site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   24149 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It appears the person who set up the group (Michael Waltz) intended it to be for unclassified discussion

So Waltz set it up for interfacing for unclassified stuff like with journalists and forgot about it. So-and-so made a group chat, so-and-so invited so-and-so, and next thing ya know Jeffrey Goldberg is the only journalist in a Signal chat with the nation's leadership as they plan a military action?

This appears like a level of brazen, incompetent comfort that suggests to me they're probably using Signal for all sorts of coordination. Of which the only reasonable thing I can land* on is: other forms of communication are suspected compromised and they have an immediate need. But it's much easier for me to believe a sloppy disregard for procedure is commonplace.

  • Or Signal has been okay'd for this use and we don't know?

This appears like a level of brazen, incompetent comfort that suggests to me they're probably using Signal for all sorts of coordination.

Now that the US's rivals know this, how possible is it for them to compromise Signal's servers for some Man in the Middle breach? Is it true that even the Signal company themselves can't read user comms?

Signal is e2e encrypted so this isn't an issue.

While agree there must be some level of incompetence or just a screw-up, I really don't see which of the various chat apps would be better than Signal. AFAIK, it's the most secure almost to the point of being a problem for things like FOIA, as once the app is deleted all the message history is gone.

Anyway, I"m not sure I agree with the 'bad ops-sec' here and tend toward 'if you message the wrong person, you can't claw it back.'

almost to the point of being a problem for things like FOIA

What a happy coincidence.

Anyway, I"m not sure I agree with the 'bad ops-sec' here

If you are unsure of this despite the fact this article exists, then what do you consider an example of bad OPSEC?

chat apps would be better than Signal... as once the app is deleted all the message history is gone.

If there is no inhouse Signal equivalent, then it's about 20 years past due. I bet there is and I bet it sucks and that's why they use Signal.

Wiping message history without recording keeping is a problem, because all text messages about official acts from federal agencies must be preserved. I guess politicians across the spectrum have decided this is not actually an important accountability feature in democracy nor are historical records important enough to bother. Fair enough.

Sorry, 'ops-sec' is not the correct term. the 'Ops-sec' was the failure. I think I meant something similar but specifically with the technology...Tech-sec or something.

Signal is the correct app to use if you're going to do these things--at least from what's on tap.

I think people are shocked that they didn't all assemble int he 'war room' to make the weighty decision to drop some bombs. The halcyon days of Dr. Strangelove are over, my friends.

I wonder if we'll even remember this happened in 3.75 years. Things are so whackadoodle, I can't tell if this is actually a scandal or not. Seems...not?

If there's an inhouse Signal equivalent would it be cleared for use on your garden-variety cell phone?

(Anyway yes I bet it sucks either way).

Wiping message history without recording keeping is a problem, because all text messages about official acts from federal agencies must be preserved. I guess politicians across the spectrum have decided this is not actually an important accountability feature in democracy nor are historical records important enough to bother. Fair enough.

I have a bit of a rant about this but TLDR;

  1. I think this is a very common problem and suspect "using Signal with messages set to delete" is fairly typical even at lower ranks, and
  2. Modern records are made at a MUCH faster rate than dated records-keeping laws anticipated. Arguably either all records-keeping laws or associated technology needs to be completely revamped to account for modern electronic messaging capability.

The boring answer is that "the official channels" require badging through a few locked doors to log into a desktop computer in a windowless room to check email, which isn't very responsive if you're trying to move very quickly across several tiers of organization.

That is a poor excuse, but it seems the most likely one to me. Either that or concern about opsec was minimal given the adversary's technical prowess, but that also strikes me as a poor excuse.

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