site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28003 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 7, 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.

We'll have to see if the FAA or other government agencies move to block Elon from continuing this work. If Kamala gets elected, I worry her administration will attack him and his companies even more aggressively. This successful launch, more than anything else in this election cycle, is making me consider vote for Trump.

Reminder that the only reason they are going after Elon is “mean tweets”

That’s it. That’s the whole crime they’re upset about

They're upset at Elon because they think he doesn't know his place. Aerospace and Car Manufacturing are two big powerful industries in the US. Don't forget about the recent Boeing whistleblower "suicides" where the FBI just shrugged.

He's embarrassed a lot of powerful people and they are trying to teach him to be properly deferential to his betters.

I mean, that's technically true, but somewhat misleading; it's less that he's making "mean tweets" himself and more that he abolished Twitter's censorship bureau to allow other people to make "mean tweets".

That’s the same thing in my eyes

Equivocating autocratic control over one of the most potent mass-media apparatuses ever creating with "mean tweets" is disingenuous and you know it. I won't pretend leftists care for any high-minded free-speech related reasons, but frankly it's perfectly reasonable to fear and despite anyone with the kind of power elon musk has regardless of their ideology.

it's perfectly reasonable to fear and despite...

Sure, then you treat people you fear and despise with respect, impartiality, and professionalism when you are representing the government. I'm not judging the officials for thoughtcrime here.

Sure, then you treat people you fear and despise with respect, impartiality, and professionalism

What actual evidence do you have of a government official doing otherwise to elon musk? What actual evidence do you have that they did so because of "mean tweets." What actual evidence do you have that their behavior is either common to the point of ubiquity or present at the highest levels of government? (I don't care what some random state senator or city councilmember said unless there are a lot of likeminded people saying the same thing.)

And-- why do you think elon musk is somehow especially and irrationally persecuted?

Commissioner Brendan Carr of the FCC provided a good writeup here (p14 of the "Order on Review", or the "Carr Statement") of why he believes that his committee's decision was driven by anti-Musk sentiment. (I also recommend reading the Simington statement: "...the majority today lays bare just how thoroughly and lawlessly arbitrary [this decision] was.").

Key quotes:

President Biden stood at a podium adorned with the official seal of the President of the United States, and expressed his view that Elon Musk “is worth being looked at.”

...

Two months ago, The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote that “the volume of government investigations into his businesses makes us wonder if the Biden Administration is targeting him for regulatory harassment.”

...

Indeed, the Commission’s decision today...cannot be explained by any objective application of law, facts, or policy.

Here is a story of the White House denouncing him after he "endorsed a post on X".

And-- why do you think elon musk is somehow especially and irrationally persecuted?

I don't think either of those things. It's bog-standard waging the culture war, which is instrumentally rational for the perpetrators.

I think it's bad.

Thank you for these informative and interesting links. I'd wager that the starlink decision specifically has more to do with elon musk's behavior re: threatening to cut service to ukraine (and other related ukranian-russian war shenanigans) but will otherwise concede the point.

I found a much clearer example this morning: California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches (via here):

The California Coastal Commission on Thursday rejected the Air Force’s plan to give SpaceX permission to launch up to 50 rockets a year from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County.

“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” Commissioner Gretchen Newsom said at the meeting in San Diego.

I'm not saying personal antipathy didn't play a role, but that same news article provides a list of other arguments. "Mean tweets" is just the attention-grabbing headline-- the meat of the dispute is a bog-standard environmental/bureaucratic power struggle.

“I do believe that the Space Force has failed to establish that SpaceX is a part of the federal government, part of our defense,” said Commissioner Dayna Bochco.

Things came to a head in August when commissioners unloaded on DOD for resisting their recommendations for reducing the impacts of the launches — which disturb wildlife like threatened snowy plovers as well as people, who often have to evacuate nearby Jalama Beach.

Commissioner Justin Cummings voted to approve the plan but said he was still uncomfortable about a lack of data on the effects of launches and that he shared concerns about SpaceX’s classification as a military contractor.

No one hated Jack Dorsey or Zuckerberg the same way they hate Elon. No one’s sued him or called for his arrest. Sorry, no, it’s the fact the tweets are too “mean” now. Our elites simply cannot abide it.

Sorry, no, it’s the fact the tweets are too “mean” now. Our elites simply cannot abide it.

This is an uncharitable strawman. Actually, it's two uncharitable strawmen. First, of the people who hate Elon musk, you're defining the Elites as only tthe people who hate him because of stuff he's done on twitter. Secondly, you're asserting that they are most motivated by-- what-- a purely emotional reaction to the content he propagates? I'm honestly having trouble not strawmanning your argument because you refuse to clearly state what you think these people are complaining about and why it's bad. You're using the negative connotations of "scare quotes" to avoid actually having to state your claim.

And anyways-- people absolutely hated and continue to hate Zuckerberg. And he's definitely been the subject of a lot of lawsuits. The difference in the quantity of hate is merely proportional to,

  • The greater ideological difference between Elon and his userbase vs. Zuck and his userbase
  • The more visible and proactive measures Elon has taken to promote his ideology (see: being not only a CEO of twitter, but also a very prominent right-wing influencer on it)

So it's not mean tweets, it's just owning Twitter/X at all?

Basically. Hating powerful people that promote an ideology you don't like is common (and rational) cross-culturally. See also: republicans hating the soros brothers, reddit right-wingers hating Ellen Pao, everyone hating on Zuckerburg at various points for various reasons, etc.

Despite not really being a fan, Elon's relationship with the government (and perhaps more of his life generally) seems to me oddly similar to what I know of late-in-life Howard Hughes. He came across to the public as the eccentric-turned-crazy with riches from early business ventures, but my understanding is that the craziness became part of the public image, which made the manganese nodule mining cover story for Project Azorian all the more effective. I could imagine some of Elon's projects being cover stories (probably not recovering sunken Soviet submarines, though) or generally in the direction of creating things the government wants (high-bandwidth, difficult to deny satellite networking?) without tying themselves to it up front.

But it isn't a perfect comparison: Elon isn't much of a recluse. I'd be curious if anyone old enough to recall Hughes being in the news has thoughts on the comparison.

The US has been building up it's space warfare capabilities significantly for decades, though most of it is heavily classified. There's an entire branch of the US military devoted to space warfare. SpaceX takes military contracts for satellite launches and who knows what else; they effectively are the non-missile orbital launch capacity of the US government.

SpaceX is effectively the non-missile orbital launch capacity of most governments in the world, with something like 85% of all upmass movement in 2023. It's not that the Americans bought all that mass lift, as much as it is that other countries spend buy the space for their needs rather than very expensive rocket programs themselves.

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