site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31722 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well sure. If you don't know everything else about the person you're looking at. But the goal- is to be able to know everything about each person you're looking at so that you don't have to make non-causal inferences. Not just for equity, but because they make you wrong more.

And the counterargument- to what I just said- is that it's hard to do that right? But ultimately I'm right. Right? We'd be right more if we had the resources to just see more layers of the life of the black dude in the alley?

So I'ma go make a social inference AI and get back to you.

I think "presume we still lack access to an AI with near-omniscience in the realm of [x]" is implicit in most discussions. Once your social inference AI exists and we have free access to it, the entire social landscape would transform so much that it's hard to even predict what problems might exist, much less how we'd fix them. How to treat race in that landscape is a very different question than how to treat race in the landscape in which we find ourselves. And without the ability to instantly or even quickly switch from one landscape to the other, we still have to figure out how to interact with each other in this current crude landscape where we lack access to this social inference AI.

the entire social landscape would transform so much that it's hard to even predict what problems might exist, much less how we'd fix them.

Actually, coming back to this. I would like to get your thoughts. I believe in myself and my ability to make this AI. It will be very tough to get it to the point where it can see a face in a hoodie at night on a dark street and tell you about that guy- But I expect to be able to do a fairly comprehensive background/shared-values/personal-info/interaction-styles/preferences check on all internet figures with consistent usernames that frequently post in servers/sites/subs I visit by year's end.

What I want your thoughts on is- I know you litterally just said "it's hard to even predict what problems might exist, much less how we'd fix them." But this is important. If I succeed I need to be aware that of disruption I cause by distributing this to anyone who wants it and making it simple and easy to one click install on desktop and query via LLM....

I want to know what problems you think I'll be creating as I move forward. I want to be able to solve issues I help create by spreading this level of social awareness. Brainstormed hypotheses are fine here if you don't have strong predictions. It's all worth at least considering. Especially as I begin to automate the consideration and processing of such possibilities.

Yes. Very understandable. I will not begrudge you that. I am going to keep sitting in my privileged small town and never walking down streets at night and making my social inference AI though. You keep doing you but heads up.

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