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 -
So, uh, I feel like this post straddles the line between Friday Fun Thread, because I'm only like, 49% serious about it, but it's definitely culture war worthy, so, you know. Please remember I'm only partially serious. I'm not going to die on this hill, and gun to my head, I don't really think this happened. But... I think it could have.
Could Steven Crowder's Marriage Have Been Targeted by Silicon Valley?
Steven Crowder has gone the route of many youtubers into, IMHO, algorithm triggered insanity. Youtube content creators have been having mental health struggles for almost as long as it's been a job. I saw one youtuber describe it as having a robot boss that refuses to tell you what they want. And you keep throwing effort into their implacable gaping maw, and wait to see if the algorithm rewards you with income. If it does or doesn't, you have no idea either way what you did to please it. But you know you must.
This may have hit it's high water mark when a mentally ill Youtuber went to shoot up Youtube's offices.
So I see lots of content creators lose their damned mind. Something in the algorithm changes, they can't pay their bills anymore, they can't contact any actual human at Youtube about what to do, and gradually or suddenly they begin acting erratically out of desperation and anxiety. Steven Crowder was no different. His deteriorating mental health, paranoia, and controlling behavior are as plain to see as the sun in the sky.
What was different about Crowder was we know that he was specifically targeted by social media companies.
So, if we take as a given that algorithm chasing drives people insane, and that furthermore Steven Crowder was specifically targeted by Silicon Valley, what does that have to do with his marriage?
Well, on a human level, divorce is a social contagion of sorts. Backtracking and caveats aside, the raw numbers go like this
And when you are talking about social media's influence on divorce
But this is all the background radiation from the no-fault divorce atom bomb going off 50 years ago.
Could Silicon Valley, not unlike how they targeted Crowder's business through the algorithm, having also targeted his marriage? Could they have crafted an Iago algorithm and had it target Crowder and his wife: to sow distrust, resentment, and a belief that there are better options out there? Ten years ago Facebook was caught experimenting on user's emotions by adjusting the algorithm they were exposed to.. It's not like they don't have the technology.
Do we have any information about the divorce? Anything that would indicate that this makes sense? I'll cop that I have no idea who this is, so maybe it's obvious.
I googled briefly and all that came up was a bunch of hit-piece articles and reddit discussions of them, which all aired grievances that ranged from the cringe-inducing (he didn't show up to the birth of his kids) to the maybe-horrible-but-probably-just-a-bad-day (ring video of him berating his pregnant wife for taking the car when he needed it or something) to the milquetoast and probably exaggerated (workplace gossip that he was sending around pictures of his penis to other male staff).
The divorce appears to have been filed immediately after the birth of their twins.
I find it far more likely that YouTube personalities typically are already, and nearly always become, obnoxious people to be around. Jordan Peterson is sort of the Platonic Ideal of watching the degradation of a human being exposed to too much culture warring in real time. From this to this in just a few short years.
I heard the audio and it was egregious. Articles about it may sound like hit pieces because of how very bad he sounds in that recording.
I might overcorrect towards giving people some grace on these things, because I can't imagine ever talking to my wife like that, it's so far outside of my experience that I don't want to assume I know what people are thinking. I know many people have more contentious relationships than I do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did Peterson’s wife also get a really bad prognosis at around the time he took the benzos?
The social media stuff didn’t help.
Yeah, though losing his clinical license had more to do with off the cuff podcasts and irritable tweets. I disagree with Canada that irritable tweets deserves that kind of response, but it did sound like the social media presence that gave them the ammunition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Jordan Peterson is a case where we know he was targeted for destruction, because the people doing it said they were doing it. The mob helped, natural social media mechanics helped, but there were malicious actors with an open goal of "neutralizing an influencer radicalizing young men by any means necessary."
...So "they" made him take the Benzos?
I think this enemies put him under more pressure than a man can reasonably be expected to bear, and eventually it was too much. I still vividly remember the Cathy Newman (Channel 4) interview: I have never seen an interviewer more clearly intent on ruining someone. He won that bout, but enduring that over and over again would wreck anybody.
In case it's not obvious, I have a lot of sympathy for Peterson. Many influencers are indeed obnoxious grifters, but Peterson really does seem to have been a good man who was trying his best. Having people come after you like that changes the way you look at the world. I had a much smaller, more intimate experience along the same lines and it definitely radicalised me in many ways.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know about Peterson's case specifically, but benzos are on the list of medications that reasonably-often get administered without consent or with dubious consent (e.g. I was offered them immediately following a suicide attempt, before they even got around to transferring me to the psych ward, and my understanding is that the more-hostile psych patients get given them by force).
More options
Context Copy link
That's exactly the response I expected, don't know why I bothered
I don’t either.
If you expected this, don’t act so sore when it happens.
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps you could proactively explain how these malicious actors got to him. I also don't suppose these bad people made his wife sick or made him take drugs.
He seems extra pissed at anonymity and posting how it's bad. Very incongruous with the rest of the stuff he is loud pn-
I suspect he was getting trolled real, real hard by some sociopaths, probably left wing. (bigger, smarter group of his enemies )
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
More options
Context Copy link
If you look at this in relationship terms, this is gaslighting and abuse. Entity A is trying to act according to entity B's rules, but B is deliberately altering natural feedback in order to keep entity A isolated and weak. All A sees is that they try things that should work, but there's no sign of those things working, and so their model of the world gradually disconnects from reality.
I didn't see a link to the paper, but the article gave no indication that there was a reason to suppose a causal link. It seems entirely plausible that there's a hidden 3rd factor that contributes to divorce rates in both the subject, and in the subject's social circle. It seems like a lot of "post hoc ergo propter hoc". (And you identify a potential mechanism and cause for a 3rd factor later!)
I doubt very much that it's deliberate. Bullies don't usually set out to cause the exact set of symptoms that their victims develop. Perhaps there were people who were deliberately pushing this guy's buttons to see what kind of damage they could do, but even if someone takes credit for intentionally causing the result, I suspect that it'd just be narcissistic post facto justfication at work. ("Yes, of course I planned that, aren't I smart?")
Ain’t nothing natural about this feedback. A is taking a trip into weird corners of the psyche even before B starts pulling the rug.
The converse is when people talk about social media as addictive, promoting gambling, and so on. It’s a crazy artificial environment we hooked up in pursuit of…cred. Money. Connection? Weirdness should be the default assumption.
In some ways, it seems like a game, or most other types of job. It's an artificial toy system, but as long as it's kept contained, there's nothing horribly unusual about molding a bit of your brain into a shape that reacts to the output of the system. (Whether doing so is "good" is a different question, but it often seems to be necessary for modern life.) But yeah, there's a huge problem when you start altering your basic personality and political views based on artificial outputs, especially if you're not aware that that's what you're doing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, yes? But probably not? And do you have any corroborating data outside of Crowder sitting in the middle of this Venn Diagram? "People shadowbanned by YouTube" & "People who got divorced?" Is anyone else even speculating about this?
I think any persuasive case would have to include some sort of theory for why instigating a divorce would be in any way beneficial to the conspirators. Is it known that non-divorced right-wing comedians are less desired by social media outlets? Or is the idea that social media companies are interested in causing divorces for some other reason and just picked people they don't like as guinea pigs?
It's pretty obvious to me that influencers pushing Right Wing trad values should have happy marriages, and if they don't it's a significant blow against their credibility. This is just personal, I hold the old fashioned view that if a person can't practice what they preach it throws significant doubt on their system.
There’s a place for people dealing with life stressors insisting that right wing trad values are a major component of them not shooting themselves or OD’ing or just becoming an alcoholic.
So the argument is, if not for religion my life would be even worse?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
With AI, the odds of automating zersetzung are approaching 100%.
It's much less disruptive than jailing people, and probably cheaper.
That really is the key behind my fears of SV. They have so much information at their fingertips. It's already known that even 10 years ago they were experimenting on directly influencing how we feel. I'm supposed to believe there is anything stopping them, any moral or legal barrier, from developing systems that act just like this? The deleterious effects of social media algorithms on mental health are already well understood, but they craft them because it's good for their bottom line. Why would they not lean into the explicitly harmful effects, and unleash it on their enemies? What we already know they do, and have done, is proof of malice enough.
I'd not really fear SV that much, but what D.C. gestapo contractors and their opposite numbers in China are going to do.
More options
Context Copy link
"You never know how evil a technology can be until the engineers who designed it fear for their jobs." -Stewart Baker
Probably related would be to say that you never know how evil a law can be until the politicians who passed it fear for their electoral prospects.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The subtext here seems to be that women specifically can be socially influenced to dump their husbands because they see other women dumping their husbands. Am I wrong?
I think as a "jk... unless?" theory, this is about as plausible as any conspiracy theory. Could "Silicon Valley" theoretically target some individual and try to destroy his marriage? Yeah, I guess there are enough people with the social engineering and technical skills, and the money, to engineer some sort of anti-Crowder campaign. But, uh, who, exactly? And why? Crowder might have been targeted on social media; we know this doesn't take a whole lot of coordination, just a few activists in the right places at Facebook and Twitter. But deliberately trying to destroy his marriage? With this level of deep psychological warfare? What boardrooms and labs was this plan cooked up in, and is Stephen Crowder really the lowest-hanging (or most hated) fruit for them to target?
It doesn't add up, on so many levels.
Let me recommend another book to you: Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue, by Ryan Holiday.
It's actually really good, and interesting. As you may recall, Peter Thiel set out to destroy Gawker, for a variety of reasons (not "because they outed him" - that is covered in more detail in the book), and he did so by secretly funding a lawsuit against them brought by Terry Bollea, aka Hulk Hogan. The details are fascinating, but the point I am making in recommending this book is that Peter Thiel, an actual Silicon Valley billionaire with the money to fund James Bond villain schemes, engaged in an actual conspiracy to destroy an enemy, and even his "conspiracy" was fundamentally just mundane lawfare with an extra layer of intrigue. Now, maybe some other billionaires are in fact funding secret projects to sow divorce amongst their enemies via social contagion, but when you look at what we can see real people actually doing, it seems very difficult and very unlikely (even for billionaires!) to pull off these sorts of shower thought Illuminati schemes.
Maybe. But Thiel is not the only model for how to execute a "conspiracy". I often think about the Cult of Scientology, especially when their "Fair game" doctrine was in effect. I wish I still had the article, but one journalist in the 70's and 80's covering them was harassed by them night and day. But probably the most insidious part was that scientologist also covertly insinuated themselves as her "friends".
I think the article I remember might have been about Paulette Cooper? I mean, look at some of these details!
In many ways, elements of the cult conspiracy against a reporter hostile to them are easier today than ever. You don't need to anonymously spread fliers when you can have the algorithm spread information for you. You don't need to break into their physical offices when you own more data on them through their internet usage than was even imaginable to Scientologist in the 70's. You don't need to find any actual people to be their friends when catfishing with fake profiles is so easy!
I'd argue, executing a Scientologist style Operation Dynamite or Operation Freakout is easier than ever, and could largely be automated through the use of algorithms.
As it happens, I've read several books about Scientology also (including the one by David Miscavige's niece), and the problem Scientology has today is the same one a lot of your hypothetical conspiracies would have: yes, in theory the technology exists to do all these nefarious things, but the pulling it off secretly and without opposition is a lot harder. Scientology nowadays has a real recruiting problem and almost all growth is via next generation members raised in the cult, because anyone can get on the Internet and look up "Xenu," and for every dirty trick Scientologists try to pull online, there are thousands of motivated opponents ready to fight back in kind.
Scientology used to run these operations against reporters and succeeded in bullying the IRS into giving them tax exempt status, but it's not likely such tactics would work as well today (if you've seen their attempts to discredit ex-Scientologist critics like Leah Remini, they just look lame and desperate).
Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion by Janet Reitman, is very critical, and yet the church was actually pretty cooperative with her (and to my knowledge, never attempted to intimidate or harass her).
People like conspiracy theories because they have a pleasant explanatory power: things I hate are engineered by shadowy, evil cabals acting in secret. If only they could be exposed or fought! Clearly these things cannot happen organically, or because thousands of factions often acting at cross-purposes bring about a lot of the things I don't like. But people just aren't that organized, they aren't that efficient, they aren't that secretive. The same reason you should be afraid of the state of the world (because there are no "grown ups" in charge somewhere, who have the will and the means to pull a few levers of power and keep shit from getting out of control, the economy and global politics are all basically running on daily ad hoc decisions far more than long-term planning) is the reason you should not get too wrapped up in the idea of Illuminati conspiring to make your life worse.
Getting bogged down in the details of what Scientology, as an organization, is capable of today is totally beside the point that they prove a conspiracy of the type I outline is possible, and easier than ever. Maybe not for them, as they aren't what they used to be. But for someone sufficiently motivated.
Who knows, maybe in 20 years people will be leaving the Current Year cult, spilling the secrets of the things they were "forced" to do at the time.
And once again, forget, for a moment, the notion of a "conspiracy". Going back to Scientology, sure, elements of their attacks were conspiratorial. They had a whole office of dirty tricks. But there was also a prospiracy side to it. They declared a person "fair game", and all their member's knew what that meant. They didn't need to be told to do anything in specifics.
People like Crowder have been declared "fair game" by the successor ideology. Imagine some "rogue employee" at Facebook deciding "LOL, I'm going to manually add Crowder and Mrs Crowder's accounts to the 'hate algorithm' list." Same as how some "rogue employee" (at least when caught) always seems to be adding them to shadowban, suppression, and other soft or hard blacklist. Next thing we know, Crowder and Mrs Crowder are just angry all the time for reasons beyond their ken, and are fighting constantly. Per my last link, the tools already exist! Facebook as algorithms that can manipulate your emotional state, and they can place users on them.
The details are relevant because you're claiming that "Scientology once succeeded in conspiracy shit" is evidence that someone else could do the same thing today, and I don't think that sort of conspiracy (a literal cult trying to destroy an individual with social engineering) is so easy to do today, especially in the dispersed online way you are proposing.
There is no Current Year cult. There's trans activism, BLM, Free Palestine, whatever else you want to categorize under the broad umbrella of "wokeism," but I am fundamentally disagreeing with you that these things are engineered by shadowy cabals somewhere or being manufactured by a bunch of Silicon Valley nerds doing A/B testing on memes. You don't need to wait for anyone to "spill secrets" - we already know how it happens, through social pressure and conformity and agreeableness, not because someone did some Ludovico conditioning on them or inserted fnords into their social media. There are plenty of people who have "escaped the Woke cult" and talked about how and why they bought into it in the first place.
Basically anyone has been declared "fair game" by the successor ideology. The result is Twitter pileons, sometimes deplatforming, but
You seem pretty invested in a very science fictional notion for someone saying you don't really believe this. "Facebook can plug you into a hate algorithm and pretty soon you and your wife are heading for divorce" is kind of like Shiri's Scissor - it's a great concept, works for a short story, but I've seen too many people (including here) take this kind of dystopian brain hacking far too seriously and literally.
Read it again
It's not science fiction.
This seems very intuitive to me, and I'm not surprised that it's true, and I don't discount the power of the algorithm, but it's worth noting that aggregate results among nearly 700,000 users is VERY different from being able to target a specific individual for divorce. Especially over 700,000 users, small effects that a single user wouldn't notice (or even be affected by) show up, even without any sort of p-hacking.
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
More options
Context Copy link
Conspiracies require conspirators. There cannot be conspiracy in SV to bring down a leftist media outlet, since leftists control it at every level. If one guy does have this goal, he is acting as a lone wolf.
Now the story of 2020 election and social media moderation policies would probably be more akin to what people think is a conspiracy. Due to the previously mention leftist capture, documents won't get leaked and whistleblowers won't appear. There are far less anti-leftists in SV than anti-Thiel people, and the former risk retaliation if they out anti-Trump schemes.
Are you saying Peter Thiel was a lone wolf, or are you claiming Gawker was not a leftist media outlet?
Thiel was indeed a lone wolf. A very big lone wolf, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Excuse me for fixating on a pet peeve but- hey this is half for fun anyway right?
Social Contagion... is 100% real and also a phrase that I find deeply annoying. Every cultural norm spreads socially. It just feels like a deepity. Or a Motte and Baily. The Baily is that your behavior wasn't rational or that it is problematic, the Motte is that your behavior was learned from other actors.
To be clear in this instance I agree that a high divorce rate is not a good thing. At the very least, I'd like people to be cultivating mutually beneficial, flourishing relationships that do not merit breaking up.
But I still think "It spreads socially." and "Current policy on this issue can be improved and here is how." should be argued separately.
I'm less interested in litigating what to call the social factors of divorce, than establishing as a data point that people can be influenced to divorce, so I can move onto other data points that assume that. It sounds like we agree on that.
I think so. I think its worth questioning how much of the issue is premature marriage to the wrong person and how much is detrimentally weak commitment to the right person. Depending on your priors, you might think that a given divorce is the result of either failure state or a combination. And they merit different sorts of solutions. Better matchmaking, vs better relationship norms and counseling. I'm in the both camp.
...
This reminds me that as a minister I have something of a responsibility to the couples I marry.
It seems I'm reading your linked articles now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link