site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29270 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A fine of 9000$ is quite something. A sufficiently determined tyrant will force ISPs to report connections to known VPN services. Can an ISP identify VPN endpoints by the nature of the traffic (not easily, I think)? What safer alternatives are there to the simple 'select VPN service, pay, connect'?

As far as I understand he didn’t ban VPNs, only VPNs used to access Twitter. That makes enforcement much harder.

That all your traffic is to a single endpoint is a pretty big clue that you’re routing it through a VPN. For popular services the IPs are also necessarily public since the clients need that information in order to establish the connection. So, identify all the single endpoint clients, then compare against a list of known VPN IPs, and you’ve caught a lot of violaters.

Though if you’re using something like AWS to provide your VPN service I suppose it would be trivial to add a feature that allocates a new IP just for you, just for the length of your session. Heck, you could have it switched it out every few minutes to confuse the government’s tracking effort. Or establish a dozen VPN tunnels and round robin packets through them.

Plenty of companies use VPN logins as security for remote connections though -- I don't think you can just ban this kind of traffic without a lot of collateral damage.

Back in the long-ago of the 2007-2009 era, various electronic freedom groups established and encouraged a wide variety of individual users to establish limited VPNs and forwarding services, as a parallel-but-less-fraught alternative to the then-new Tor network. I'm... not so optimistic we'll see a recurrence of that.

You could enforce a VPN licensing regime where only licensed companies are approved to run/access VPNs.

There's always Tor, or the dVPNs. But a sufficiently aggressive State can slowly figure out a list of badwrong IPs. To say nothing of more sophisticated techniques.

Ironically the one thing that defeats this is Starlink, since it's essentially impossible to jam and never interacts with local infrastructure. They can't take the sky from you.

The drawback is that the physical terminals are large and can be made illegal.

This is really no different from the numerous bans on satellite television by all sorts of tinpot dictators in the past. And even under such bans, dishes were super common because football.

The one practical way you can attack this is not technical but political, with states colluding to shut down Musk for undermining them. But this is a hard sell to the US because Starlink is critical military infrastructure.

Every time I've tried Tor, it was extremely slow to the point of being unusable.

Same. I would only ever use Tor to e.g. read The Great Replacement while I was in New Zealand, where I could leave it loading while I grabbed a sandwich. It's completely non-viable for something like Twitter or 4chan.

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