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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think the truth can ever be an infohazard, but that's me.
Personally I'm only interested in race/IQ as a way of finally strangling expectations of equality of outcome to death.
Bostrom would disagree:
https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf
I don't think this is a good strategy, because the equality of outcome people gain strength from anything that looks like right-wing extremism. A better strategy would be the one Coleman Hughes uses: Point out that differences in achievement between ethnicities are ubiquitous across many countries, ergo unlikely to be a result of some sort of unique racist oppression in the USA/UK/etc.
More options
Context Copy link
ONLY the truth can be an infohazard! Bostrom's original example, iirc, was a hypothetical world where nukes are really easy to make and can be manufactured by one man with just glass and wires in a specific geometric configuration. "How to arrange glass and wires in your shed to blow up a city" is therefore an infohazard only because, yes, it's true, if you arrange glass and wires that way you'll blow up a city.
That sounds like something people should know so that they don't live in cities in the first place.
But I'll concede that at some point infohazards grow large enough (and the risk vs benefit ratio of more people knowing them grows great enough) that they truly are infohazards. If you can build a planet-destroying nuke with relatively minimal effort, that's obviously something you don't want getting out. Though even then, you'd probably want to share related information, such as a lie that the earth is at constant threat of destruction due to asteroids, in order to shape culture and policy to best respond to the real threat.
The trouble is that I'd argue that the concept of "infohazard" is itself more of an infohazard than the concept of race and IQ. It gives free speech opponents more weapons, and IMO free speech is even more important than egalitarianism. Free speech will (imo) lead to egalitarianism over the long run, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link