site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33461 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.

The system we have is set out to solve a very difficult problem. There is substantial upfront cost to produce some information and in order to incentivize that production of data the prospective producers need some way to capture some of the value produced by the upfront investment otherwise there would be no upfront investment. Those options are as follows:

  1. government sponsored investment(A.K.A. everyone is forced to pay whether they want to or not)

  2. intellectual property rights to the fruits of the investment

  3. some scheme where people who want something to be produced pool their money and are just fine with the free riders

  4. the information is simply not produced

There is no secret extra option where there is upfront investment but nobody needs to pay. You can't have people do #2 and then decide that you're going to pretend they did #3 because you still want to be a free rider.

And it's all fine and good to scoff at like pop media or whatever but this problem becomes very real when the thing the upfront investment is in is some cancer cure that you're going to die without. You very very much do not want that to end up in the #4 trap and that the only place it can end up with your beliefs.

I mean, I have no qualms about biting the bullet with #4 and I am someone who would almost certainly be dead of a childhood illness in that world. Humanity does not deserve those things that would not have been produced without the current legal incentive structure.

I find this belief very strange. What do we get out of biting this bullet? The internet and copying mechanisms are a result of huge international schemes and standards. None of this is natural and none of it is beyond social convention. The internet started as a government program, there isn't and never was some kind of anarchic internet. Don't get me wrong, I am consistently an advocate of liberty but we're talking about something that only exists under several abstractions of major organizations and the thing you're giving up is the engine producing more content than has ever existed before every year, the vast majority of which is even already free. You're going to collapse the whole thing on what is honestly a pretty dubious principle in a context that has no precedent? Yes, the metaphors to physical goods aren't perfect because it's an entirely new sector, and as many are lamenting in this thread you don't have the next generation on your side.

So what does your plan actually boil down to? you save a couple grand across your entire life to, if your position is wide spread enough to not be a footnote in history, get vastly interior content? Which you would have gotten for free anyways under the status quo? I can't even tell what principal this is supposed to be on behalf of, you all know that private property itself is a social concept right?

So what does your plan actually boil down to?

We get a world where art is made by the people who can't help but be artists and inventions by people who can't help but be inventors, and not in search of a profit.

I can't even tell what principal this is supposed to be on behalf of, you all know that private property itself is a social concept right?

Ideas cannot be owned. Full stop. Yes, ownership of material objects is a social construct, but one that has been with us far longer and that I don't have any problems with. If intellectual property is the pillar holding up all of industrial civilization, then so be it. In that case we should not have come this far this fast, and if it would never have been otherwise then it was never meant to be in the first place.

Your ideals involve billions starving, your ideals are bad. I could dress this up in more words but it wouldn't add anything.

Just because I would prefer a world where those billions might never have been born doesn’t mean I want the people alive today to starve. Two wrongs don't make a right and what has already been built must be defended, but I won't lie and say that I think it is good.

There is substantial upfront cost to produce some information and in order to incentivize that production of data the prospective producers need some way to capture some of the value produced by the upfront investment otherwise there would be no upfront investment.

I'm not sure how it's my problem. My rights are not up for debate and i have right to do anything i want with my private property. And frankly if you're shifting the whole debate into removing my right to private property or diluting it with asterisks and "subscription model" contractual obligations - it's you who's being unethical, not me. Whether you're doing it for your own benefit or for poorly understood "common good" doesn't matter.

You can't have people do #2 and then decide that you're going to pretend they did #3 because you still want to be a free rider.

I'm not advocating for #2 at all, so i'm not sure how it's relevant.

And it's all fine and good to scoff at like pop media or whatever but this problem becomes very real when the thing the upfront investment is in is some cancer cure that you're going to die without.

There's plenty of ways to extort money from me which sound like they're for the greater good, it's still extortion though.

You very very much do not want that to end up in the #4 trap and that the only place it can end up with your beliefs.

No, the history shows that its not how it ends with my beliefs, you're not saying that "the information was simply not produced" before the intellectual property rights were a thing, are you?

Look, I'm partial to these libertarian "I'm free to do whatever I want" arguments but you've not actually solved the problem here. How precisely do we solve this commons problem without the concept of intellectual property? Just poofing the idea of intellectual property has tremendous cost you seem completely unwilling to contemplate. And because what? some juvenile trantrum that you are being told that defecting on the intellectual property system is unethical? It's not very impressive. And yes, it will end up in subscription models and DRM because that's the economic reality you seem totally unwilling to actually confront.

There's plenty of ways to extort money from me which sound like they're for the greater good, it's still extortion though.

Offering you an informational good that you can absolutely refuse is not extortion. What an absurd idea.

How precisely do we solve this commons problem without the concept of intellectual property?

Have you added me to that "we" of yours for some reason? I repeat - i don't see the problem you're talking about. Your system has some problems and i need to somehow solve it for you? I've already said that i don't feel any need to incentivize any production with or without any cost upfront, it's not a positive change in my eyes. Incentivizing creating crap isn't good, there's always money in the crowdfunding and private patrons for anyone who sees themselves worthy of it and private property rights aren't up for debate and extortions for the greater good are unethical, that's all i'm saying.

Just poofing the idea of intellectual property has tremendous cost you seem completely unwilling to contemplate. And because what? some juvenile trantrum that you are being told that defecting on the intellectual property system is unethical? It's not very impressive.

I'm kind of lost you i'm afraid, i don't think i'm doing unethical thing pirating things. And i don't want to solve some fake problems.

And yes, it will end up in subscription models and DRM because that's the economic reality you seem totally unwilling to actually confront.

Sure, but not because of the piracy but because it simply maximizes profits of people who sell it. It's the case with or without piracy and the moral panic about the piracy is long time gone. And you're happy with that because muh intellectual property is "ethical"! That's the bright future intellectual property incentives lead to. But you don't need to participate in it, right?

Have you added me to that "we" of yours for some reason? I repeat - i don't see the problem you're talking about. Your system has some problems and i need to somehow solve it for you? I've already said that i don't feel any need to incentivize any production with or without any cost upfront, it's not a positive change in my eyes. Incentivizing creating crap isn't good, there's always money in the crowdfunding and private patrons for anyone who sees themselves worthy of it and private property rights aren't up for debate

I'm saying in your world without IP a whole lot of good stuff simply cannot be produced. To repeat this example from a different thread my grandfather was recently saved from colon cancer by a new cancer drug developed by some pharmaceutical company that raised funds on their research on the basis that their IP would be able to recoup the costs. Please explain how my grandfather survives with your preferred world without IP.

extortions for the greater good are unethical, that's all i'm saying.

We must have very different definition of 'extortion' can you please define yours?

Sure, but not because of the piracy but because it simply maximizes profits of people who sell it.

I am certain that spending money on stuff that prevents piracy is not profitable if there is no piracy.

I'm saying in your world without IP a whole lot of good stuff simply cannot be produced. To repeat this example from a different thread my grandfather was recently saved from colon cancer by a new cancer drug developed by some pharmaceutical company that raised funds on their research on the basis that their IP would be able to recoup the costs. Please explain how my grandfather survives with your preferred world without IP.

I'm very happy for your grandfather, but i repeat myself - my rights for the private property are not up for debate. The IP laws are infringing on private property rights as they say that i cannot do anything i want with the property i lawfully bought. Including reverse-engineering and selling or gifting it to anyone else. So if you're saying that look, you must totally reduce your private property rights because of the life of people - i'm sorry, no, that's EXTORTION. And what's probably even more important - you're not even making a practically good point, developing a cure from cancer is desirable with or WITHOUT IP rights, it can save the life of anyone and it will produce benefit no matter what. Imagine the president of a pharmaceutical company which decided not to finance the cancer research because without the IP rights he will have higher return of investment risk, at his daughters funeral after she died from cancer. I'm not sure why do you need to generate pity for poor pharmaceutical companies which will all surely die without the IP rights! No, they won't, and they won't cease any research.

And if you'll seriously argue that a bit higher risk of investment as well as a bit lesser profit margin LITERALLY KILLS PEOPLE then there surely is no other way but to just give all the money currently spent on less important activity(and what can be more important than saving human lives??) to pharmaceutical companies RIGHT NOW, as it will surely save at least some lives, right? It's some bullshit rationalist trolley problem again.

Somehow good stuff was produced before IP rights saved humanity.

I am certain that spending money on stuff that prevents piracy is not profitable if there is no piracy.

I'm not talking about anti-piracy mechanisms like DRM, i'm talking about subscription mechanisms, when you no longer own a piece of software but you rent it/use it with some asterisks(or car, or house, or anything). Paying more, getting less, not owning it so the product can be removed from you at any time and so on. Those things sometimes are positioned as some kind of anti-piracy defense too when they are quite obviously not, they're for maximizing profits. Looking forward for you to own nothing and be happy. But muh IP rights...

The IP laws are infringing on private property rights as they say that i cannot do anything i want with the property i lawfully bought.

And the obvious patch on this is that you buy a diminished perpetual license, that's the world you're pushing for there are no other options. And stop pretending this is some kind of novel limit on private property laws, there are tons of things you're not allowed to do with your private property. You can't swing your totally legal axe at my head for example.

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