site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31877 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In the case of journalism, while you may call their arguments motivated reasoning you are completely misrepresenting their stated position, which is not that automation is bad in AI because journalists just deserve their jobs more than everyone else, but rather that journalism is an important public service the quality or accuracy of which may be negatively impacted by AI.

In the case of the actors though, you seem to be objecting to... their union trying to resist the introduction of practices which will be unfavourable to its members? That's their job?

The journalists stated position is no different from a construction workers. Building a house is important service! Yet the quality of construction work has gone downhill dramatically where I'm from because of immigration. On top of that now you have drastically increased crime within the industry. No journalist ever gave a crap. They just close their eyes to the problems and celebrate 'diversity', refugees and more immigration inbetween complaints about astronomically high rent and housing prices.

And that's just if we assume that the modern journalist is providing an important public service. I'd maintain that most are not. Which was the opposite of construction work. And the few that are living up to the fantasy that most journalists wrap themselves in when criticized are more likely to be ostracized from the mainstream than not. Eva Bartlett and Assange come to mind.

In the case of the actors though, you seem to be objecting to... their union trying to resist the introduction of practices which will be unfavourable to its members? That's their job?

That's not the objection at all. I object to how ugly the industry is and how blind the people who work in it and support it are to the disenfranchisement of others. It's the ugliest form of hypocrisy I know of. The rich and powerful celebrating the deteriorating conditions inflicted on the poor and powerless. They then have the gall to cry about it when a similar proposal is presented for them. As if they just have to live the super privileged life of an 'artist' in the most expensive places on earth.

Motivated reasoning is a given. But that's something we all suffer from. I just expect, at the bare minimum, people show some, dignity, respect and a modicum of self awareness. These types of people are an ugly embarrassment.

The rich and powerful celebrating the deteriorating conditions inflicted on the poor and powerless.

What is this even in reference to? Where is this happening among actors except inside your head? You seem to have constructed this idea of the heartless New York journalist who hates the working class, but on issues such as working conditions and minimum wages they are surely much more pro-workers' rights than the median. If you want people didn't 'ever give a crap', maybe have a look at Republicans.

Eva Bartlett

Lol. A credulous hack. Just being anti-US doesn't automatically make you brave and noble or produce good journalism, especially if you're running cover for dictatorships; she is ostracised for good reason.

Nigh every actor champions pro-immigration and pro-diversity rhetoric.

You seem to have constructed this idea of the heartless New York journalist who hates the working class, but on issues such as working conditions and minimum wages they are surely much more pro-workers' rights than the median.

I can't help you with that, given I did not write such things.

If you want people didn't 'ever give a crap', maybe have a look at Republicans.

Why not both? And for what it's worth, Republicans think just as fondly of themselves as journalists do. They don't see themselves hating anyone regardless of how harmful the policies they support are.

Lol. A credulous hack. Just being anti-US doesn't automatically make you brave and noble or produce good journalism, especially if you're running cover for dictatorships; she is ostracised for good reason.

But being pro-truth when it happens to side against the mainstream rhetoric on Assad does make you a good journalist, even if just by chance.

All of this seems besides the point though. Your argument about journalism and the stated position of journalists being somehow different to the position of construction workers was just bunk. I'm not surprised you would try to talk yourself away from it with irrelevant stuff but it's not very interesting.

but rather that journalism is an important public service the quality or accuracy of which may be negatively impacted by AI.

Well, from the perspective of many here (a perspective I can sympathize with), the quality and accuracy of modern journalism is already at a low in absolute terms, so with AI, there is nowhere to go but up.

Maybe if all one reads is online crap one would think that, but in the real world there are huge numbers of journalists doing enormously important work. Just pick up the Economist, FT, New Statesman or many, many others, or tune into the World Service and you can read and hear it.

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