site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35367 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not libelous if it's not presented as true. If I write a fictional story about you raping an eight year old that is explicitly presented as fictional, then as much as that may disturb you, you can't do shit.

This does not appear to be correct:

"For example, in 2009, in the “Red Hat Club” case, the plaintiff was awarded $100,000 in damages by a Georgia court for a fictional portrayal modeled on her. The “original” claimed that her fictional counterpart, falsely depicted in the bestselling novel as a sexually promiscuous alcoholic who drank on the job, defamed her. From a libel defense perspective, this drawn-from-life portrayal failed, in part, because the author included personal characteristics that made the plaintiff recognizable, and mixed them with other traits that were false and defamatory, but, still believable."

If you can successfully sue because you were portrayed as a slutty drunk in a work of fiction based on you, I suspect you may be able to sue for being portrayed as a child rapist.

It's not a slam dunk, and often fails, depending on how closely the fictional version is recognizable to the original, but it does appear that you can indeed "do shit."

Fair. I'd be interested in seeing what some sort of disclaimer specifically targeting this achieves though, something like "X is quite obviously not a child rapist. There is no evidence that X is actually a child rapist nor is it believable based on all known information about them that they could be one." etc.

I mean, that's one case. There's also this meme about Glenn Beck and the guy who registered a domain for it won his case.

Plus, I don't think this can apply to deepfakes. If I write a fictional story about you doing X, then perhaps that can come with some implication that it's some veiled satire suggesting you might actually do it. But if I make a deepfake, I mean it's in the name. It's fake. It is very clearly not you doing it.

Sure it is entirely unclear how it would work with deepfakes if at all. But the deepfake is presumably recognizable as the subject (as that is the entire point) so you could perhaps get away with deepfaking them having sex as this is something they likely do. If you deepfaked them onto child pornography that might trigger something similar. That is highly speculative though. I suspect different courts and jurisdictions will go different ways.

Link to quoted article

A different article says of the same lawsuit:

Thursday’s legal victory for Stewart [the "victim"] was tempered, however, by a relatively small $100,000 award for damages, with the jury refusing to award her attorneys fees. The cost of litigating the case over the last five years likely exceeded $100,000.

Indeed, hence why it is not a slam dunk, but it is something.

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