site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   33172 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think you know who my "ilk" is.

Nor do you know who the hard sciencers are.

If you mean things like the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative

Way beyond that. Let's go with an analogy. Instead of it being the UK gov't coming in and telling Apple that they've gotta shut down ADP, suppose that was one of the Trump administration's first moves. (It might still happen!) They've gotta get at those horrible wokies who are now using encryption to #resist against the true and proper administration. They just start slashing out at everything. Signal, Telegram, etc. It's all gotta go. Are you going to be first in line to celebrate... or at least show some relief? Glad that the President is taking the chemotherapy approach, so his FBI can go after all the wokies tryna hide their nefarious #resistance?

If the US is to fund telescopes in Chile, that money needs to go to telescopes in Chile.

I haven't looked at that grant, but I'm pretty confident that the vastly most probable reality is that it did exactly that. Again, look, I'm on board with taking away stupid throwaway sentences; I'm on board with way way way more than that! I'd be perfectly happy with what I mentioned in my previously-linked comment; you could conditional all federal funding on them not discriminating on the basis of race/gender... at the institutional level. This would be a huge huge thing, and it would hit everything that universities do, not even just what they put as a throwaway sentence in a grant application. This would actually be focused on the problem. Not just stopping everything, slashing all the funding agencies indiscriminately, and giving the chemo treatment. The prevailing opinion here is that it should all just be shut down, because "universities bad". And, frankly, I am super sympathetic, because there is so much of the universities that I hate. Not even just the wokeness; I complain about their gov't-enforced perfect price discrimination and their stranglehold on accreditation/certification and more. I would love to have so many things change in the intersection between gov't/academia. But, "We can't tell what's good encrypted communication research and bad encrypted communication research, so maybe we just shouldn't have any encrypted communication research," is not the way, in my opinion.

Again, look, I'm on board with taking away stupid throwaway sentences; I'm on board with way way way more than that! I'd be perfectly happy with what I mentioned in my previously-linked comment; you could conditional all federal funding on them not discriminating on the basis of race/gender... at the institutional level. This would be a huge huge thing, and it would hit everything that universities do, not even just what they put as a throwaway sentence in a grant application. This would actually be focused on the problem. Not just stopping everything, slashing all the funding agencies indiscriminately, and giving the chemo treatment. The prevailing opinion here is that it should all just be shut down, because "universities bad". And, frankly, I am super sympathetic, because there is so much of the universities that I hate. Not even just the wokeness; I complain about their gov't-enforced perfect price discrimination and their stranglehold on accreditation/certification and more. I would love to have so many things change in the intersection between gov't/academia. But, "We can't tell what's good encrypted communication research and bad encrypted communication research, so maybe we just shouldn't have any encrypted communication research," is not the way, in my opinion.

How are you not getting that the chemo argument is a rhetorical shortcut for 'we aren't litigating this because we don't trust you' then? If you can recognise the feeling of relief combined with righteous anger inside yourself, how can you not see that talk of shutting it all down is hyperbolic and some spite? I mean how often do the arguments here go truly outfield as opposed to a slightly modified version of the status quo? I haven't read the whole thread yet, but is there anyone saying "we need to straight up ban tertiary education!"? I strongly doubt it. Trump and co certainly aren't.

we don't trust you

I don't know who you think I am, so I don't know why you would or would not trust me.

I'm not sure what else to make of your comment. You think people are just being hyperbolic and angry, and that they're just saying dumb stuff that doesn't make sense? Uh, okay? Then why is all the research getting stopped/slashed?

is there anyone saying "we need to straight up ban tertiary education!"

Nah. Honestly, even that would be better tailoring. Plenty of chunks of those research dollars go to corporate research. There are sooooo many better things you could do if you're just pissed at the stupidity in academia.

I don't know who you think I am, so I don't know why you would or would not trust me.

That phrase was meant to have quotes around it sorry, I was synthesising the general sentiment of the public into an shortened statement. I'm surprised really, that you would take it personally even without the quotes - you positioned yourself as in support of fixing academia, so why do you identify with them such that you would feel attacked?

In case you think this is me trying to sneakily call you a crypto leftist, I'm not. My image of you is as a guy with a lot of red tribe values who lives in a deep blue tribe situation.

Then why is all the research getting stopped/slashed?

The public sentiment represents the direction of the administration's aim, which sees academia as riddled with the cancer of wokeness, but with a lot of schadenfreude and spite and shitposting in top. I see it as similar to when blue tribers were quietly saying 'I wish he hadn't missed' after the Butler shooting - yeah it's not nice but it doesn't mean a third of the country is going to try to assassinate Trump.

Nah. Honestly, even that would be better tailoring. Plenty of chunks of those research dollars go to corporate research. There are sooooo many better things you could do if you're just pissed at the stupidity in academia.

That's how low the trust is. It's not like this is the first time the right has tried to do something about this, but when they tried to compromise they kept getting shafted. Imperfect action is preferable to indefinite wheel spinning, and we have been spinning our wheels for decades.

My image of you is as a guy with a lot of red tribe values who lives in a deep blue tribe situation.

Nah. I have lived in more blue tribe situations (not coincidentally and most prominently at university), but I've got a nice red tribe situation going on these days.

but when they tried to compromise they kept getting shafted. Imperfect action is preferable to indefinite wheel spinning, and we have been spinning our wheels for decades.

I'm not asking for compromise. I'm not asking for nothing but perfect action. I'm asking for methods that are actually going to accomplish the goals rather than indiscriminate chemo that will only destroy stuff and be ineffective in actually changing behavior. And if you're someone who's in it for the brutality of hurting your ideological opponents, my suggestions will bring far more pain to their bad goals.

my suggestions will bring far more pain to their bad goals.

I appreciate you giving a suggestion, one of the frustrating things for me about this conversation was the outrage at Trump's cuts, combined with no constructive (or destructive, as it were) alternatives (or ones that would to me look deliberately unworkable and would only prolong the status quo). Sadly, I'm not one of those DR influencers that reportedly has a direct line to Trump and/or Vance, so I can't even offer to put your idea up for discussion. Though, perhaps naively, I believe things might work to more or less what you're proposing, we're still pretty early in the game.

Instead of it being the UK gov't coming in and telling Apple that they've gotta shut down ADP, suppose that was one of the Trump administration's first moves. (It might still happen!) They've gotta get at those horrible wokies who are now using encryption to #resist against the true and proper administration. They just start slashing out at everything. Signal, Telegram, etc. It's all gotta go. Are you going to be first in line to celebrate... or at least show some relief?

I'd oppose that because I oppose the position of banning difficult-to-crack encryption for government convenience; that is, I would oppose the Trump administration's political goals. I do think that's a lot of what's going on with the objections to the science stuff -- the people involved want to keep the no-white-or-Asian males intern programs and the Hispanic outreach and all that.

Not just stopping everything, slashing all the funding agencies indiscriminately, and giving the chemo treatment.

It's 'chemo treatment', but it's not indiscriminate. It just looks that way because there's so much cancer. The top level post here is about NSFs "research experiences for undergraduates", which is one of those programs that encourages discriminating against white and Asian males.

I oppose the position of banning difficult-to-crack encryption for government convenience

Even to get at the wokies?! I oppose ridding ourselves of all research, even to get at the wokies.

I do think that's a lot of what's going on with the objections to the science stuff

Please speak to me as a person.

it's not indiscriminate

From what I've heard through the grapevine from people at funding agencies, it's absolutely wild right now. And people here are literally calling for it to be indiscriminate. If you disagree with them, then you agree with me.

Even to get at the wokies?! I oppose ridding ourselves of all research, even to get at the wokies.

Yes, I would oppose banning difficult-to-crack encryption even if that made it harder to get at the wokies. But if someone proposed an encryption system that somehow deliberately produced a satoshi a year for woke causes, I'd sure oppose that.

Please speak to me as a person.

I'm not speaking about you alone. Nor, are you, I think, speaking about me alone when you say things like "people here are literally calling for it to be indiscriminate".

From what I've heard through the grapevine from people at funding agencies, it's absolutely wild right now.

But they'd probably act that way if $1 was being cut, or they weren't getting an accustomed-to increase.

Yes, I would oppose banning difficult-to-crack encryption even if that made it harder to get at the wokies.

That's how we know that we need to kill you and yours indiscriminately. You're not celebrating or showing any relief. Obviously, you have pledged fealty to the wokies.

From what I've heard through the grapevine from people at funding agencies, it's absolutely wild right now.

But they'd probably act that way if $1 was being cut, or they weren't getting an accustomed-to increase.

No, that is not at all what I've been hearing. Do you think the reality of the situation is that $1 is being cut or that they're just not getting an accustomed-to increase?

That's how we know that we need to kill you and yours indiscriminately. You're not celebrating or showing any relief. Obviously, you have pledged fealty to the wokies.

If you want to fail to recognize real distinctions, there's not much I can do about it.

No, that is not at all what I've been hearing. Do you think the reality of the situation is that $1 is being cut or that they're just not getting an accustomed-to increase?

Certainly they're trying to cut more. But my point is that it is impossible to tell from the funding agency reaction whether the cuts are not enough, enough, or too much.

If you want to fail to recognize real distinctions, there's not much I can do about it.

Then by all means, make a real distinction.

But my point is that it is impossible to tell from the funding agency reaction whether the cuts are not enough, enough, or too much.

Perhaps from your position. I have a bit more of an inside scoop. A bit of a grapevine, yes, but more specifics rather than just general complaints. In any event, I'm glad that you seem to be in agreement that just complete, indiscriminate, chemotherapy shutting down of everything would be bad; at this point, it sort of boils down to an estimation problem, which sort of boils down to one's sources of data signals.

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