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 -
Some artists have. Other artists have demonstrated that people will willingly give them money for things they make even if they don't require it, merely out of admiration of the work and admiration of the artist. Others will pay them up-front because they're a good investment. I observe that most of the artists I admire and care about are in this later set, and a lot of the artists in the former range from terminally boring to actively toxic.
The arrangement you describe isn't a moral fact of the universe, but rather a social construction. As with most social constructions, it exists while people agree to maintain it. If people don't want to maintain it any more, it goes away, and the people who benefited from it are out of luck. Copyright protections are of immediate advantage to artists, but deriving advantage from something is not the same as having a right to that thing. I would derive great advantage from everyone paying me significant sums of money in exchange for my assessment of their individual moral character. I do not have a right to such payment, do I?
Cool, consume their art and let the rest of us plebeians pay for art.
A social construct indeed and even more than that a contract, an agreement between people that you advocate for wantonly violating. Other neat social constructs we have are the ones where you have to pay at the store before leaving with goods, not committing random acts of violence and not cheating on medical board exams.
you would have a right to one if I had an agreement with you that I'd pay you for such an assessment. But we don't, and as such you can either give it to me for free or keep it to yourself. Someone in the chain of piracy has violated such an agreement.
If we just ignore all the obscurantism this is a very simple system:
someone produces something and is willing to let you have a copy of it on the condition that you don't copy it
You want this copy
you or somebody else breaks the compact and copies it anyways
I cannot fathom how you have convinced yourself that this is ethical.
Yeah, that happens with social contracts sometimes. They're based on popular consent, and that consent can be withdrawn. If it is, they go away, and the people who relied on them have no real recourse. This is typically most unfortunate for those people, but that's just... reality. I don't value the social contract you're appealing to, and I don't particularly value the goods it delivers, so I see no practical purpose in upholding it.
Yes, and I agree that those should be upheld, because they and the results they produce seem valuable to me, not because vague, informal social contracts should be upheld at all costs.
Suppose I argued that we have a "social contract" that you have to make such an agreement with me. Suppose it's even true, we pass a law and everything! Would you still argue that you're morally required to pay? There's nothing innately preventing a social contract from being stupid or evil. We make rules because we think they lead to good outcomes, not for the love of rule-making and -following.
This is bad if demanding people not copy things is a reasonable thing to do. It's not, though. The right to copy data and ideas is much, much more valuable than all data and ideas that have ever existed, and trading the former for the latter is such a bad deal that attempting to enforce it is fundamentally repugnant. Copyright was maybe a good idea when and how it was originally implemented. Its current application as the cornerstone of immortal socially-toxic megacorporations is absurd and awful. I have the power to withdraw my consent, and so I do.
By the belief that law and morality do not perfectly overlap. Sometimes laws, customs and norms are wrong, and should be pulled down.
Not a social contract, an actual contract. As in you're either violating a contract or knowingly benefiting from someone who did.
Then don't consume them. How is this that difficult? There are producers and consumers that have created an ecosystem you claim to not want anything to do with. They have created laws to make sure the ecosystem works that cost you nothing if you don't intrude. Why is this offensive to you? Unless you actually want the produce of that ecosystem, which you claim to not want. So what, exactly, is the problem here? If you simply don't interact with that ecosystem it's like you're living in the world you claim to want to live in.
I would simply go without your content as was always an option. not sure why you're ignoring that I already addressed this. There are zero laws saying you have to buy Disney movies unless you specifically want to watch Disney movies.
You are totally free to operate entirely in a FOSS environment and only interact with other people who agree that the information they put out is free to be copied. No one is threatening such a right. Others however have opted into a system where they are able to be paid for their intellectual output. And you have zero right to the fruits of that system.
My grandfather was saved from colon cancer by a new cancer drug that would not exist if the pharmaceutical company could not raise capital on the basis that their drug patent would be able to recoup the R&D costs. In your proposed system please explain how my grandfather would not be dead.
I can see the argument that you and I can make a straightforward contract of you giving me X and me giving you Y. I am much more skeptical of a contract that is supposed to constrain my actions in perpetuity, which prohibits me from trading with anyone who does not likewise agree to have their actions constrained in perpetuity, and so on over infinite recursions. It seems to me that such recursive, unlimited constraint creates little positive and much negative, and I'm not inclined to support its propagation. I feel similarly about contracts placing one in perpetual slavery, and other abrogations of what I perceive to be basic rights. The everlasting, infinite strength of contracts is not the foundation of my moral universe, and I am entirely willing to trade them off against other values.
Declining to watch Disney movies does not allow me to live in a world where the Disney Corporation has no perceptible impact on my life and the environment I live in. Further, if I claim that the Disney corporation is a net-negative, that doesn't mean that some of the things they produce aren't positive when consumed for free. I'm happy to forgo Disney products in exchange for Disney not existing, but not in exchange for voluntarily cooperating with the maintenance of Disney's existence. I see no contradiction here, only a question of practicalities.
True, and my attempt to argue otherwise was malformed. Still, it remains true that there's very nearly zero reason to obey the law that says you have to buy Disney movies to watch them. That's the core problem we keep circling back to: you can't enforce your ideological preferences, so you're dependent on the willing consent of others, and that consent can be withdrawn when the negative results of your ideological preferences manifest. Disney can't make money if they don't show people their data, and data is so trivial to copy and distribute that keeping it locked down is basically impossible.
As it happens, I'm free to copy things also because I see no reason to refrain from doing so and because you don't have the power to stop me. If you could prevent me from doing so by force, that would be one thing, and if you could persuade me that doing so was a bad idea, that would be another thing, but the first appears prohibitively difficult, and the second doesn't seem much easier.
I have every right to ideas, to data, to knowledge of reality and to imagination, to anything I can fit into my brain or the various brain-prostheses I possess. If you show me a picture, I own the sensory impressions it leaves in my mind. I reject the concept that any of these things can belong exclusively to any one individual in any fundamental sense. No one can own words, or language, or colors, names, plots, settings, dramatic motifs, or any of the rest of it. None of these things are worth anything unless they are shared, and neither you nor anyone else has a moral right to universal, perpetual control over how they're shared from now to the end of time. If you want such control, you have to negotiate for it, and if those negotiations fail, both sides revert to BATNA from their own perspective. BATNA from my perspective is I copy, remix, fold, spindle and mutilate the absolute hell out of anything I please, for any purpose I please, and thumb my nose at anyone who disapproves. If BATNA from your perspective is you secretly burn your Great American Novel rather than release it to those unwilling to pay you for the pleasure, I'm okay with that.
Delaying your grandfather's inevitable death is not a terminal value for me either; death is inevitable for all of us, and should not be greatly feared. I've already stated my view that the right to copy data is more valuable than all data that has ever existed; I'm pretty sure all the data that's ever existed is more valuable than one life by any reasonable standard.
Honestly, you know that private property itself is a social concept itself right? Adding an extra dimension onto that shouldn't be that unbelievable.
No, I don't know that private property is a social concept.
Personal space is not a social concept, but an emergent property of our brain. Individual identity, "I" versus "you", likewise is not a social concept. "Ownership", "belonging", "taking possession", "acquiring" or whatever you want to call it likewise seems to be an emergent property of individual identity, and the projection of that identity onto one's surroundings. Infants instinctively grasp and seize, grow attached to objects, but we have to teach them to share, to respect the property of others. The exact details of how we do that is a social concept, but the necessity for some way of doing that, bound by the constraints of physical reality and human nature, is not. Every society I've ever heard of has a concept analogous to personal property, and a concept analogous to theft. More complex societies lay down more and more refined ways of adjudicated disputes over proper possession, but the core concept seems quite primordial. No matter where or when they are, people are always going to consider some small sliver of all existent objects and territory "theirs", and all we can do is attempt to work around this reality as best we can.
But again, none of this applies to the immaterial. If I compose and sing a song, I have neither a right nor even much of a motivation to insist that you pay me before you sing it yourself. And indeed for nearly all of history, the idea of someone "owning" an ordinary song or story they'd come up with and renting it out to others, was preposterous. People might be paid to perform, and they might even be paid to compose, but "intellectual property rights" was not a thing, even millennia after "physical property rights" absolutely was. And in fact it was the crudity, limited supply and expense of early recording, copying and distribution tech that made the idea even remotely practical. The social structures that grew up arbitraging these inefficiencies are now doing everything in their power to maintain their niche, but it's easier, cheaper and better just to let them go extinct, and we will not suffer greatly from doing so. The case may be different in the world of physical goods, high-tech engineering and so on; then again, it may not.
Do you think that there is anything primordial in people that causes them to always consider some small sliver of all the ideas in the universe "theirs"?
Sure, but what "theirs" means changes drastically when the item in question is infinitely replicable. People often spend considerable effort preventing people from carrying off their possessions, and expend similar effort trying to encourage people to carry off their ideas. Ideas become more valuable the more people take them up.
So, no, the two attitudes don't seem comparable.
More options
Context Copy link
The relational parts of our languages are called possessives. Of course humans instinctively believe in ownership.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link