site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30068 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They are geofenced to not work in Russian-controlled areas so that Russia can't use them

That's possible, but all i have here is the New Yorker's assertion vs your assertion. Do you have a source or something?

My guess would've been that access would've been controlled by some method of authentication, so that the Ukrainian terminals would work anywhere but anything held by Russians wouldn't work at all, making such a geofence unnecessary.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-elon-musk-spacex-technology-business-c79c81ff4e6a09f4a185e627dad858fa

About the same time, Starlink terminals stopped working in newly liberated territories at the Ukraine-Russia front lines in the Kherson region. Ukrainian officials later said that was because the speed of their reconquest had pushed forces into areas Starlink that had “geo-fenced” to prevent Russia from using the service.

It was remarkably difficult to find this. Most of the news coverage, especially more recent news coverage, presents it as implicitly nefarious and either doesn't know or doesn't bother to mention that Ukrainian officials have stated what the issue was. Other than this Associated Press article the only other one I saw mentioning the actual reason was this Financial Times article quoting a third party.

My guess would've been that access would've been controlled by some method of authentication, so that the Ukrainian terminals would work anywhere but anything held by Russians wouldn't work at all, making such a geofence unnecessary.

Starlink was made free throughout Ukraine so I think it just works if you have a terminal without needing an account. Doing authentication separate from owning the device seems impractical, for many military purposes you want it running continuously and it's not like you want it to start demanding a password (that soldiers have to memorize) any time it loses power. By comparison apparently Ukraine has been supplied with some SINCGARS encrypted radios, they work like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINCGARS

When hailing a network, a user outside the network contacts the network control station (NCS) on the cue frequency. In the active FH mode, the SINCGARS radio gives audible and visual signals to the operator that an external subscriber wants to communicate with the FH network. The SINCGARS operator must change to the cue frequency to communicate with the outside radio system. The network can be set to a manual frequency for initial network activation. The manual frequency provides a common frequency for all members of the network to verify that the equipment is operational.

But something like that doesn't work for Starlink, you can't have someone at SpaceX talk to the user and confirm he's Ukrainian every time a Starlink terminal is turned on.

Thanks! That's interesting, and is enough to make one doubt the original story.

Although, at the top of that article is the following:

Onstage at a conference in Washington, D.C., Shotwell [SpaceX President] said: “We were really pleased to be able to provide Ukraine connectivity and help them in their fight for freedom. It was never intended to be weaponized. However, Ukrainians have leveraged it in ways that were unintentional and not part of any agreement.”

Speaking separately to reporters from The Wall Street Journal and other news organizations afterward, Shotwell said SpaceX has worked to restrict Ukraine’s use of Starlink for military purposes.

“There are things that we can do to limit their ability to do that,” they quoted her as saying without offering details. “There are things that we can do, and have done.”

That drew the ire of a top aide to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In a tweet, Mykhailo Podolyak said SpaceX needs to decide whether it is on the side of Ukraine’s right to freedom or Russia’s “‘right’ to kill & seize territories.”

Which is also odd.

... It's very weird, in a grand sense, that we're trying to draw all of these conclusions from a few paragraphs of text scattered across a few small news articles, right? It seems easy for misunderstandings, intentional or not, to emerge from that. And that's not just a problem for this, but the whole project of 'understanding politics and the world via news'.

Speaking separately to reporters from The Wall Street Journal and other news organizations afterward, Shotwell said SpaceX has worked to restrict Ukraine’s use of Starlink for military purposes.

“There are things that we can do to limit their ability to do that,” they quoted her as saying without offering details. “There are things that we can do, and have done.”

That quote was specifically about not allowing them to directly control drones via Starlink, not "use of Starlink for military purposes" in general. They're fine with allowing them to be used for military communication but apparently not with drones carrying Starlink terminals so that they can be controlled by satellite without worrying about range and with less concern about jamming.

Reuters: SpaceX curbed Ukraine's use of Starlink internet for drones -company president

Speaking later with reporters, Shotwell referred to reports that the Ukrainian military had used the Starlink service to control drones.

Ukraine has made effective use of unmanned aircraft for spotting enemy positions, targeting long-range fires and dropping bombs.

"There are things that we can do to limit their ability to do that," she said, referring to Starlink's use with drones. "There are things that we can do, and have done."

Shotwell declined to say what measures SpaceX had taken.

Using Starlink with drones went beyond the scope of an agreement SpaceX has with the Ukrainian government, Shotwell said, adding the contract was intended for humanitarian purposes such as providing broadband internet to hospitals, banks and families affected by Russia's invasion.

"We know the military is using them for comms, and that's ok," she said. "But our intent was never to have them use it for offensive purposes."

Asked if SpaceX had anticipated Starlink's use for offensive purposes in Ukraine when deciding to ship terminals into conflict zones, Shotwell said: "We didn't think about it. I didn't think about it. Our starlink team may have, I don't know. But we learned pretty quickly."

The Economist: Ukraine is betting on drones to strike deep into Russia

At an early stage the Ukrainians appeared to pin hopes for controlling drones behind Russian lines on Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites, which work at frequencies and in numbers that Russian systems struggle to jam. A naval-drone attack on Russia’s Black Sea fleet in October reportedly made good use of this gap. But Mr Musk, apparently worried about the escalatory effect of such moves, has stepped in where Russian technology proved unable to. Starlink now uses geofencing to block the use of its terminals—not only above Russian-occupied territory inside Ukraine, but also, according to a Ukrainian military intelligence source, over water and when the receiver is moving at speeds above 100km per hour. “You put it on a boat at sea and it will simply stop working,” he says. So Ukraine’s drone developers now use a range of other, more expensive communication systems, with multiple systems often on the same vehicle. The success of the attack on February 28th in getting so close to Moscow suggests that Ukraine may be getting close to a solution that works.

Aside from Starlink's apparent desire to not directly serve as the command and control system for drones and Musk's stated fears about escalation, I wonder if the U.S. government played some part in that decision, like how the U.S. has been reluctant to provide Ukraine with long-range missile systems capable of striking inside Russia.

Washington Post: U.S. in no hurry to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles

Since last year, the administration has cited several reasons for holding back. Refusal initially centered on concerns that Ukraine might fire the long-range missiles into Russian territory, escalating the conflict into a U.S.-Russia confrontation. Even supplying the weapons, Moscow has said publicly, would cross a red line.

Whatever Moscow’s threats, those worries seem to have abated. The Biden administration has said it is satisfied with public statements and written pledges from Kyiv not to use U.S.-supplied weapons to target Russians beyond the border. Although officials privately concede there have been some breaches, Ukraine is said to have largely complied with those promises.

You should have doubted the original story from the beginning. The fact is that it's easy for trained, intelligent journalists to create 'misunderstandings' without actually lying. Musk was never accused directly of sabotaging the Ukrainians - he was just 'appearing to'. His presumed sympathy to Russia becomes an assumed fact. The actual explanation is omitted.

Journalists are not idiots. They write exactly what they want to. Take the phrase 'Musk seemed to embrace COVID denialism'. Elon Musk is one of the most famous and public figures in the world who makes a habit of running his mouth on Twitter, but this trained journalist apparently can't figure out whether he believes that COVID exists.

I like Musk. What he’s doing for Ukraine is uniquely valuable, and the article is an obvious hit piece with a tenuous grasp on reality.

But reversed stupidity is still not intelligence. The OP could have defended Musk, even excoriated the New Yorker, without stretching the facts. It doesn’t take a partisan hack to reveal other hackery. Instead, OP reduced the story down to the parts he found most favorable. Is that really any better?

That's possible, but all i have here is the New Yorker's assertion vs your assertion. Do you have a source or something?

This just made me realize I generally trust Internet commentors on themotte more than just about any mainstream newspaper. Why would I trust a mainstream newspaper on a culture war topic?

My guess would've been that access would've been controlled by some method of authentication, so that the Ukrainian terminals would work anywhere but anything held by Russians wouldn't work at all, making such a geofence unnecessary

Maybe works, but what how do you secure that authentication?

Ukrainian equipment and personnel can both be captured and interrogated to spill their secrets.

This is one of those age old problems in information transmission.

One of the ways to make the tech useless to the Russians, even if they crack all the security is to geofence.

This just made me realize I generally trust Internet commentors on themotte more than just about any mainstream newspaper.

Probably a good heuristic, sadly. Even if it is filtered from mainstream sources, as @curious_straight_ca says, people here at least have pretty solid Bayesian filters compared to the general public.

Where else are we going to get info? There's simply far too much out there to sort though, and the only way to manage the huge sorting problem is networking with other intelligent people and hoping that a collective effort can give a better sense of true information than an individual effort.

I'm genuinely curious how others think we are supposed to get good info - do we just spend hours and hours every day sifting through the news?

My heirarchy of news trustworthiness:

Top Tier: Happened to me or someone I know that I can ask about it.

2nd Tier: A trusted public personality that does their research has commented on the thing. Scott Alexander, Zvi Mowschowitz, Glenn Greenwald. I was gonna say "etc" but no other names came to mind.

3rd Tier: Well regarded comments from communities I trust. The commenters on themotte, or scott's blog, or zvi's blog all fall in this category. Well regarded blog personalities or podcasters, who post interesting stuff, but aren't necessarily doing the verification work, like Bryan Caplan, Tyler Cowen, etc.

4th tier: The rest of the world. Yes, I put the NYT on the same level as some random 4chan troll. I don't know their motivations, I don't know their standards, I don't know what they trying to sell, etc etc. I don't discount the possibility that other people may find these sources far more trustworthy. Some people like Scott and Zvi specifically use these sources. But I don't know how to read these sources to tease out truthful information. So they are still useless to me without an investment on my part into understanding these sources. And that is an investment I feel no interest in taking, because I've already got sources that work for me. If they stop working for me then things will get shuffled around the tier list, as they have been before.

This just made me realize I generally trust Internet commentors on themotte more than just about any mainstream newspaper. Why would I trust a mainstream newspaper on a culture war topic?

At least half of the information we discuss here comes directly from mainstream newspapers, and much of the rest is filtered through them. And the information that comes from newspapers is disproportionately about 'real things' like politics, business, and war, while the thing that come from internet journalists are more often weird internet or culture war drama.

Also, motteposters are wrong a lot, as demonstrated by how often we disagree.

Maybe works, but what how do you secure that authentication? Ukrainian equipment and personnel can both be captured and interrogated to spill their secrets.

The same way you solved that problem for every other network-connected piece of military equipment, of which there are a lot? That was just a "guess" on my part though, I don't have any particular knowledge about this area.

Preventing the other guy from using your stuff is a pretty common problem in procurement. You’d have systems engineers writing specialized anti-tamper plans.

At least half of the information we discuss here comes directly from mainstream newspapers, and much of the rest is filtered through them. And the information that comes from newspapers is disproportionately about 'real things' like politics, business, and war, while the thing that come from internet journalists are more often weird internet or culture war drama.

I'd say plenty comes from Twitter, blogs and real life experiences. And a bunch of the references to newspapers are because they are wrong and sharing stories we strongly disagree with.

And disagreements don't necessarily mean someone is wrong. There are a wide range of values here, and people with different values and the exact same information can easily disagree.

If I had to put my finger on why I distrust mainstream newspapers, it's that I'm not sure they place any value on real truth. They instead have a proxy measurement of "journalistic integrity" which means keeping your lies and misdirections within certain bounds. And those bounds seem to grow every year.

The same way you solved that problem for every other network-connected piece of military equipment, of which there are a lot? That was just a "guess" on my part though, I don't have any particular knowledge about this area.

There is usually a tradeoff between ease of access for the people you want, and security against those you want to keep out.

At least half of the information we discuss here comes directly from mainstream newspapers, and much of the rest is filtered through them. And the information that comes from newspapers is disproportionately about 'real things' like politics, business, and war, while the thing that come from internet journalists are more often weird internet or culture war drama.

How is that an argument for trusting mainstream newspapers on a culture war topic? Literally nothing here makes the argument that they aren't manipulating the information they pass on to the public.

Also, motteposters are wrong a lot, as demonstrated by how often we disagree.

Newspapers can be wrong all they want, it's their dishonesty that's the problem. Also, likelihood of falling for obvious hoaxes.

How is that an argument for trusting mainstream newspapers on a culture war topic

It isn't, it's an argument that we do already trust mainstream newspapers as much as we trust random internet commenters in many areas.

Newspapers can be wrong all they want, it's their dishonesty that's the problem

I think most instances of newspaper 'dishonesty' that we identify are more unintentional mistakes or poor socially influenced reasoning that's amplified due to other social dynamics, rather than the kind of thing you're (presumably) imagining where someone says or thinks 'wow, we better not post this because it proves our enemies right!'. The reason I think this is you can watch that happen organically in internet communities of both left and right wingers, and the information they produce is less reliable than that of the media. Not that explicit intentional dishonesty doesn't exist, it's just much less common - and it's also not obvious it's more frequent in the mainstream media than random internet people.

I think most instances of newspaper 'dishonesty' that we identify are more unintentional mistakes or poor socially influenced reasoning that's amplified due to other social dynamics, rather than the kind of thing you're (presumably) imagining where someone says or thinks 'wow, we better not post this because it proves our enemies right!'.

I've seen people make this kind of distinction when talking about honesty in general as well as honesty by journalists specifically, and I don't really see how there is a distinction. Making unintentional mistakes or using poor socially influenced reasoning is how a motivated person acts on their belief of "wow, we better not post this because it proves our enemies right!" Almost nobody likes to think of herself as a Machiavellian amoral manipulator and so most people's brains have mechanisms to protect them from such a belief while still enjoying all the advantages of getting to act like one. Making unintentional mistakes (that inevitably follow a pattern of bias in some direction) or not activating one's skepticism towards and protection from the social dynamics that influence one's reasoning is one such mechanism that allows someone to (honestly convince themselves that they) have the cake and eat it too.

For the layman, one might be able to generously extend them enough charity to acknowledge that they're just not to be expected to understand their own biases and how to properly account for them. I don't think we can extend such charity to self-proclaimed journalists. Such people have an active responsibility to convey the truth that they themselves volunteered to take on, and step one of that must be accounting for unconscious mistakes one will inevitably make in a way that confirms their own biases and flatters themselves and their in-group while denigrating their out group. If they haven't taken steps to proactively counter this bias within themselves, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that they are being dishonest, just in a clever way that allows them to honestly convince themselves that they aren't being dishonest.

From one perspective - it has the same outcome, and you need to treat it the same way, and it's still actively harming other citizens, so you're right.

But my point is that, because people who aren't journalists participate in the same dynamics, it can't be a reason to trust non-journalists more than journalists. Right wing twitter users lie more, not less, than the media! And I think right-wing mottizens are substantially wrong as a result of social media dynamics at comparable rates to the media, when we consider the full range of things the media reports on. There are individual domains where one group is clearly more wrong than another.

I think most instances of newspaper 'dishonesty' that we identify are more unintentional mistakes

I don't believe for a moment that the anti-Musk article that started this thread was an honest mistake, any more than Cade Metz' article attacking Scott was.

I think it's somewhere between an honest mistake, negligence, an incentive system to say things that make enemies look bad without caring about truth, and various complicated social failures enabling all of that.

The issue is that if you replaced the NYT with anti-woke people of similar competence and intelligence, it'd get worse in this respect, not better. So it's a mistake to despise the NYT but not despise the 'racist garbageman' on twitter, they're both doing the same thing, and giving the latter power won't actually improve anything by default.

The issue is that if you replaced the NYT with anti-woke people of similar competence and intelligence, it'd get worse in this respect, not better.

I can maybe understand saying it won't get better, by some "power corrupts" argument, but the claim it will get worse requires a significant a amount of evidence.

It isn't, it's an argument that we do already trust mainstream newspapers as much as we trust random internet commenters in many areas.

Or, in fact, a little bit less, as cjet was pointing out.

I think most instances of newspaper 'dishonesty' that we identify are more unintentional mistakes or poor socially influenced reasoning that's amplified due to other social dynamics,

The difference between these two is illustrated by this meme. Even if newspapers' dishonesty is not a result of Machiavellian power games but social dynamics, the fact is they know the negative social dynamics are there, and are doing absolutely nothing to stop them, and are in fact looking for ways to promote them even more.

rather than the kind of thing you're (presumably) imagining where someone says or thinks 'wow, we better not post this because it proves our enemies right!'.

Given the popularity of "don't give ammo to the rightoids" argument on progressive forums, I'm pretty sure that this is also happening quite often. We would of course need access to journalist's private communications to prove it either way, but that just means your denial of it happening is completely irrelevant.

The issue is that you attempt to address the newspapers' dishonesty by trusting the internet people more, but the internet people aren't actually less misleading than the newspapers because

Given the popularity of "don't give ammo to the rightoids" argument on progressive forums, I'm pretty sure that this is also happening quite often

When someone says that, what they're thinking is "this isn't representative of a broader trend but posting it appears to, which feeds prejudice and bias". That kind of thing can be true! You'd accuse left-wingers of doing that themselves whenever they report on a school shooting or a hate crime, accurately. They are not explicitly, intentionally lying.

Also, themotte is smarter than most left-wing sources because we're smart. I don't think we're smarter than center-left rationalists, though, so it can seem themotte (right-wing) is better than other sources (left-wing) but the betterness is the cause, not the right-wingness.

When someone says that, what they're thinking is "this isn't representative of a broader trend but posting it appears to, which feeds prejudice and bias". That kind of thing can be true! You'd accuse left-wingers of doing that themselves whenever they report on a school shooting or a hate crime, accurately.

Actually, no I wouldn't. My approach is the old-internet "battle arena of ideas" or "the best way to get the right answer is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer and wait for someone to correct it". It's good that progressives post about school shootings, because events like that should be discussed. If they want to extrapolate these events into a trend not representative of reality, it's all the better for me, because I can slap them down in le epic internet argument. What's bad is the refusal to post or discuss cases that cannot be used to score political points (or worse, that the other side can use). This is why it's correct to trust internet randos more than mainstream newspapers.

They are not explicitly, intentionally lying.

Again, you might very well be wrong, since there's no way to prove that claim, and reason to believe it to begin with.

But more importantly they are explicitly, and intentionally enforcing the social dynamics that prevent inconvenient facts from being discussed.

Also, themotte is smarter than most left-wing sources because we're smart. I don't think we're smarter than center-left rationalists, though, so it can seem themotte (right-wing) is better than other sources (left-wing) but the betterness is the cause, not the right-wingness.

Since what we're discussing here is whether or not we should trust mainstream newspapers more than internet randos, this only proves my point.

It's good that progressives post about school shootings, because events like that should be discussed

I mean ... not really? Progressives place an entirely unjustified emphasis on school shootings, and, in an unexamined manner, imagine that they are a threat worth mentioning to the well-being of children in the united states. Statistically ... they just aren't. Progressives should post less about school shootings, as a result. My point was just that when a progressive says 'this black shooting isn't worth reporting on because it's over-representing a rare phenomenon', that's wrong for reasons that aren't obvious to the progressive, the social taboo on racism and the idea that the racism is morally bad are melded with factual claim, in ways that make the output quite distinct from intentional dishonesty. (There's another objection like 'most people are stupid and won't be able to individually conclude that core political issues they hold are invalid because of thought experiments about biased reporting of a coin toss' but I'll ignore that for now.)

Since what we're discussing here is whether or not we should trust mainstream newspapers more than internet randos, this only proves my point.

I'm saying you shouldn't trust internet randos more. And if the randos (or more realistically, people 10 layers down the social media telephone game from them) got political power I'm not sure things would improve. If the media really were just being dishonest and there was a second non-dishonest group of people we could swap in for them ... that'd be one thing, but that's not the situation we're in.

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