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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Alternatively Zuck doesn't give a shit about either the left or the right or free speech or all that jazz, he's playing a different game: maximizing money. This isn't any less moral or worthy than serving the left/right, in fact I'd argue it's more moral than the self contradictory belief systems held by almost everyone on the left/right except for the most principled (probably a few percent of humans, definitely not more than 10%).
Ideologically, I think he's more like Musk shooting for Mars, but Zuck's goal is something more like automated super AI VR future tech. Previously, he thought that allying with Democrats was most conducive to that goal, but that relationship started to sour. His loyalty is with neither side.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the opposite is true. Zuckerburg's stance shows some courage and indicates a genuine belief in free speech and equality.
Is he a hero? No. Heroic would have been taking the same stance in 2021 and having his company taken from him by government pressure and angry shareholders.
But if he was a coward he would just have kept the DEI going, albeit at a lower profile. No one forced him to make this announcement. There are real risks. Even though Trump barely won the election, California is still a one-party Democratic state. Furthermore, Facebook's employees could fairly be classified as far-left. A corporate goon like Sundar (Google) or Satya (Microsoft) would never have taken such a bold stance.
I think this Scott article is relevant:
Give Up Seventy Percent Of The Way Through The Hyperstitious Slur Cascade
Mark is fighting the fight that can be won, not heroically dying on the battlefield to inspire later generations. I give him credit for standing up for what's right, even if it's not maximally brave.
Unlike Musk or Bezos, who could conceivably have their company taken from them by investors, Zuck owns an ironclad majority of Facebook voting stock. He could be jailed, but he’d still control the company. Even if the SEC forced him to resign as CEO for some manufactured violation of securities law, he’s still be able to appoint his successor.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't even have a high opinion of the guy, but if you want an example of someone who was fighting the fight that can be won, than that would be Elon.
Mark can't even be called the guy that waited on the sidelines to see who wins. He was fighting for one side, and then turned his cloak when they started losing.
If you want an example of someone who's no hero, but can say he has principles and did what he could, that would be Jack Dorsey.
Elon strikes me more as the hero archetype. He fights the battle that can't be won but somehow wins it anyway.
He will eventually fail. You can't just keep doubling your bet forever. At some point, something will happen and he will lose. If Trump had lost the election, I believe Musk would have been subject to lawfare and then jailed. Normal people just don't take those kinds of risks.
One day he will die on the battlefield.
But... until that happens, I will take Peter Thiel's advice and never bet against Elon.
Elon has engaged in some bet hedging, like moving everything to Texas.
I’d argue moving everything to Texas is, if anything, doubling down on the chud wing of the right.
Yes, it’s siding with the right, but it’s bet hedging against retaliation from democrats.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wow, this was a lightbulb post for me.
I've been critical of Elon in the past because something about the guy rubs me the wrong way. I've never doubted his intelligence or capability, but my spidey sense always goes off whenever I see him in long interviews and, definitely, when scrolling through his twitter posts. I've rooted against him, I've just been very suspicious.
And this is why - going all in on Elon may indeed be heroic / brave what have you, but it's going to lead to ruin. Sure, that could be "glorious" ruin or whatever but, still - you gon' die!
So, yes, let's be Thielists in this case - not on Elon's side all-in per se, but also definitely not betting against him.
Everyone dies. The goal is to die well.
Yeah, I don't think Elon ranks up there with William Wallace and Maximus Decimus Meridius in terms of being able to stir the hearts and souls of men. Plenty of folks have decided to give their whole mind and heart over to him, though.
I think you are underestimating the raw appeal of simply being willing to lead people to attempt glorious achievements.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Pissing them off maybe a feature rather than a bug. Why do more layoffs when you can get some of your most troublesome employees reason to quit in anger or do something that gives you cause to fire then?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is, if you're not honest about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link