site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26716 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is there a reason to care about these conferences?

They still hold the once-honored name of Hugo Gernsbeck, but that's the only reason. The Sad Puppies have apparently decided that now that the other guys won by breaking the awards, they can have both pieces.

If I ever get rich or famous I'm going to include something in my will about not naming things after me. After half a century I'm sure that thing will not reflect any of my values. Happens in the think tank world all the time. Conservative/libertarian think tanks get infiltrated by leftists and become skin suits worn by people that the founder would have hated. In the Koch network some places don't even have the patience and decency to wait until both Koch brothers are dead.

I've given a lot of thought to the issue of how you can set up a foundation with your name on it and expect it to stay aligned with your intentions over the course of decades. It's hard, way too many failure modes and attack surfaces you'd have to anticipate and design countermeasures for.

Even in the best case scenario, all it really takes is the last person who knew you when you were alive to die or retire and get replaced by someone who has no connection to you and no respect for your ideals, and then there's no mechanism for forcing adherence to your goals. They turn the ship in a different direction and sail on unabated.

No matter how rigorously you define your terms and how stringent you make your instructions, over time your org will be Ship-of-Theseused into something with the same name and generally the same stated purpose but controlled by actors who may be actively hostile to your desired legacy.

You can hand-pick your successors, but once you're gone there's little guarantee those successors can manage to handpick good successors without serious entropy setting in.

The example that strikes me the most is the Ford Foundation which controls a $16,000,000,000 endowment, and has the stated purpose:

To reduce poverty and injustice, strengthen democratic values, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement.

But when you look at where they actually spend the money, it is pretty indistinguishable from any other standard lefty activist organization.

Underscored by this excerpt from the Wiki:

This divestiture allowed Ford Motor to become a public company. Finally, Henry Ford II resigned from his trustee's role in a surprise move in December 1976. In his resignation letter, he cited his dissatisfaction with the foundation holding on to their old programs, large staff and what he saw as anti-capitalist undertones in the foundation's work.

So yeah, the direct descendant of the guys who set up and funded the Foundation quit because it was falling afar from it's original mission and was becoming anti-capitalist using funds provided by some of the most famous Capitalists of all time.

Took less than 50 years. I can barely imagine how one could ensure your legacy lasts 200 years without losing focus... short of founding a religion with fanatical adherents. I suppose you could pay to train an LLM that will spout your values and is given an endowment of its own to ensure it has server time secured for itself in perpetuity.

The whole problem is that if your foundation controls significant wealth, that will attract all kinds of parasites and scavengers to the 'free calories' and nature will then take its course once there are none remaining to defend the bounty.

Just have the state confiscate it. The inheritance tax is among the fairest of them all. If the state can deprive living, breathing humans of the fruits of their labour, it should most definitely squeeze the dead for contributions. Those zombie orgs have no right to exist in the first place.

One could perhaps imagine parasites gaining influence and control at the state if that's where all the wealth accumulates at the end of people's lives.

Hard to imagine, but seems like a risk.

Took less than 50 years. I can barely imagine how one could ensure your legacy lasts 200 years without losing focus... short of founding a religion with fanatical adherents.

Piggybacking onto an existing religion might work too. You could insist, for example, that all the board members have done a Mormon mission.

I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible, and that is probably ok if its impossible. Because if it is possible then that means society could eventually end up being run from the grave.

If these billionaires want a legacy that will outlive them, then they should emulate the Pharaohs and just build giant monuments. Bonus points for monuments like Pyramids which are difficult and annoying to remove.

I think a billionaire could probably afford to build a great pyramid of Giza equivalent in America.

Simple missions are also probably more resistant to change. Its harder to subvert "I want a pyramid 500 feet tall made out of concrete" than it is to subvert "I want to promote [vague term], [vague term 2], and [vague term 3]".

Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.

I think I agree with Chesterton here. If everyone who believed some particular thing happens to be dead now, that does not imply that they were wrong.

There’s an argument that dead people didn’t have the chance to learn what we have learned and be convinced of it, but I also disagree with this when it comes to the fundamentals of humans who are dealing with one another in a social scene. It looks different now, is mediated in unrecognizable ways and with some qualities exaggerated, but we’re not aliens to our ancestors.

Thomas Paine's preemptive repudiation of Chesterton on this from when he was giving Edmund Burke both barrels:

There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void.

Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence.

Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how

I am not contending for nor against any form of government, nor for nor against any party, here or elsewhere. That which a whole nation chooses to do it has a right to do. Mr. Burke says, No. Where, then, does the right exist? I am contending for the rights of the living, and against their being willed away and controlled and contracted for by the manuscript assumed authority of the dead, and Mr. Burke is contending for the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living.

There was a time when kings disposed of their crowns by will upon their death-beds, and consigned the people, like beasts of the field, to whatever successor they appointed. This is now so exploded as scarcely to be remembered, and so monstrous as hardly to be believed. But the Parliamentary clauses upon which Mr. Burke builds his political church are of the same nature.

To me, one important difference maker is that dead people have no skin in the game. Broadly, one might posit that dead people had a preference that humanity keep surviving and, as such, they could be considered to have some retroactive skin in the game, and as such their votes could be helpful for humanity continuing to survive. However, I'd contend that the actual preference could be described as genuinely believing that one's preferred ideas would lead to humanity surviving after one's death, rather than as actually wanting humanity to keep surviving after one's death. After all, there's no way to check the latter. At best, one can check the trajectory of humanity (or subset that you care about) while one dies and assume that a trajectory that looks good now will look good in the future after one is dead. That's valuable, but also limited. So I think it makes sense to at least discount people's votes based on accident of death, even if we don't automatically disqualify them. If those people's votes lead us towards hell, they're not the ones who will be suffering that hell, and so we can't trust them to weigh the risks of hell creation properly.

That may be true but it's nowhere near sufficient. There are plenty of good reasons that the death tax isn't 100%. For example, we want to incentivize people to work towards the future rather than squandering their wealth on more temporary and hedonistic endeavors. "Dead people have no skin in the game", as a counter-consideration, is not even worth mentioning by comparison.

AFAIK concrete is a poor choice for long-lasting monuments. Supposedly erodes to quickly.

Reinforced concrete deteriorates when the steel reinforcement rusts and expands. But a pyramid experiences exclusively compressive loads, and therefore can be constructed from plain (unreinforced) concrete. Non-rusting rebar also is available.

Concrete's resistance to freeze–thaw cycles can be improved by adding air. Its resistance to abrasion by rain and wind can be improved by simply using stronger mixes (including harder gravel). (source)

outer layer of quartz?

I'm sure the experts at Pharaoh Building Services LLC will have some good recommendations for long term preservation.

I think a billionaire could probably afford to build a great pyramid of Giza equivalent in America.

So even a billionaire may find that a stretch.

Growing $1b into $4b over 30 years only requires about a 5% annualized return rate. The S&P 500 has had about a 10% return rate over the last three decades. Assuming you can keep your Die Like A Pharaoh Foundation for a half century that should be enough time to complete the construction.

Its also possible to get lots of savings in here. With the amount of concrete to be bought, you should be making your own concrete, not buying from someone else. Find a location where both the raw inputs and the labor costs are cheap.

More Billionaire should definitely be building great pyramids.

Simple missions are also probably more resistant to change. Its harder to subvert "I want a pyramid 500 feet tall made out of concrete" than it is to subvert "I want to promote [vague term], [vague term 2], and [vague term 3]".

Haha, this gives me an idea for a foundation whose sole objective is to keep enlarging a pyramid, layer by layer, in perpetuity, with the only tricky part being managing the endowment so that it doesn't deplete too fast and allows continued investment in more pyramid-building supplies.

I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible, and that is probably ok if its impossible. Because if it is possible then that means society could eventually end up being run from the grave.

I think it just irks me that the end result is that the assets in question always end up captured by ideologues (usually left-leaning) when they could just be distributed out to some class of beneficiaries directly or throw into the market at semi-random so no one cause or entity receives all the benefit.

So the wealth isn't burned but also isn't available to be captured and 'squandered' by activists or layabouts.

Japan seems to have a handle on building long-lived, stable orgs, but that seems mostly the case of having the entire culture in which the org exists being aligned with that goal.

Haha, this gives me an idea for a foundation whose sole objective is to keep enlarging a pyramid, layer by layer, in perpetuity, with the only tricky part being managing the endowment so that it doesn't deplete too fast and allows continued investment in more pyramid-building supplies.

This has been one of the more fun thoughts I've had lately. In another thread we are discussing the costs and feasibility of it.

I think it just irks me that the end result is that the assets in question always end up captured by ideologues (usually left-leaning) when they could just be distributed out to some class of beneficiaries directly or throw into the market at semi-random so no one cause or entity receives all the benefit. So the wealth isn't burned but also isn't available to be captured and 'squandered' by activists or layabouts.

There does seem to be some natural competition between the layabouts and the activists. Many of the orgs I know that have become generic left wing mouth pieces, also tend to just burn through cash on useless employees. Its a bit like cancer. A tumor has to have some inter-cell cooperation to grow large, but its also not cooperating with the host body by being a cancer/tumor in the first place.

It might be a difference in our perspective. I don't really think of wealth as being "burned" if there are actual people spending and enjoying it. War, natural disasters, certain kinds of government Hoop Jumping, etc are the things that burn wealth to me. And having most of the organization's endowment sitting in the stock market also seems like a form of redistribution to everyone.

I don't really think of wealth as being "burned" if there are actual people spending and enjoying it.

I was talking more about 'burning' wealth as a means of keeping it from being captured. Like if your foundation has a vault full of cash, you instruct your successors to set it on fire before they let it fall into the hands of your enemies.

I DO agree that money put into the hands of ideological activists and layabouts will eventually find its way into the hands of more productive people.

And having most of the organization's endowment sitting in the stock market also seems like a form of redistribution to everyone.

Sort of, except the most immediate tangible benefits are accruing to people that aren't going to apply it towards your preferred goals. No reason to 'reward' them for failing to uphold your mission.

I think I can also take the flip side of all this too.

MORE organizations should be set up to dissolve once they either complete their goals or fail to complete those goals after a long time trying. If I set up the "Eliminate all Homelessness in [local town] Foundation" whose goal is to solve the very tangible, discrete problem of homelessness in my hometown, and there is still homelessness in that town 15 years later... I'd consider the endeavor a failure and close up shop.

Or take a Company that was set up to produce a particular product that is now completely obsolete and unneeded by the modern economy. Is it better for them to try and pivot or adapt to produce some new product to continue operating, or is it more honorable for the people operating the company to notice that the business has run its course, and it would be appropriate to wind things down and disperse the working Capital to the shareholders?

Why is the 'standard' lifecycle of a Corporation one that usually ends in a bankruptcy proceeding rather than a voluntary dissolution when it becomes clear that there's no path forward? I'm sure there's good rationales for it, I'm just curious.

That runs into the other issue of any organization ultimately becoming staffed by people whose livelihood is dependent on keeping the org going even at the cost of its intended mission.

SO, if I were a Billionaire maybe I'd take a very different track and fund a dozen or so orgs with $100 million each with the explicit goal of fixing some small and tractable issue using those funds, and have STRICT instructions that any given organization is to be dissolved and the funds dispersed at random once [Problem] is fully solved OR 25 years have passed and problem has not been solved.

Would probably have to design it so performance bonuses would be dispersed to the people operating the org if they can solve the problem quickly, since otherwise the incentive is drag things out and eat up all the funds.

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