site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29601 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I would say it's largely because my own idiosyncratic morality can differ quite significantly from the norm.

I'd go so far as to say that people who are 100% on board with all the values preached around them are NPCs, which is what I gave as my definition for the term when someone asked in a CW thread a while back. Seemed to match up with most of the answers too.

Most people would say that morality comes first, always. In a sense, that's precisely what morality is, the rules that hold utmost importance and must be obeyed should there ever be any conflict.

This is a deontological take, and I'm a consequentialist.

Such a naive approach runs into the immediate roadblock of someone pointing out how you resolve the Kantian imperatives of not lying and not letting someone come to harm when an murderer knocks on your door and asks where you friend is. (Or the SS comes for the Jews in your annex, if we're to stay close to the topic at hand)

Keep resolving the edge cases, blatant conflicts and order of operations, and you have a dumbed down version of utilitarianism/consequentialism. Reality isn't so kind that it always gives you one option unreproachably better than the other.

(Some suggest that Deontology can also be considered Utilitarianism for Dummies, or people who don't trust themselves to think too hard, which is close enough, we don't have infinite computing power in our skulls and some heuristics are good enough to use most of the time. I'm also not a Benthamian Utilitarian/Effective Altruist, I just model myself as having a utility function)

There are plenty of people who proclaim democracy as valuable in-of-itself, and point to downstream observations about socio-economic output as a justification for the more hard-headed.

Well, I'll happily sacrifice some democracy for a lot of wealth, and I would head to Singapore right away if they didn't only take the top 0.1% of doctors from India.

Further, what comes when we make an AGI (which is obedient instead of killing us immediately)? It takes chutzpah to think that humans should be the ones micromanaging it, instead of asking it to examine our goals and desires and figure out what's best for us, even if we enforce a requirement to let us decide in the end.

I would take being utterly politically powerless in a post-scarcity society over being the ruler of a state like Palestine. And you know what, that's the same dilemma they face. Surrender their useless autonomy, already well compromised, and accept Israeli rule, which very much wants to be kind, or else they'd have leveled the strip.

As for Human Rights?

Spit. They're a contingent outcome of immense global wealth where we can agree to pretend that they descend from the heavens or emerge fully formed from our temples, not pure Logos that we stray from at risk of eternal damnation.

In other words, they're nice to have as Schelling Points, not sacred as far as I'm concerned. And eventually every single one ends up riddled with exceptions for the public good and whatever the bored judge or civil servant feels like that afternoon.

Would you say the same if the costs or consequences of those actions fell on you or those you cared about? If the cost for Israel's success was the death of your parents, your wife, your children, or even you, would you still make the same argument?

Nope. I wouldn't say that if that was the price, but once again, Palestinians don't face that tradeoff either. They could diminish their risk of drone strikes killing them and their loved ones to ~0% by not doing everything in their limited power to piss off their more powerful neighbors.

Or condoning and celebrating those who do, to an extent.

Now, you could argue that your human responses are irrational. Feelings are stupid and gay, after all, there's no reason your chemical reaction to seeing your family killed by a drone should dictate the actual morality you hold to. But talk is cheap. I've debated people who struck me as incapable of separating the reality we all inhabit from any hypothetical world I proposed. It's easy to bite bullets about what you would accept when the only one biting actual bullets are your adversaries.

You can have mine for free, I'm commenting here because I like to, not because I have a Substack or Patreon to shill (maybe later). I'm sure I'm inconsequential in the greater scheme, and I've made my peace with that long ago, as long as things keep improving.

If the modal Palestinian was that pragmatic, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Keep resolving the edge cases, blatant conflicts and order of operations, and you have a dumbed down version of utilitarianism/consequentialism. Reality isn't so kind that it always gives you one option unreproachably better than the other.

I understand that morality is hard. That's not the same as saying that the creation of technology or civilization is itself a moral good.

And eventually every single one ends up riddled with exceptions for the public good and whatever the bored judge or civil servant feels like that afternoon.

You're letting implementation dictate the value of the theoretical.

Nope. I wouldn't say that if that was the price, but once again, Palestinians don't face that tradeoff either. They could diminish their risk of drone strikes killing them and their loved ones to ~0% by not doing everything in their limited power to piss off their more powerful neighbors.

But then you're also okay if Israel happens to, intentionally or with reckless disregard, kill Palestinians who do precisely that because the Israelis think this particular person or family are terrorists or criminals. After all, these are the "occasional human rights violations" you're talking about.

I'm sure I'm inconsequential in the greater scheme, and I've made my peace with that long ago, as long as things keep improving.

Meaning that your statements on any moral issue are contingent upon whether you have political or social power, correct?

I understand that morality is hard. That's not the same as saying that the creation of technology or civilization is itself a moral good.

I deny that objective morality even exists. Or that it's a even a coherent concept!

As far as my personal subjective morality goes, I don't find it particularly difficult, not as much as say, quantum mechanics or memorizing every single fucking interaction in medicine I am expected to learn for the next set of exams I need to give.

Not that I let moral relativism stop me from being a moral chauvinist, why, yes, I prefer my own morals, and I think society would be better off adopting it.

Whether the creation of a technology is a moral good or not obviously depends on the technology, even for an unabashed transhumanist? Gain of function research? Hell no. Eliminating mosquitoes with gene drives? Hell yes. AI? Depends, will it save us or kill us? In expectation I slightly lean towards the former, even if I worry about the latter.

Civilization is a social technology in itself, us bootstrapping from Monke to apotheosis.

Of course the net sum of all technological advances since fire has been overwhelmingly positive, and if Ted K wants to disagree, sucks to be dead I guess. May we develop the technology to solve that particular problem soon.

You're letting implementation dictate the value of the theoretical.

And?

I hereby declare that it's a Human Right to be free from the tyranny of gravity, if not Israeli occupation. Look, I don't float, at least not without a rocket.

What is a Right to Internet Access without the internet? Healthcare, without at least 20th century medicine?

But then you're also okay if Israel happens to, intentionally or with reckless disregard, kill Palestinians who do precisely that because the Israelis think this particular person or family are terrorists or criminals. After all, these are the "occasional human rights violations" you're talking about.

Ain't nobody perfect. It's still the smart decision, even if the dice or Mossad roll against you.

Meaning that your statements on any moral issue are contingent upon whether you have political or social power, correct?

A little? Not that I would even frame it as a bad thing, per se. It should be clear by now that I consider morality to be quite contingent on the circumstances one finds one's self in.

I hereby declare that it's a Human Right to be free from the tyranny of gravity, if not Israeli occupation. Look, I don't float, at least not without a rocket.

You sure? I just tried it and cracked levitating. Maybe you aren't believing strongly enough.

Jokes aside, I think 'objective' morality is an incoherent concept, because objectivity is an incoherent concept! Jordan Peterson has some great discussions on how everything bottoms out to morality - basically related to relevance realization a la John Vervaeke and how there are so many facts out there (like impossible numbers) that you have to have some a priori framework to get them down to a manageable size to make decisions on.

There's also Hume's is-ought gap, if you're looking for the steelmanned version of what I think @drmanhattan16 is trying to argue.

You sure? I just tried it and cracked levitating. Maybe you aren't believing strongly enough.

Shoots your balloon down. One at a time, because I don't particularly want to kill you.

Maybe my chakras will stop being so lazy, if I could levitate it would save me a lot of pain in the literal ass and legs.

Hah well I appreciate your forbearance.

Don't worry about your chakras man, you just gotta believe in rights. Everyone knows the path of Human Rights will give you a far stronger foundation and easier cycling than the path of Yoga. Duh!

path of Human Rights

I read Cultivation novels, this path doesn't exist haha

It's a secret held onto by my clan for generations, I'll share it with you for some Essence of Draconic Might. Or some cocaine.

I deny that objective morality even exists. Or that it's a even a coherent concept!

I said nothing about objective morality.

Civilization is a social technology in itself, us bootstrapping from Monke to apotheosis.

And why is that itself a moral good?

What is a Right to Internet Access without the internet? Healthcare, without it?

You understand that we can abstract these things, right? For example, the right to use contemporary means of private messaging. Letters in the past, DMs today.

Ain't nobody perfect. It's still the smart decision, even if the dice or Mossad roll against you.

But you certainly seem to be indifferent to how imperfect they may be.

If the Israelis were having Predator drones (or whatever their equivalent is) bomb a random house in each block every day, would you say that's just "imperfection"? What if they decide to genocide by bullet the Palestinians entirely, but they also promise a cure for cancer?

And why is that itself a moral good?

Because I think it is? So do most people, if they're thinking straight.

I said nothing about objective morality.

Your question makes no sense without that presumption, unless you want a scan of my brain so you tease out the way the neurons fire.

You understand that we can abstract these things, right? For example, the right to use contemporary means of private messaging. Letters in the past, DMs today.

Sure. But the Right To Internet Access was proposed as an addition to the usual for "Free Speech".

But you certainly seem to be indifferent to how imperfect they may be.

Could be better. Could be much worse. I give them a 8/10 for effort.

If the Israelis were having Predator drones (or whatever their equivalent is) bomb a random house in each block every day, would you say that's just "imperfection"? What if they decide to genocide by bullet the Palestinians entirely, but they also promise a cure for cancer?

Hmm.. Harder than it looks, or not intuitively obvious to me. There are apparently 14.3 million Palestinians. ~10 million deaths from cancer a year.

Cancer doesn't usually take people in their prime, I'd know, I treat enough old people in my onco unit. Palestinians are younger than typical, apparently they think having a bunch of kids in a warzone is acceptable where richer Westerners don't.

Even so, let's assume that the average Palestinian killed this way loses 50 years of their lives. Half the people who die of cancer do so above 70, most of the other half in their fifties. Let's be generous and say the average loses 20 years of their lives, this is napkin math.

So, given my timelines for a cure for cancer the old fashioned way, maybe in 10-20 years without AGI, shorter without it..

15.3*50=765

10 * 20 * 10(years)= 2000

If I really cared, then I would adjust for Quality Adjusted Life Years due to the age of the latter population. Population growth, second order effects from 15 million people being killed, the sheer cost of the ridiculous number of missiles needed, it would cheaper to nuke them with a cleanish bomb. Risk of WW3. Yahweh intervening (honestly this one is negligible, he didn't care about the first 6 million did He?)

There you go, I'm ready to sign the form you presumably have ready when the Israelis stop holding out on us, maybe they'll share the schematics of the Jewish Space Lasers while they're being generous. RIP Palestine, but I'll buy some Raytheon stock and iodine pills while you get the pen out. Some Luxottica too, the Palestinian future is so bright that the Israelis need shades!

Because I think it is? So do most people, if they're thinking straight.

No, actually, that's not so clear. People may find it valuable, but an argument has to be made that creating a civilization is itself a moral good.

Your question makes no sense without that presumption, unless you want a scan of my brain so you tease out the way the neurons fire.

We can use arguments to determine what morality we want to follow even as we acknowledge it's not objective. Not that hard to understand.

There you go...

You've already made it clear that you would never accept the costs if you had to pay them. It's a damning indication of just how little your stated morality means to you if you would refuse to accept its worst outcomes being applied to you.

We can use arguments to determine what morality we want to follow even as we acknowledge it's not objective. Not that hard to understand.

Certainly, even if I still think my love for progress and civilization was clear enough in my parent comment. Just don't fall for the illusion that highly conserved aspects of our conserved morality are anything but the outcomes of evolution and game theory working on mammalian brains. If my arguments convince someone, and vice versa, then it's a closed loop that neither demands external grounding beyond the grinding of gears in our brains, nor needs it. You can't need what doesn't exist and that cannot exist, if you're doing something more important than trying to feel good about yourself. Even those who demand objective morality are doing just fine without it, because, once again, I stress it's incoherent.

You've already made it clear that you would never accept the costs if you had to pay them. It's a damning indication of just how little your stated morality means to you if you would refuse to accept its worst outcomes being applied to you.

That's like your, opinion, man. Do demonstrate how dearly you hold your stated convictions if people paraglide onto your doorstep and shoot your kids. Or don't, because honor is a poor balm for the dead.

I am unwilling to accept the same demands applied to me and mine because I value us more. You mistake me for a Benthamian who holds all people equal, including themselves, and I very much am not. If I was Palestinian, a more unfortunate fate than being merely Indian, I would keep my head down and be mostly confident I wouldn't get killed for doing so.

Just don't fall for the illusion that highly conserved aspects of our conserved morality are anything but the outcomes of evolution and game theory working on mammalian brains.

It doesn't really matter. I'm trying to make a morality that works for humans. A significantly constrained problem.

That's like your, opinion, man. Do demonstrate how dearly you hold your stated convictions if people paraglide onto your doorstep and shoot your kids. Or don't, because honor is a poor balm for the dead.

I would regard my emotions as irrelevant when deciding how criminals are to be treated, I wouldn't insist on a double standard for me and those who aren't me.

You mistake me for a Benthamian who holds all people equal, including themselves, and I very much am not.

The difference is that your morality doesn't do anything to prevent those more powerful than you from killing you if it would benefit them. Mine would.

It doesn't really matter. I'm trying to make a morality that works for humans. A significantly constrained problem.

You stand little chance of succeeding in that endeavor, given that no end of philosophers have tried to find a moral code that is acceptable and preferable over all the others for a ~full subset of humans.

I don't think one of those even exists, even if you consider it a significantly constrained problem, for much the same reason that finding a cut of clothing that works optimally for starfish and sheep is a difficult task.

If something capable of convincing all humans of its validity (without reference to objectivity, it's just supremely satisfying and feels intuitively right) ever comes to exist, I expect it to be a problem solved by entities much smarter than us.

The difference is that your morality doesn't do anything to prevent those more powerful than you from killing you if it would benefit them. Mine would.

There are plenty of people with even less power than the minimal amount I wield, and you don't see me going around tormenting them, not even for financial gain.

I am perfectly content in letting others flourish, and even happy on their behalf, as long as I have my most pressing needs met.

The only reason human society works is that despite our moralities diverging in the edge cases, there's a strongly conserved core, with random acts of murder, theft and the like nearly universally reprehensible. True even in monkeys, or anything smart enough to understand that. Once again, for evopsych and game theory reasons, but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.

At the end of the day, incentive structures and fear of punishment can constrain people who aren't omnibenevolent in acting in more or less pro-social ways, which helps lubricate the rest of the problem, even if a naive approach would have you wonder otherwise.

More comments

Feel free to enlighten me.

You do realize that much of the repression is almost at the bare minimum necessary for a country of barely 6 million people to monitor several times that number who hate their guts, while living close enough to jog over? Or bike. Or paraglide into a concert and rape the hottest chick who skipped cardio.

The Israelis are not genocidal, despite being victims of one successful genocide in barely living memory, and more that could have plausibly followed if the Arabs had been able to push them into the ocean.

Once again, I beseech you to submit an actual argument regarding why the living conditions of the average Palestinian wouldn't jump, if not to First World standards, something much more respectable, if they didn't use their schools and hospitals to operate an insurgency while using their own populace as shields.

Yeah, they might not be able to vote if they unified, but if you insist using your franchise on bringing Hamas or its sympathizers back into power on the regular, my sympathies are slim.

Edit: For anyone curious, it was a drive by comment accusing me of holding kindergarten grade views about the situation in occupied Palestine, presumably deleted when they worried the mods might notice. They still see deleted comments dawg.

I'll jump in on the side of your interlocutor and just say that while I have massive respect for your hardline consquentialist views (you really play it to the hilt!) I tend to agree that morality has to come first.

Would you not agree that as a technocratic consequentialist, you take on faith things like Scientific Objectivity and Technological Progress as goods? Or of course 'Utility,' although it's such a vaguely defined catchall I'd rather use something like 'virtue.'

you take on faith things like Scientific Objectivity and Technological Progress as goods?

"Faith"? What a queer word.

I observe an exponential or even super-exponential growth curve and its visible outcomes, and we're approaching the inflection point. I will cease having "faith" in it when the curves flatten out, our AI no longer improving, our medicine becoming stale.

Until then, I'm here for the ride.

To me the idea of Growth as something that can be judged by us is taken on faith as well. It's hard to articulate what I'm getting at, I'll come back to you once I've refined my understanding better.

In the meantime if we do achieve foom and you merge with the machines, I hope I've built up enough goodwill that you will take me in as the human serf to your machine feudal lord. And maybe some of my loved ones too ;)

Might make an interesting sci-fi premise, at least.

In the meantime if we do achieve foom and you merge with the machines, I hope I've built up enough goodwill that you will take me in as the human serf to your machine feudal lord. And maybe some of my loved ones too ;)

Nah you get a Von Neumann replicator just for you :*

Might make an interesting sci-fi premise, at least.

Two novels at a time is enough for me, right now. Maybe when I'm a proper cyborg haha

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