site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   24759 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 6, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We're having a nice conversation here about the regulation in question. That is a good way of having a discussion about having non-zero regulation, but hopefully not too much of it. One can argue that some of the specifics are, in fact, too much of it, but that's what that conversation looks like... not the mess the other guys are doing.

One could even go after a "framework for analyzing", even in slippery slope situations. Here's a good example of how to construct such a framework, and I think rich conversations could be had. In fact, it could even be beneficial to have a top-level comment that branches off from Volokh's work to have a nice robust discussion on how to construct an appropriate framework.

But they're still refusing to have any sort of framework, discuss any sort of specifics, nothing. Just that they have declared that the slope is slippery, and nothing more need (or can) be said. That is it. That once we have passed epsilon, we are on the slope, one cannot discuss frameworks anymore, and doom is upon us. This is not a strawman. This is a repeatedly stated position, stated openly, and resistant to any attempt to bring the discussion back to the type of thing that you would like.

We're having a nice conversation here about the regulation in question. That is a good way of having a discussion about having non-zero regulation, but hopefully not too much of it

As interesting as that conversation is, I don't see how it's relevant to my arguments.

One could even go after a "framework for analyzing", even in slippery slope situations. Here's a good example of how to construct such a framework (...)

But they're still refusing to have any sort of framework, discuss any sort of specifics, nothing.

And they're 100% correct to do so. Again, you opened with sneers, no framework of your own, and only vague hints at your own position. Much like you misrepresented your opponents views, while demanding they get yours exactly right, you seem to be demanding a higher standard then you're setting for yourself. I don't think it's a "mess the other guys are doing", you are a significant part of it.

I started by opening the conversation to a variety of perspectives on the issue at hand and an observation on the culture war component of it. I did not claim to endeavor to present a complete framework, nor has anyone even asked me to. When folks have wanted to have interesting discussions on particulars, I've engaged, and it's been fruitful. Full of details. Plenty of information about my position. I haven't even asked for a full and complete framework from anyone; even just a little attempt at talking about types of slippery slopes and such would be fine, but what I've gotten in return is literally on the level of, "Gay marriage, slippery slope, dog marriage, QED." Thinking that we can mayyyyybe do a tiny bit better than that in thinking about a framework for understanding slippery slopes is not a demand for a complete and total theory. It's a request to even try.

I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately. Nor have I once demanded that they get mine exactly right. It is entirely a mess that they have created. Perhaps they viewed my observation of the culture war component as a sneer, got personally offended, and lost all capacity for rational argumentation, and I could be partially blamed for that. In that case, I would suggest that you focus on what part of my observation of the culture war component was wrong, for just because it was interpreted as a sneer and caused offense does not mean that was not true and necessary.

You have opened with sneers, the relevant fragments were already quoted to you. I never said you should put forward a complete framework. Much like you are demanding of others and are refusing to give yourself, I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into. You have baited people into a low-quality pissing contest, and are acting upset that they took the bait.

I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately.

Again: where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.

I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into.

By all means, bite.

where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.

Here, there is one part of my language that I admit may be ambiguous and possibly misread. The "instantaneous" piece means "the premises necessary for the instantaneous logical chain of implications". Remember, they are explicitly claiming that once you are epsilon past the line, it's not worth even talking about. I take that to mean that instantaneously, in that moment, the entire logical chain of the slippery slope has been instantiated, and the conversation is over. I do not mean to imply that they think that innovation, itself, actually stops instantaneously. But they do actually mean that, in that moment, instantaneously, the game is over, the logic is iron-clad, the implications flow immediately, and the only conclusion is absolute death. That absolute death may take some time to culminate, in my understanding of their view, but that it is absolutely inevitable is instantaneously concludable from the moment that you cross over the epsilon regulation mark.

By all means, bite.

I meant something more abstract (but still not necessarily complete). As a kind of meta-moderate between you and Nybbler, I'm interested in the general question between some and no regulation. By heart, I am exactly the kind of "move fast an break things" type you criticized, but some amount of breaking things, and seeing things broken by others, has taught me that there are places where "think before you do" is a better approach, and once good approaches are discovered, it might even be a good idea to codify them. On the other hand, I think there does need to be room for good old-fashioned anarchy in a society, for reasons ranging from (as other pointed out) innovation, through having a lower bound on the quality of goods and services delivered by major producers, and all the way just to plain having a life worth living. My personal way of squaring that circle is that I'm open to regulation on mass-produced end-user consumer goods, and a more freedom on anything that requires some deliberate action.

But they do actually mean that, in that moment, instantaneously, the game is over, the logic is iron-clad, the implications flow immediately, and the only conclusion is absolute death.

Look, I think that whole conversation got off on the wrong foot, and if you guys want it to go anywhere, you need a reset. I understand your frustration with lazy "regulation bad" arguments, and I understand his frustration with underhanded slippery-slope denialism. What I'm guessing is that neither of you is as bad as the other thinks.

My personal way of squaring that circle is that I'm open to regulation on mass-produced end-user consumer goods, and a more freedom on anything that requires some deliberate action.

I think this is very reasonable, and these regulations pretty much go after just that. Consumer IoT devices, that are being mass-produced and just thrown onto the internet by the billions. What's worse is that they're making the same handful of mistakes over and over and over and over and over again, even though everyone and their dog knows that they can fix these things (at least the worst problems; not every problem) using even just a small number of best practices. A small number of things that every expert technologist has been screaming, "OH MY GOD PEOPLE JUST DO THIS SHIT WHY WON'T YOU DO THIS SHIT IT'S SO EASY AND WOULD PREVENT SO MANY PROBLEMS!" Things that they don't do because they don't have to. There's no law making them. They're Chinese, but their devices are being sold in the US, so fuck the US anyway. And even if they did do them, it would cost them epsilon amount of money, and they'd never be able to market it as anything to make them more money, besides, all their competitors are just churning them out as cheaply as possible without bothering, and they're not suffering for it.

There are many edge cases, and gattsuru brought up a lot of good cases that may be difficult. Things that might legitimately contribute to a regulation-innovation tradeoff. Most of them still seem kind of minor, so while they might produce some small tradeoffs, I think it's unlikely that they're going to wholesale preclude innovation. There's still going to be plenty of innovation, though there may be some edges that are unfortunately trimmed. Is that worth saving the nightmare of having billions of adversarial objects, likely quickly and easily controlled by the Chinese or Russians, literally everywhere on all our networks? Maybe not. But maybe so?

Is that worth saving the nightmare of having billions of adversarial objects, likely quickly and easily controlled by the Chinese or Russians, literally everywhere on all our networks? Maybe not. But maybe so?

I'm in the curious position of not particularly caring about the Russians running botnets on your vacuum cleaner, but hating IoT with a passion, and being prepared to murder anyone that tries to sell me a toaster that connects to the Internet. What do?

I have never done this. Stop lying about what I've done.

I can concede a misunderstanding, but then I'm confused why are you criticizing them for bad arguments, if that's not an implicit demand to bring better ones (as the ones outlined in your examples)

I never said that they claimed that it was instantaneous. Stop lying about what I've said.

A quote from you:

but have objected to hyperbolic versions of them, that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero, for example. Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim

So it seems you are, again, accusing others of what you do yourself.

Sorry, I realized that there was one part of my prior comments that could be misinterpreted, so I deleted my comment and redid it. I also posted in haste the first time. I thought I deleted it quickly enough that it wouldn't matter. My apologies.

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