site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   38610 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 15, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the proposed solution (expropriating PRC influence) doesn't imply the implied result (better Social Media quality)

The point isn't to make the media high-quality, the point is to make it not be controlled by our geopolitical opponent. And the latter is 100% achievable.

By giving it to the partisan opponent*, who has a much more relevant and contemporary history of abusing the algorithm for partisan gains in the American political context.

*Of Donald Trump, whose non-support for the Biden Administration on this matter was the starting point for this thread tangent, and whose non-support is the subject to be contested / discredited.

And thus we return to the first response to Ashlael, which you have not disputed and seem intent on not acknowledging:

Donald Trump has just spent the better part of the last decade under unmitigated information warfare by the controlled or aligned media channels of the Democratic Party. Why would he want to support a Democratic administration assert control/coercion over another social media platform?

Which brings to question the validity of appeals to commonality and common interest.

In the context of this, there is no 'our' being discussed here, because the 'our' is one in which the critical portion that needs to be enabled / supported is hostile to the other part of the 'our' in the same general fashion as it claims as justification for the collective effort.

Which concludes with the ending of the previous post to you-

For a commonality argument to hold over something like 'Trust me to take over your media alternative, bro,' there needs to be a degree of social trust to give that, and social agreement of what the nature of the problem is being addressed to warrant extending that trust to resolve. None of the key proponents have it, and not understanding that- or why social trust is necessary- is precisely why the argument resorts to 'because Chinese!', and why it fails to move the domestic opposition skeptics.

By giving it to the partisan opponent

No. The White House wouldn't run the algorithm. It would just need to be divested to a western acquirer. Didn't read the rest of your post since it started off on such an ignorant and/or dishonest foot.

Yes, the White House will determine who gets to runs the algorithm. The American Executive Branch agencies and regulators will be the ones to determine who is a suitable western acquirer for the American wing of TikTok, a process which will give various approval, veto, and other shaping opportunities on various security and/or anti-monopoly basis.

Didn't read the rest of your post since it started off on such an ignorant and/or dishonest foot.

You didn't seem to read the rest of the other posts either, so your projection is understandable.

You suggested that they'd control it directly, which is false

You still don't seem to have read the rest of the other posts either, so your projection is understandable.

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