site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   33756 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 11, 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.

Johnson is notable insofar as he spent his 20s and 30s sacrificing his health to make a bunch of money. And now he's burning that money to regain health and youth and is, through absurd amounts of effort, at least partially successful.

The other current respectable Anti-aging Guru Dr. David Sinclair, also looks younger than his actual age (55).

Which lends credence to the claim that his interventions improve SOMETHING.

BUT I kind of hate that we live in an era where makeup, plastic surgery, and other cosmetic technologies are mature enough that it is easy to fake youthfulness so we can't rely on our own eyes to judge.

I do wonder at the fact that various Hollywood Stars (Keanu, Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone, to name a few) can stay active and fit well past the age that normally people start falling apart slowly.

Johnson is notable insofar as he spent his 20s and 30s sacrificing his health to make a bunch of money. And now he's burning that money to regain health and youth and is, through absurd amounts of effort, at least partially successful.

Judging by the pictures in Time, he looks like the biggest fitness freak in the world, which he probably is. He looks about 10 years younger and will probably be one of these old guys that have a crystal-clear memory and can put on their socks standing up until they keel over in their nineties.

Which is not a bad thing at all, but it's a very long way from immortality.

He looks exactly his age to me. His skin just looks a little funny, like he exfoliated or something.

He looks 46 to you?

Absolutely. He has very wrinkly and loose skin that makes it impossible for him to be confused for someone in his 30s. I actually didn't know his age and guessed he was 45.

I think it presents an interesting calculation though.

It makes it more palatable to sacrifice your 20's and 30's in the pursuit of wealth (rather than social life, sex, etc. etc.) and then, once you achieve amazing wealth, spend some portion of that to get yourself back to the vitality of your 20's (or close to it) and make up for your lost time, with a LOT more money than you'd usually have.

If money can buy back some time and health, it makes it much more palatable to sacrifice those earlier on.

But this doesn't scale, does it? How many people can achieve amazing wealth?

Probably a lot, if they are pursuing actual promising ideas and not spending time on crypto scam #4192.

Real question is how many people, if they weren't trying to "live life while they're young" would actually be able to switch into hardcore productivity mode for that long.

I think part of the reason Johnson is able to do such absurd things to regain youth is because he's already the type of person with the ability to commit to very hard, very uncomfortable, almost psychotically meticulous projects.

THAT'S the part that will stump most people.

Aubrey de Grey is the guy who keeps saying that aging's defeat is just around the corner; does everyone just ignore him nowadays? Or just get pissed off at him for continually raising false hope?

(Or is he dead?)

Aubrey de Grey

It didn't help that he got MeToo'd. That tends to end careers pretty fast.

That I didn't know.

The other current respectable Anti-aging Guru Dr. David Sinclair, also looks younger than his actual age (55).

Which lends credence to the claim that his interventions improve SOMETHING.

youthfulness is along a spectrum so some people will look young by virtue of just falling along the favorable end of the curve of the distribution ,not because of a specific health protocol.

I think there is possibly an inverse correlation between IQ and youthfulness ,with less intelligent people looking younger for their age and smarter people tending to age faster even if they may also live longer (e.g. Tom Cruise vs James Woods). I observed this a lot in school, in which the smartest students tended to also look the oldest and were also taller.

This is exactly wrong in my experience, my social group are late-20s early-30s, and the least intelligent ended up in labouring and other outdoorsy jobs and as a consequence aged way faster than those who hid from the sun in an office all day.

Holding a thinking face expression for much of the day also creates wrinkles around the face. The greats have eye-areas marked out like world war trench formations

I observed this a lot in school, in which the smartest students tended to also look the oldest and were also taller.

Uh, how much of that is just the difference between the youngest and oldest kids in the class? You could potentially have almost a year’s worth of development difference- a pretty big deal for kids both physically and cognitively.

It was more than just being 6-12 months older. if anything the difference was most pronounced in 10-12th grade when the relative difference would have been smallest due to redshirting

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