site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33421 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

These are the situations where I endorse piracy;

  • There is no reasonable way I can purchase the media in question such that any profit at all would go to the original developer or IP owner. Yes, I could pay hundreds of quid for a secondhand console and game copy to play whatever retro thing I fancy that hasn't been ported... but the developer doesn't get any of that cash, so why should they care if I just... don't?

  • There is some kind of unreasonable caveat that means I don't feel comfortable engaging with terms as presented. "Free trial" software that wants my payment info anyway before I can use it? Anything at all that demands my phone number for verification before I can use it? No dice, I'm getting a cracked version.

  • There is no physical version available and I don't trust the developer/publisher's intentions for the future. Always-online and servers could go offline at any time? Pirate. Chance you could remotely "update" my books to censor them? Pirate. (This one has become more relevant in recent days.)

  • If the DRM noticeably degenerates the quality of the product (crashes, nukes the framerate, disables mods, etc).

Chance you could remotely "update" my books to censor them? Pirate. (This one has become more relevant in recent days.)

What is this referring to?

Presumably changes to Roahl Dahl books in a recent edition. Amongst other things, 'sensitivity' readers have removed words including "crazy," "fat," and "ugly" from the books.

I'm guessing the recent Roald Dahl edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl_revision_controversy

There is no reasonable way I can purchase the media in question such that any profit at all would go to the original developer or IP owner. Yes, I could pay hundreds of quid for a secondhand console and game copy to play whatever retro thing I fancy that hasn't been ported... but the developer doesn't get any of that cash, so why should they care if I just... don't?

I hear this justification a lot but I don't think it actually holds up. The original developer of the IP sold that IP for money or in some other way profited from the assumption that the IP would continue to be paid for. That's all part of value chain. If that breaks down it has the same basic impact as not paying the original developer.

I mean the example given was secondhand sales, not a transfer in ownership of the IP, for a reason. It literally doesn't benefit a developer if I buy a secondhand copy of something off ebay for an exorbitant price.

If I purchase a copy of The Adventures of Scrimblo Bimblo for the Atari Jaguar in year 1995, most of the value that I consider that game to have is my own enjoyment, but a (very) small part of that assessment is the resale value that I will get later on. The publisher of the game knows this, and sets the price of the game—and the compensation paid to the developer—accordingly.

I am skeptical that the publisher is going to set the price in 1995 taking into consideration how much it will sell for on ebay in 2023.

If you were totally unable to transfer ownership would that really not reduce your belief in the value of a game at least on the margin? If it took zero extra effort for me to get a version of a game on steam that was able to be resold over one that wasn't I'd definitely take the transferable one, I'd probably pay some increased amount for it.

Basing one's price based on the possibility that someone will invent a whole new way of selling in a couple of years is like setting a price now based on the possibility that it might get bought by space aliens in 2051.

Also, copyright extensions aren't accompanied by price changes.

Basing one's price based on the possibility that someone will invent a whole new way of selling in a couple of years

huh? This was not present in the hypothetical.

Technically true since ebay started in 1995, but it certainly wasn't important enough soon enough that anyone would take it into account.

I also think it's ok if the product is very unreasonably priced (usually applies to really old products that are still under copyright for unfathomable reasons, or stuff you already bought at some point) or to trial a product.

These rarely apply anymore though with the advent of right of return on steam and subscription models for media (that usually have trial periods anyway).

I would add another big one: Old things that are only copyrighted because of copyright extension. The worst case is old time radio; it's all copyrighted because of weirdnesses in the laws about sound recordings.

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