site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33442 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 17, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think that the term 'government funded media' clearly takes on a negative implication that extends beyond the strict meaning of the words. If I owned twitter and slapped 'Murdoch owned media' on Fox twitter accounts, it would be indisputable but it clearly implies something about what I think about Fox and its biases. Similarly, Musk/twitter surely thinks that the fact that a particular outlet is government funded in some way impinges negatively upon its content because otherwise there would be no point putting it there.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with wrong with being government funded, but the label still carries unfortunate implications. After all, there are plenty of twitter users who will not be attuned to the difference between the Russian or Syrian regime shills labelled 'government affiliated media' and the state broadcasters labelled 'government funded media', and if not putting them in exactly the same bucket twitter does seem to be putting them in the same region, or at least that is the impression some people will take.

I think that the term 'government funded media' clearly takes on a negative implication that extends beyond the strict meaning of the words.

This is of course the point. The American establishment uses terms like this as epithets to characterize their opponents, and simply avoids using these terms - even when literally true - for it's own mouthpieces. Now twitter is simply using these terms literally and in an unbiased manner and the establishment is losing their minds.

When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

(By "unbiased", I simply mean twitter seems to be applying a standard of "does their website say they get X% of their money from the government", at least based on Musk's tweets.)

Perhaps there could be a "This user has been convicted for committing securities fraud on Twitter" tag. Or even a "This Twitter user has declared under oath that reasonable people do not treat his tweets as factually accurate" tag.

Getting a tag isn't inherently negative. A bluecheck is technically also a tag that some people think negatively about, but on average it's still mainly a positive. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain kind of person would actually trust publications with a "government owned" tag more than one without, and the position that argues for this is mostly rather consistent and plausible, even if I may disagree with it (or more precisely, I think the funding matters for the direction, but not the degree of the bias).

On the other hand, I does seem to be rather petty from Musk, and I would actually prefer if everything gets a tag for its funding, not just public institutions. But I'm also in general someone who likes having lots of categories for everything.

I agree that this is twitter's intention. Nevertheless, unlike "hate speech" or similar tags that also may be technically correct according to some strenuously interpreted definition, most of the media currently up in arms are a) rather unambiguously government funded according to any sensible definition and b) "government funded" itself is not really a negative word in most context, even if the tag-givers in this specific context think it is, so it's easy to simply use it as a more informative tag anyway.

I would understand it if twitter chose "government propaganda" or similar labels that are much more contentious and clearly negative. To me this is just a really bad look; Twitter may think this is something negative on-net, but still deliberately uses a rather neutral & unambiguous word and people try to wriggle out of the label anyway with what looks like the platonic ideal of "lying with stats and figures". I'm not a fan that Twitter applies this labeling in a somewhat one-sided way, but it's still miles better than how other media has started using scary words for everything they don't like.

Sure, but now we're talking about something else. If the CBC wasn't trying to fool us this witlessly and simply tweeted something along the lines "yes, we're government funded, no, that's not a bad thing" and/or followed up with another "due to recent events, we do not have the impression that staying on twitter is beneficial for us, so we are leaving", our discussion would look quite different.

I think a moderate amount of hostility between different platforms/institutions/powerful actors is very good for society in a similar way to the idea of the separation of power in the government. Hence, I think that Twitter being run by a controversial person like Musk is positive for the world, and I think it's a pity if everyone starts migrating to services that are again a little to friendly with the hegemonic media/academia/political consensus position. But it's not really something I'd fault anyone in particular for. It's only natural that you move to where you feel most comfortable & welcome.

There's two ways to handle it - one is to prove not all government funded media is the same (one may start by not using deceptive tricks like the graph described above) and another is to scream "how dare you publish true information about us" and ragequit. CBC chose the latter, because the former is probably too hard for them.

I file that under "their own damn fault". For decades they've been demonizing foreign government media funding while responding with a dismissive "totally different" to anyone who points out they get a lot of government funding. The CBC is big enough and powerful enough that it's employees can isolate themselves from criticism they don't want to hear.

Perhaps this is a mistake with our current economic regime? I’d argue that due to economic complexity the average citizen should be more aware of who owns the product or service they’re consuming, rather than less.

Hell, I’d vote for a law that forced companies to display their owner if they do get acquired.

I feel much the same. The issue at hand is who’s paying for the news. The tag isn’t defamatory — the media in question are government funded. Fox is owned by Murdoch. The biases to the extent they exist are created in the minds of the reader. On the other hand, without telling people who’s paying that group to produce the news, no intelligent decisions can be made about the trustworthiness of any given source. More light will eventually lead to truth, as people learn to be better news consumers.

I suspect that a lot of the drama over these media outlets not wanting to be on Twitter because they’re being labeled is that they don’t like the smears that have been done using the idea of government funding (in regimes we don’t like) as a stand in for regime mouthpiece.

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