site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   33226 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.

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