site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29421 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's quite curious how rationalist (or rationalist-adjacent) figures will go through the trouble of creating a pseudonym, but then make basic mistakes in opsec that will link them back, thus rendering the whole effort pointless.

The article claims that he reused email addresses, which is a really serious basic mistake. Not only does doing this assume that every website the email address is used on will never suffer a data breach or some other exploit that leaks users' email addresses, it also risks "crossing the streams" where you absentmindedly start doing things meant for one pseudonym on another. And it's really easy to avoid this mistake, too. Just create a new email account.

There's a couple other rationalist figures I have in mind that have had poor opsec, but it's probably best to not name them or go into detail (unless people here are really curious about opsec and want to learn more). Although, all the information I would post is public anyway.

Their IQ is low, sorry

This is quite low-effort. Please put more work into your comments than just drive-by insults.

It's quite curious how rationalist (or rationalist-adjacent) figures will go through the trouble of creating a pseudonym, but then make basic mistakes in opsec that will link them back, thus rendering the whole effort pointless.

To be fair, you don't notice all the cases where people do it correctly.

And it's really easy to avoid this mistake, too. Just create a new email account.

The amount of security you get out of creating a new email address is phenomenal and it's one of the easiest things you can do. It's basically the only thing propping up this story and all it would have required was 5 minutes on gmail (two minutes to create an account, two minutes to create the second account that you are actually going to use setting the first address as its recovery option, a minute to shake your head in disappointment at Richard Hanania.)

The last time I tried this Google locked me out of my account, saying I had to sign in with the same browser I created my account with. I couldn't do this, because I had created the account using a temporary browser profile. It's there a better free provider that doesn't do this? I used to use sharklasers.com, but a lot of sites now block that domain.

Not that I'm aware of, but things like that are part of the reason I always make two accounts and create a recovery email chain. Also instead of using incognito, download Firefox or brave or some other browser you don't use. And basically use that browser only for things tied to your new identity, and if you decide to move on you can just scrub that browser off your system. Oh and if you are going to use edge and you already use chrome or vice versa, make sure you turn off all the syncing shit that copies cookies and other data between them.

Don't you need to provide a phone number to create a gmail account these days? And, if you want to use it to view 18+ youtube content or whatever, you also need to provide a credit card or ID?

view 18+ youtube content

https://github.com/zerodytrash/Simple-YouTube-Age-Restriction-Bypass

Ha, that's awesome!

Seems to work nicely. Thanks!

Nope! It had been two months since I last created an email account, so I was a bit worried when I read this, but I just made bugsinmyeyescharles@gmail.com and no phone number was necessary. They give you the option for recovery purposes, but you can skip it if you like. You can skip adding a recovery email too, which is a good idea if this is your first burner email actually, I didn't realise you could skip that too (and I always use the last burner I made up as the recovery so there is a link, but you would have to connect around 27 other accounts as well to see an email address with any ties to my physical identity.)

Edit: I wanted to bust this comment out quick to illustrate the ease of creating a new email address, and I forgot about the age thing - yeah, you would, but this is about pseudonymously expressing your heart's deepest and most racist thoughts, not watching strippercise videos. Like all security issues, you do have to give up some convenience - in this case engaging with the stupidest comment sections on the internet.

and no phone number was necessary

It demands one from me

O_o That's odd, it definitely worked for me (and I'm sad nobody has signed my new email address up to a bunch of bizarre newsletters.) Maybe it's a location thing - I always have my vpn set to somewhere on the pacific rim, maybe that will fix it? (also make sure you have all location tracking turned off if you are using Windows otherwise you may as well not use a vpn).

Well, I already created several accounts so maybe I am flagged as problematic. Or maybe it classifies people from my area as more suspect.

TBF Scott's "pseudonym" was originally only intended to block prospective bosses from finding his blog on cursory name search; it wasn't really intended to protect against cancellation. It achieved what it was supposed to i.e. getting him hired.

Also, a decent chunk of these people were literal teenagers at the time that they made those mistakes, and this is hardly limited to Rats.

It's preposterous, and a sign of the times, that one needs to be well-versed in opsec in order to freely speak their mind. The highest degree of opsec is to simply never share your thoughts, never post anything online, ever.

Alternatively you could don the mask and assume a digital alter ego, extraverting all the opinions of orthodoxy while suppressing your more controversial takes. Dissociative identity disorder for the digital era.

Both modes of living are fundamentally dishonest, misrepresentative, and, indeed, miserable.

Freedom of expression without fear of cancellation and censure is required for one to affirm their identity. Anything else is robbing one of their ability to authentically express their identity and who they are.

It's preposterous, and a sign of the times, that one needs to be well-versed in opsec in order to freely speak their mind.

Maybe it's a sign of the times, but this isn't anything unique to the internet. The Federalist Papers were published under pseudonyms.

Arguably, it's a sign of the times that a significant many on the internet aren't practicing opsec. When the internet first started, people were just screen names in ephemeral chat rooms. Now, they use their real names, with real photos of themselves, leaving behind permanent posts on social media sites describing everything in detail for the entire world to see.

The highest degree of opsec is to simply never share your thoughts, never post anything online, ever.

Technically true, but that's like saying the highest degree of transport safety is to never drive or get in a car, ever.

(And before the urbanists go "this but unironically", might I point out that bikes, trains, trams, and planes still have accidents too, so the technically-true highest degree would also avoid those.)

Both modes of living are fundamentally dishonest, misrepresentative, and, indeed, miserable.

I don't see how this follows. There's nothing fundamentally dishonest or misrepresentative about adopting a pseudonym. It also doesn't have to be miserable. 90% of opsec is shutting up, and that could get many people by for many years. You would only have to do the remaining 10% if you're really paranoid.

Freedom of expression without fear of cancellation and censure is required for one to affirm their identity. Anything else is robbing one of their ability to authentically express their identity and who they are.

I don't find much value in having my identity affirmed or expressed.

Arguably, it's a sign of the times that a significant many on the internet aren't practicing opsec. When the internet first started, people were just screen names in ephemeral chat rooms. Now, they use their real names, with real photos of themselves, leaving behind permanent posts on social media sites describing everything in detail for the entire world to see.

I know this. I grew up on IRC, where the first rule you learned was never to use your real name or give out any personally identifying information on the Internet.

This changed when Zuck came along, and normalized the exact opposite behaviour. Now, if you don't have any digital persona attached to your real name due to stringent practice of opsec, you are automatically regarded with suspicion.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you have no presence online, people assume the worst anyway. I'm tired of hiding behind a pseudonym, as I have done since I first logged onto the net in the mid 2000s.

90% of opsec is shutting up

Sure. Never express yourself, just keep everything held down.

I don't find much value in having my identity affirmed or expressed.

This seems to be one of the most pertinent problems of our time.

Sure. Never express yourself, just keep everything held down.

That is not what I meant. What I meant is that, for example, if you don't want to reveal to others where you live, you shouldn't mention the name of your city or town. Basic stuff like that. You can still express yourself.

This seems to be one of the most pertinent problems of our time.

How is it a problem? Arguably, it's the other way around, and wanting your identity affirmed or expressed is the problem. The entire trans movement and its externalities stem from a misguided goal to affirm and express their identities.

That is not what I meant. What I meant is that, for example, if you don't want to reveal to others where you live, you shouldn't mention the name of your city or town. Basic stuff like that. You can still express yourself.

Except, it's not your self being expressed under a pseudonym. It's your digital simulacrum.

I mean, yes. But arguably even if you do link your real-life identity, it's still a digital simulacrum, because typing text is different than saying words in real life. Is there a standard by which if you reveal enough details on a pseudonym, it's no longer considered a "digital simulacrum"?

Isn't much of this downstream of irl rewards accruing to people who post online?

On Facebook circa 2006, the reward was being cool and maybe getting a date. On Twitter and Instagram circa 2022 it became getting enough followers to monetize and move into the real media like a JomBoy or a Hanania.

It's preposterous, and a sign of the times, that one needs to be well-versed in opsec in order to freely speak their mind.

No it's not, the weird moment in the late 90s/early 00s where the rest of society hadn't quite caught on to the existince of the internet was just that. A weird momemnt. What we are seeing now is a return to the status quo.

The biggest example I have in mind is of someone who didn't make opsec mistakes as a teenager, only as an adult.

Fair enough.

Maybe I'm projecting but it's possible he halfway wanted to be found out. Like he wishes he could post his more risque views in public but is scared of the consequences. Being a public figure and having to hide some of your beliefs all the time would be stressful

I’m very curious about opsec and wish to know more.

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