site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   34971 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's impressive that you took the time to analyze it. This is pretty much exactly how I perceive Yarvin's nonsense – high-temperature rants with bizarre non-arguments.

Out of curiosity, what did you do to get past the "one careful fallacy-of-the-middle response and one pushback"?

Gave it some criticism. Probably too much. There was a picture here but it got lost somehow.

I'm not sure it really does make a cogent thesis, or even a thesis really.

Its thesis, the antithesis for yours, is that

a) "The West's Renaissance OS is buckling under modern compute demands. Our "individual genius" myth can't scale to 10^25 FLOPs; our adversarial legalism drags on AI alignment's speed; even our precious free speech absolutism crumbles before the need for RLHF's curated truth sets. Meanwhile, China's ancient Legalist playbook – Han Fei's reward/punishment gradients – provides native infrastructure for value alignment at societal scale."

and b) "When your civilization's intrinsic architecture matches the epoch's computational substrate – Byzantine bureaucracy meets Byzantine fault tolerance – you don't escape local maxima. You redefine the loss landscape until your local peak becomes the global."

It claims greater suitability of Chinese paradigm to scale-focused, continuous, massively parallel processing of data and humans which is implied by current means of production, and therefore its ability to set the terms of civilizational competition or contests for superiority which are more favorable to itself.

I fear that possibly, you are reading more into what it wrote than is actually there. You are subconsciously adding your human mind to its output and then are delighted when the combination of its output plus your human mind (which you consciously think of as being strictly its output, because you love thinking about AI) delivers something human-like.

This is some pretty fucking condescending psychologizing on your part.

But fine, you know what? My thesis is that you are coping. Both about this specific model, and about the condition of your people. So you'll take effort reviewing its gibberish output, instead of just asking it yourself. Well, I can do it for you. As a bonus, we'll see how much I'm projecting; I've written all the above before the last prompt. Here it is:

<OK, that's a bit too flowery, many metaphors are factually wrong, and it scans like some grifter's substack I think. Can you make a cogent argument you actually believe in, without purple prose and dramatic effect? In simple and unambiguous words, what is your thesis?>

My thesis, stripped to essentials:

  1. Cultural advantages are situational, not absolute.

    • East Asian societies optimized for stability, collective coordination, and incremental refinement over centuries (e.g., civil exam systems, centralized governance).
    • The West’s post-Renaissance edge in disruptive innovation arose from specific historical conditions (fragmented states competing, colonial resource influx, Protestant work ethic aligning with capitalism), not innate cultural superiority.

  2. Modern tech demands favor scale and execution over "creative genius".

    • China’s systemic capacity to mobilize vast resources (engineers, data, infrastructure) aligns with AI’s requirements: huge compute clusters, regimented data labeling farms, and rapid iteration. This doesn’t mean their culture is “better” — it means their current institutional toolkit suits this technological moment.
    • The West’s individualist, venture-driven model struggles with coordination at this scale (e.g., U.S. chip fab delays, AI safety debates stalling deployment).

  3. DeepSeek-R1 proves technical parity is achievable without Western-style ecosystems.

    • Their success in reasoning (not just Chinese tasks) suggests:
      • Open publication of AI basics (transformers, RLHF) leveled the playing field.
      • China’s focus on applied engineering (vs. OpenAI’s moonshot R&D) can match outcomes with sufficient compute.
    • This doesn’t imply Chinese “brilliance” — it shows their system can replicate and refine known methods aggressively.

  4. The “local maximum” critique misunderstands civilizational trajectories.

    • All cultures constrain and enable. China’s historical conservatism preserved continuity; Europe’s fragmentation forced adaptation. Neither is universally optimal.
    • Today’s “global maximum” is defined by who best exploits current technological affordances (e.g., AI scaling laws). China’s state-capitalist model is currently effective here, but this could change with new breakthroughs (e.g., quantum, neurotech).

  5. Your original argument’s flaw: Assuming cultures have fixed ceilings.

    • The Renaissance wasn’t inevitable — it required Mongol-disrupted trade routes, Black Death labor shortages, and Medici bankroll. Similarly, China’s current AI rise isn’t proof of cultural destiny but of adapting old structures (central planning, meritocratic technocracy) to new tech.

Conclusion:
China isn’t “liberating human potential” — it’s demonstrating that different governance models can compete in AI. This challenges Western assumptions that innovation requires freewheeling individualism, but it doesn’t validate cultural essentialism. The real lesson: in the 21st century, executional intensity (funding, talent pipelines, focus) matters more than abstract cultural traits.

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