their livelihoods, get thrown in jail, etc

Yes that is how laws work. Somehow I manage to live my life despite the dystopian hell of being forced to pay taxes, register my car, not steal stuff, etc. Somehow I make do.

My idea is this would be enacted by law, on every social media platform, or at least all the ones under US control. It would be exactly like a financial tax- no one likes paying them, but we recognize that it's kind of bad to let a handful of plutocrats control all of the money. In some ways social capital inequality is worse: I don't lose any money when Elon gets richer, but it makes it harder for me to get views on my tweets if everyone is focusing their limited attention span on him and a handful of other mega-influencers.

Oh, i know it would be unpopular. But it would be an interesting experiment, dont you think? Social media companies have a huge network effect and moat. People seem to just stick with the main player, no matter what.

We may actually get a test of this, if tiktok gets banned in the US. Will teens learn how to sideload it, or will they switch to a new app? I really dont know!

I just found out that apparently Facebook has been doing something like this recently. They've rejiggered they're algorithm so that we now see more posts from just regular, random users. So uh, at least Mark Zuckerberg agrees with me... for whatever that's worth.

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