site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37968 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 8, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is that different from the Sokal Hoax? Are they both bad? Both good?

You know, my mind pre-emptively went to "I'm gonna have to defend the Sokal or Sokal^2 Hoaxes aren't I?"

I donno. Personally, if it isn't clear already, I would never wage that sort of information war, for any reason, period. It's not in my nature to lie or deceive in such a premeditated, Machiavellian manner. Although sometimes my friends tell me I exaggerate for comedic effect. Then again, one time I was telling a story about how fat the people at Gencon were, and my friends thought I had to be exaggerating. Then they came the year after and apologized for ever doubting me.

I think a stronger case can be made for the Sokal hoaxes, in that an institution is claiming to process papers with rigor. You need to stress test that from time to time, like when internal agents try to get a bomb past the TSA.

The TSA nearly always fails too.

I think it's a lot less defensible when you can convince internet randos, even internet randos of some notoriety or influence, of nonsense. Then you are just acting like a run of the mill troll off Something Awful, 4chan or KiwiFarms. Especially when it's of specific false instances of things that are absolutely actually happening elsewhere.

Going back to the TSA example, it's almost like the test was not "Can we get a bomb through the TSA" but "Wouldn't it be funny if we convinced the TSA something was a bomb that wasn't actually a bomb?" Well no, that just makes you an asshole.

That last bit reminds me of this kid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident

Yeah, that would have been my answer too. Scientific institutions ought to be held to a higher standard than random people screenshotting bad behavior of the other side.

There's definitely overlap in framework that they're all pissing in the drinking water, so to speak, but I think there are layers of issues, here:

  • Sokal's hoax was pretty self-evidently not real, and the editors, at least theoretically, had the capability to check that. Even if they didn't, they could have asked almost anyone with a physics background for a sanity check. There's little, if any, evidence they felt it necessary.
  • (Sokal also published under his own name, and while that was part of how he exploited Social Text's vulnerabilities, it also meant that he was somewhat more vulnerable to counteraction: had Social Text noticed the paper was bunk and either reported him pre-publication or published with a disclaimer of some kind, it could have absolutely wrecked his career. Sokal Squared and Sokal III didn't, and at least a couple of the Sokal Squared articles weren't clearly wrong so much as just stupid, so I'd put them lower down the scale.)
  • The LoTT hoax was not sufficiently supported by the evidence. Trace's cover story could provide quite a large variety of explanations why any gaps or weirdness in the existed, but could not provide any way to confirm the story. To a rationalist should be a very good cautionary tale! And I'm absolutely an advocate of validating information no matter how expert the speaker is! But it's also a high standard in a context where a) it's very likely that a 'real' story would have been extremely hard to verify or disprove, b) his coexperimenters further provided support for his claims in ways that would have made even that marginal. (The cover story and rdrama community's laissez faire approach to preregistration of experiments also made this vulnerable to publication bias.)
  • Gerard's work here isn't really about testing the institutions, and to a much larger extent about making the checks not exist; checking his work was not just hard, unlikely, or practically impossible, but impossible at a logical level. At most, someone opposed to his edits could argue that he shouldn't be the one posting them (WP:COI) or try to argue that whole sites are unreliable. Wikipedia's tools for handling bad or marginal sources are ad hoc and kinda the crux of various contradictions between WP:OR and the impossibility of outsourcing evaluation of evidence, and in many cases Gerard had a pretty heavy thumb on the scales for those backup tools, too. That's... not just a difference in quantity, but of quality.

I'm not a fan of any of them -- I've pointed in the past to nydrwaku as an example of trolling aimed at people I hate that I still think is pretty damned bad for mainstream discourse, and I pushed back on the LoTT hoax contemporaneously -- but I think Sokal is less bad, and Gerard more so.

I mean, up front, I think I was clear I don't think Tracing is as bad as Gerard. At least not to my knowledge. Nobody has put together a comprehensive manifesto covering 30 years of his internet history yet. I was pointing out that they both have engaged in information war against their political opponents, and it doesn't sound like you dispute that?

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