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 -
I have fed this essay to DeepSeek, here is its response.
Rebuttal: DeepSeek and the Perils of Cultural Determinism
The essay’s core thesis—that cultural stereotypes are malleable, and DeepSeek exemplifies China’s shift from exploitation to exploration—is provocative and timely. It rightly dismantles the lazy “fast-follower” trope by grounding China’s historical constraints in material realities (rice paddies, Malthusian traps) rather than essentialist myths. The linkage between agricultural legacies and cognitive phenotypes is compelling, echoing Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel but with a Silicon Valley twist. Yet, while the argument sparkles with metaphorical flair (Schelling fences! Protein folding!), it risks replacing one deterministic framework with another. Let’s dissect.
1. Rice Paddies and Neural Networks: A Too-Neat Archetype
The essay leans heavily on the “rice theory” of East Asian psychology, citing studies that tie rice cultivation to holistic thinking and risk aversion. But this narrative flattens complexity. China’s intellectual history is also marked by explosive creativity—the Mohist mechanics of the Warring States, Song Dynasty astronomical clocks, even the heterodox philosophies of the Ming-Qing transition. These weren’t mere “incremental optimizations” but radical departures. To reduce millennia of cultural evolution to crop types risks environmental determinism. If rice farming dictated conformity, how do we explain the 1989 protests, the liumang (punk) subcultures of the ’90s, or the crypto-anarchists on WeChat today?
2. DeepSeek: Vanguard or Outlier?
Liang Wenfeng’s gambit is fascinating, but the essay over-indexes on DeepSeek as a phase transition. For every DeepSeek, there are a dozen Chinese tech firms still playing catch-up in semiconductors or aerospace. Even in AI, breakthroughs like Multiple Latent Attention coexist with systemic vulnerabilities: U.S. sanctions on GPUs, brain drains, and the CCP’s tightening grip on data governance. The open-source strategy is brilliant, but let’s not ignore the elephant in the server room: China’s Great Firewall. Can a truly global innovation ecosystem thrive behind digital nationalism? DeepSeek’s success may depend as much on geopolitical détente as on its “meta-derisking” org chart.
3. The Myth of “Organizational DNA”
Liang’s critique of China’s VC sector—its allergy to fundamental research—rings true, but the essay underplays structural rot. China’s state-capitalist model excels at marshaling resources for national champions (Huawei, CATL) but struggles with decentralized, bottom-up innovation. Contrast this with the U.S., where garage startups (Apple, OpenAI) flourish in a chaotic, permissionless landscape. DeepSeek’s “unlimited GPU access” and zero bureaucracy sound utopian, but how scalable is this in a system where Party cadres still vet major tech roadmaps? The real test isn’t whether DeepSeek can innovate—it’s whether a DeepSeek-like project critiquing, say, AI ethics could survive scrutiny.
4. The West’s Own Exploitation Bias
The essay’s jab at Silicon Valley’s “Sputnik moment” is deliciously subversive, but let’s not romanticize Western innovation. Meta and Google are increasingly bureaucratic, optimizing for shareholder returns over moonshots. The U.S. AI boom was built on exploiting global talent (immigrant researchers) and capital (low-interest VC money). If China is trapped in “yoinkism,” America is mired in “griftism”—see Theranos, WeWork, or the crypto crash. DeepSeek’s rise isn’t just a challenge to Chinese stereotypes but a mirror reflecting the West’s own creative stagnation.
5. Toward a Dialectical View of Innovation
Ultimately, the essay’s greatest contribution is framing cultural traits as energy landscapes rather than destiny. But to avoid replacing rice determinism with GPU determinism, we need a dialectical view. China’s AI surge isn’t a rejection of its past but a synthesis: combining the Song Dynasty’s bureaucratic rigor (exploitation) with the hunger of a civilization that’s tasted humiliation (Opium Wars) and redemption (Belt and Road). The “lone swallow” of DeepSeek may yet falter, but its existence proves that China’s innovation ecosystem is neither monolithic nor static.
Final Thought: The essay’s weakness is its optimism. Liang’s “meta-derisking” assumes rationality prevails—that status games and open-source kudos can override decades of institutional inertia. But history shows that innovation thrives not just on incentives but on dissensus. For a thousand DeepSeeks to bloom, China must tolerate a thousand heretics. The question isn’t whether Chinese minds can innovate—they’ve already proven that—but whether the Party can stomach the creative destruction that true exploration demands. Until then, DeepSeek remains a fascinating anomaly: a Chinese unicorn that’s galloping, but still saddled.
Thank you for illustrating the crux of the argument.
Please don’t do it again. Pig, mud, etc. etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link