site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29720 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022

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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don’t really understand how his rationale holds any water and am convinced that this is probably the stupidest thing he could have done to preserve the longevity of the platform. I think he taking ambien again…

Not everyone is a coward. What's the point of being a Billionaire if you're going to let the WEF crowd tell you what you can and can't say?

Oh I agreed with basically everything he’s done at twitter up to this point. Banning a lot of obnoxious journalists just seems like a huge self own.

People have pointed that out, most notably Niccolo Soldo. [1]

TL;DR: Twitter makes sense insofar as a place where journalists go and where you can fuck with them (e.g - use bots to nudge their preferences by liking things) or just dunk on their bad takes, or make them mad.

If he drives them out, Twitter will lose a lot of its present value. Not that there aren't ways Musk could make it great, but what made it unique were the network effects..

[1]

Why Elon's move this evening is potentially bad for the right and why the point of Twitter is to shit on journalists.

Elon's purchase of Twitter did one very, very important thing: it showed just how vital this social media site is in terms of political power, which is why he is under attack now. /2

This app has been from the get-go the favourite social media tool of the US Deep State and particularly its intel faction. Iran's failed Green Revolution, Arab Spring, and so on. All were Twitter-heavy. /3

Thanks to Elon, we recently learned just how big a role Twitter played in fixing the 2020 election in favour of Joe Biden. This did us (almost) all a huge service. We knew it, and now we have proof. /4

Just before the Twitter Leaks release, Elon also cleared out all of the political commissars that worked on behalf of the powers-that-be, and without any drop in site performance, showing just how superfluous they were to the perceived core business. /5

So far, so good. Elon came in to "re-balance" and to "reinforce free speech". These moves would naturally be opposed (and have been) by the shitlibs, because it exposes them for what they have done, and who they are. /6

The paradox of Twitter is that it is both not real life and is the world's town square. For years and years and years, it strongly tilted one way due to the obvious political slant of its operators and key outside influencers. /7

Elon's corrective acts have worked to make Twitter appear much more impartial than it was previously. A level-playing field was being created, one that was demanded by conservatives and right wingers. /8

This level-playing field therefore allowed Twitter to retain its political importance, as all journalists/political types continue to use it despite the bankrupt claims against Elon by many of them. /9

This is how Twitter retains its value. Twitter's value comes from being the only place where the hoi polloi can interact daily with important, famous, and/or notable people. No other site has anything like this. /10

Without the presence of these people, Twitter would have failed well over a decade ago. This is why these types need to continue to feel ownership over Twitter. /11

During 2015-16 when moderation was much more lax than the five years following it, all sorts of anons managed to inflict daily meltdowns on dozens and dozens of these journalists who insisted that we were wrong/evil/etc. /12

It was this energy that helped propel an outsider into the White House. A lot of the fight happened right here on Twitter. News was broken here constantly, as were the brains of those that hate us /13

Yet they still came here, because they had to, and because they set up shop here and felt comfortable here, despite getting rocked day in, day out. Fast forward to COVID era, and even with the scales tipped much more in favour of one side of the political divide, many anons still >managed to make bluechecks look idiotic, and not just journos but health pros as well, winning over those watching /15

None of those health pros/journos would have been here had this not been the world's public square. All of the efforts of those anons would have been for naught, and no one would have seen it /16

You need these institutional types to lend perceived legitimacy to Twitter. Our job is to kick them in the balls repeatedly, day after day after day after day, to drive them crazy like what was done during 2015-16 /17

That cannot be done if Twitter is shown to tilt to the right, because its newly-won impartiality goes up in a poof of smoke with those who are not hysterical 24 hours a day /18

Cheering on the suspension of fckhead shtlib journos that we all hate is empty calories: it takes away from the perceived newly-won impartiality of this site, neutering the impact of kicking them in the balls day after day after day /19

No one should cry for sh*theads like Rupar and Olbermann. What they should want is for them not to "learn a lesson" or "learn how to behave", but to continue to show up here and expose themselves for what they are on a level-playing field /20

...so that we can kick them in the balls over and over and over again on a daily basis, driving them crazy. /21

Banning these fuckheads due to ego is not a 'win'. At most it is a pyrrhic victory, because at the end what is won with a Twitter that has lost legitimacy in the eyes of the normie? You have won a $44 billion TruthSocial/Gab/Parler /22

If he drives them out, Twitter will lose a lot of its present value.

I am afraid you are stuck in your bubble - Twitter is worldwide phenomenon, and political content - especially US political content - is microscopic part of the whole.

What is Twitter about? Turn off your location, and set "worldwide trends" to see.

You will see that Twitter is about sports, celebrities, media and (according to the time of day) Japanese anime or Korean pop. This is the network advertisers are paying for.

Headline news sometimes get there like comet that shines brightly for a short time, but this kind of content prevails.

For example, what is the world talking about right now:

Worldwide trends 1 #DalySunScreenxENGLOT 120K Tweets

2 Entertainment · Trending #NARUTOP99 8,672 Tweets

3 Trending worldwide #遊戯王JF2023 20.8K Tweets

4 Only on Twitter · Trending #cumartesi 3,155 Tweets

5 Cricket · Trending #AUSvSA 8,025 Tweets

6 Horse racing & equestrian · Trending ミスニューヨーク 5,897 Tweets

7 Horse racing & equestrian · Trending ターコイズS 21.8K Tweets

8 NBA · Trending Thomas Bryant 3,637 Tweets

9 Central League · Trending A.R.E 77K Tweets

10 Trending worldwide ジャンフェス 60.9K Tweets

What journalists and other 'thought leaders' are thinking about or what seems popular in the minds of strivers matters vastly, vastly more than some advertising revenue.

What journalists and other 'thought leaders' are thinking about or what seems popular in the minds of strivers matters vastly, vastly more than some advertising revenue.

When they leave Twitter for Mastodon, no one can hear what they are thinking.

article you cited:

Why Elon's move this evening is potentially bad for the right and why the point of Twitter is to shit on journalists.

Twitter is now private property (insert your favorite meme), the point is what Elon wants it to be.

So, what is Elon's plan with Twitter?

Make money?

Twitter has user base of hundreds of millions normies(give or take few billions bots), minuscule minority of them came to hear latest takes of blue check journalists. This is the real capital of Twitter, the real legitimacy.

Elon could rake in advertising cash, unless there is succesful worldwide advertiser boycott.

Spread his message (whatever it is except ELON ELON ELON)?

Even easier when he can kick out anyone who dares to diss him and broadcast his latest hot takes to the whole world unchallenged.

Banning journalists might be bad for "the right", but I do not see any downside for Elon.

I think "irritating journalists daily" is something that has a limit--the Nash Equilibrium is surely "many journalists subscribe to an uber-blocklist that filters away anyone with the slightest sniff of antagonism or criticism," no? And that's obviously rather toxic to the public consciousness, so we probably shouldn't pick at the total-epistemic-closure scab like that.

I know we're not supposed to do the "reply as super-upvote" thing, but this is exactly what I was groping for last night with that toad-boiling comment. Blatant manipulation of the rules is is fun and cathartic, but counterproductive when all you need is a bloodsport arena.

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