site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   32208 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So what should they use? Slack? Google Messenger? Facebook messenger? AIM? Does the USG have its own private, secured messaging app? TBH, Signal actually seems like the best option if you need to have a group discussion with people all over the world and with conflicting schedules.

I mean...I'm open to alternatives, but what are they?

I’m confident they have one. I’d guess Teams.

Still no bueno for classified information, but if what Gabbard says is true, this chat was perfectly innocent on that front. :)

It is indeed Teams, which is another reason there will never be any prosecution.

Prosecutor: And is it true that you used Signal, a non-government communications method, to set up a group chat at the very highest levels:

Waltz: Yes

Defense Attorney : Mr. Waltz, what is the official government communications method for the Department of Defense

Waltz: Microsoft Teams Chat

Defense Attorney: Your honor, defense moves to dismiss with prejudice.

Prosecutor: Err, um, err... no objections

Are you kidding? The official, encrypted, auto-record keeping email system the government has used for the last 40 years.

The one they undoubtedly can't access from their private iPhones, because allowing that would be an obvious, glaring security flaw.

So they should have used email to decide to bomb Yemen and that would have been acceptable? Too slow, for starters.

I'm not really sure what the actual offense is here. I think it's accidentally adding an unrecognized phone number to a chat group, others think it's using the chat group in the first place.

Are you kidding? The official, encrypted, auto-record keeping email system the government has used for the last 40 years.

Are you seriously proposing that people use e-mail for instant messaging? What is this, 1993?

The one they undoubtedly can't access from their private iPhones, because allowing that would be an obvious, glaring security flaw.

“Security” is just a jobs programme for people who couldn’t get into the real police. They did it this way and what happened? Did the heavens fall down? No. Quod erat demonstrandum.

“Security” is just a jobs programme for people who couldn’t get into the real police. They did it this way and what happened? Did the heavens fall down? No. Quod erat demonstrandum.

So the argument we're going with is "OPSEC is for suckers who can't even make it into... the police?" Uninspired trolling.

Are you seriously proposing that people use e-mail for instant messaging? What is this, 1993?

Yes. Emails are messages, and they are instant. Easy to lock down access, easy to encrypt with code 100% under your control. Decentralized, robust, fail-safe. Add rudimentary mailing lists if you need your "groups" organized, done. Millions of people have conducted complex discussions like that for decades.

How many planes did the Houthis manage to shoot down due to this “failure of OPSEC”? Zero. Therefore, the level of OPSEC that you want them to deploy is evidently unnecessary. OPSEC is not reducing military casualties; all it’s doing is giving “security personnel” a paycheck, and conferring no actual military advantage.

This is OPSEC’s “The emperor has no clothes” moment. All OPSEC’s recommendations were disregarded, and nothing bad happened. This proves that OPSEC is stupid, not that its violators are stupid.

I would also like to point out that anyone who condemns this “security breach” without in the same breath condemning Hillary’s e-mail server is double-standards-ing HARD. It’s OK when Dems do it?

How many planes did the Houthis manage to shoot down due to this “failure of OPSEC”? Zero.

Have you noticed that America's adversaries are not all nomadic camel herders with temporary access to Iranian missiles?

When the top ranks of the US government all conduct their business using some app on their private phones (as I assume they all do, the carelessness to invite a journalist by accident suggests group creation on signal is an every day rote task for them), it's basically guaranteed that foreign adversaries have access to much of that information.

At the very least Israel has enough expertise (via NSO Group's Pegasus) to have rootkit access to arbitrary smartphones. I'm 100% confident China has similar capabilities, and Russia and Iran might not be far behind (snatching the physical phone is always a realistic low-tech option, though). I have low trust in the EUs capabilities, but honestly, they might just be able to buy the tech as SAS. iOS and Android are extremely vulnerable, period.

And this is absolutely catastrophic, even if not a single aircraft is shot down - ever. Imagine going into negotiations with an adversary that knows your true goals and what arguments support them, and what pain points you want to mitigate.

I would also like to point out that anyone who condemns this “security breach” without in the same breath condemning Hillary’s e-mail server is double-standards-ing HARD. It’s OK when Dems do it?

Of course not! She was grilled for months on that, and for many good reasons. Might have cost her the election, even (probably not).

it's basically guaranteed that foreign adversaries have access to much of that information.

“Basically” seems to be doing a tremendous amount of work in this sentence. You’re constructing an entire catastrophic narrative from one piece of evidence where nothing catastrophic happened. Here’s an alternative take that fits the evidence just as well: when they’re discussing adversaries who have more hacking capability than stone-age Yemenis, they stick to more secure channels.

If this had been discussing China or Israel I would be more sympathetic to your concerns, but it’s bombing a group of people who have never seen a computer in their lives, not bombing 1337 h4X0rz. The Pareto frontier of convenience vs. security is placed in a very different location when Yemen is your foe vs. when China is your foe.

when they’re discussing adversaries who have more hacking capability than stone-age Yemenis, they stick to more secure channels.

This is not how institutional OPSEC works. You need everybody to follow the rules, always. You can't just back-door your own system for "low-threat" scenarios, and have your users decide for themselves what "low-threat" is.

Ad-hoc decisions about the technological threat of a specific actor by people not qualified to do so leads to own-goals like Trump accidentally leaking the US spy satellite capabilities on Twitter. Sure, he was "only" talking about Iran, but the very same satellites also cross over China.

I am sure there are internal secure messaging apps both on the classified side and the unclassified side. They might be terrible however.

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