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 -
Sounds like you have it all figured out.
The argument against AI in this space is still pretty simple. It's like bringing a bicycle to a fun run. If you don't want to engage in a leisure activity it makes little sense to cheat at the leisure activity when you can instead just not do it.
Using an AI to debate other people is easier than debating them yourself. But it's even easier to just not debate them in the first place.
Themotte isn't a place that matters. This isn't X or reddit or some other major social network site where millions of voters can be influenced. There is no reward for "winning" here, so the normal molochian optimization pressures don't have to apply.
I’d like to push back against this a bit. It’s my understanding that the purpose of debating in the Motte is, very politely, to force people to occupy the motte and not the bailey. That is, to smash ideas against each other very politely until all the bits that can be smashed get smashed, and only the durable bits remain.
The rules in favour of tone moderation don’t exist to make this fun per se, they exist because truth seeking isn’t compatible with bullying or outlasting your opponent. It is fun, and I like it here, but debating in the motte should be fun in the way that scientific debate is fun. I think leaning too far into “posting on the motte is a leisure activity” would be a mistake.
I’m comfortable with the new rule on AI as it stands, I think it’s threading a tricky needle fairly well. But if we find a way over time to use AI in a way that really does improve the debate, I think we should.
TLDR: in my opinion debating here is a leisure activity in the same way that MMA is a leisure activity. Likewise, there are certain serious rules that apply - you can’t shoot your opponent with a gun - but unlike karate there is no such thing as ‘cheating’. If you find a way to fight better, that’s not cheating, it’s pushing the sport forward.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link