site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Agreed here. I think that most major institutions will be massively blindsided, at least from the public perspective. With a technology this volatile that's so hard to predict, I think the risk assessment will make these hide bound juggernauts try to avoid taking a public stance until the chips fall decisively to one side or another. Which is precisely when their statements will cease to really matter.

This is, of course, by design.

This is, of course, by design.

Whose?

I’m at least partially convinced of Venkatesh Rao’s idea that sociopaths create bureaucracy within organizations in large part to be able to shift blame or reap praise as the winds shift. Essentially large bureaucracies exist to make things move slowly and give people scapegoats at different steps.

This setup leads to slow-moving public statements generally, and combine that with a culture that follows the precautionary principle, you get large institutions that generally don’t say anything controversial.

http://www.ccru.net/swarm1/1_melt.htm

You'll have to explain that one as if to a ten-year old.

The protagonist of history isn't humans but the intelligent force some people with Marxist inclinations call "capitalism" that has been terraforming the world and modifying humans for its purposes since the age of sail.

This story is about that force not needing humans anymore and ridding itself of them.

That's interesting. There's a new book called Inhuman Capital that pretty much makes this point, from indeed a Marxist pov. The endgame is no humans at all.

Finally catching on to accelerationism I guess.

The problem is that complaining about deterritorialisation is ultimately reactionary. if full communism requires there be no humans, do Marxists side with humanity or with the principle of the thing?

This is why I'm not interested in the doom saying people have about AI and the current crop of LLMs, we already have a "general" artificial intelligence that's at best indifferent and at worst malicious, they are called corporations and they are globally distributed.

Oh, sure, that makes sense. I can absolutely get on board with that. And it's such a nice theory, too - you can call that force capitalism, or intelligence, or life! Whatever it is, it stands to reason that humans are only an intermediate phase of its development.

I get a lot of pleasure watching the AI Ethics folks pointedly refuse to even acknowledge that LLMs are getting more capable. Some of them have noted publicly that they're bleeding credibility because of it, but can't talk about it because of chilling effects.

It's also remarkable how the agreed-upon leading lights of the AI Ethics movement are all female (with the possible exception of Moritz Hardt, who keeps his head down). The field is playing out like you'd imagine it would in an uncharitable right-wing polemic.

The field is playing out like you'd imagine it would in an uncharitable right-wing polemic.

Is Harry Potter considered right-wing now? I get serious Professor Umbridge vibes from Emily M Bender. Imagine Harry Potter Sam Altman demonstrating the magic of artificial intelligence to congress in person, and then having Professor Bender show up and start lecturing about how it is impossible in-principle for LLMs to provide useful information, then start ranting incoherently about “techbros” and “AI hype”.

Harry Potter is a children’s book for children. Much as I love it.

One can pattern-match Umbridges and Dumbledores and Hermiones in the real world because JKR wrote plausible characters, not because of a political allegory.

Is Harry Potter considered right-wing now?

The novel series about kids starting a secret gun club because all government institutions are thoroughly corrupt and infiltrated by a cabal of perverted elites that want to live forever?

Always has been.

It's also a whole bunch of other things because despite being a stylistically poor writer, Rowling is actually an artist and capable of tapping into the archetypes of the English collective unconscious to extract the nature of masculine evil and feminine evil, all different that they are.

If Voldie only wanted to live forever he wouldn't be the villain. No one would know who he is.

He’d be a side note on a chocolate frog card, remaining completely offscreen even as the protagonists destroy his life’s work.

Of course I playfully skip over the main thing that makes HP left wing coded in some people's minds, the EVIL NAZIS who want to ethnically cleanse the wizarding world.

But do understand my point is that it's not really left wing or right wing. It is both and neither because it's trying to actually relate to the human experience of being a British schoolboy with a destiny. And what's more British than fighting the Nazis, really?

And what's more British than fighting the Nazis, really?

Building empire over which the sun never sets, while dressed in terribly hot khaki uniform and drinking tea.

Now that's soldiering.

And what's more British than fighting the Nazis, really?

You don't mean to imply that the House of Saxe-Coburg and GothaWindsor isn't British do you?

Are you impying that the patriarch of the House of Windsor didn't make his bones killing fascists for the Royal Navy?

(A ⇒ B) ⇏ (¬A ⇒ ¬B). Try again.

More comments

Haha, exactly. I don't know if you've seen on Twitter, but a lot of FAccT people are still stuck on browbeating people for talking about general intelligence at all, since they claim that the very idea that intelligence can be meaningfully compared is racist + eugenicist.

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