site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   24830 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.

if the trivial solution does not work, you won't think twice about destroying the tinkerers' culture

I don't know what you mean by this. What is "the trivial solution"? I don't have any idea what you mean by it. We've been talking about the entire class of possible solutions that stop billions of devices from being trivially-hackable with default passwords. Which one is "the trivial solution"?

My complaint with you is that you're acting injured that anyone would portray your values as terminal

I am not injured in any such way. I explicitly presented the value of stopping the deluge of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords as a terminal value. You're just really off the mark.

I think your link was meant to be this. Frankly, I interpret Nybbler's silence as rejecting your proposal. We can clear this up right quick, though. Hey @The_Nybbler! Arjin says:

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.

Do you think this will destroy the culture, since anyone who wants to make mass-produced end-user consumer goods will be reduced to nothing but checking boxes? Or do you think that he can do this without destroying the culture?

My problem here is that if it doesn't work, you explicitly said you won't stop at it.

I actually explicitly said that I would consider all possible ideas, and that I was even open to the possibility that all options genuinely have too many demerits to implement. Literally in the comment you were just replying to. Please don't lie about what I've said.

I don't know what you mean by this. What is "the trivial solution"?

Whatever you meant when you said "(and by the way, we can do so trivially)".

I am not injured in any such way. I explicitly presented the value of stopping the deluge of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords as a terminal value. You're just really off the mark.

I think you're being rather coy about it. When you tell me things like:

If you want to characterize any version of "we need to fix this problem (and by the way, we can do so trivially)" as being "my way or the highway", I think this is just a fully-general argument against fixing any problems ever, even the most trivial ones.

That means you're proposing a trivially simple fix, and consider me to be stubbornly and unreasonably standing in their way. That does not come off, "default passwords must be purged from the face of the Earth, even if it means the end of all tinkering". You do say the latter when someone talks to you for a bit, but this is after posts and posts of portraying anyone that objects as unreasonable and hyperbolic.

I actually explicitly said that I would consider all possible ideas, and that I was even open to the possibility that all options genuinely have too many demerits to implement. Literally in the comment you were just replying to. Please don't lie about what I've said.

You're the one lying about what you've said:

Nybbler would declare that this is, in fact, changing the culture of people who mass produce end-use consumer goods. That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.

You were literally explaining to me how getting rid of default passwords is a terminal values of yours just a moment ago. What are you even doing?

"default passwords must be purged from the face of the Earth, even if it means the end of all tinkering"

This is not what I have said. Not even remotely. I would be perfectly happy with actions that don't end all of tinkering. I would prefer them!

Nybbler would declare that this is, in fact, changing the culture of people who mass produce end-use consumer goods. That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.

We can move this to the other thread, because this was your solution. In the other thread, we can discuss whether you're willing to pursue your solution, even if it changes their culture. I am still open to arguments that your solution has too many demerits to be implemented, but I am currently on the side of being willing to do your solution, even though you have now discovered that it will, in fact, change a culture. I could be persuaded otherwise, but first let's see if you're willing to proceed with your own solution.

This is not what I have said. Not even remotely. I would be perfectly happy with actions that don't end all of tinkering. I would prefer them!

And you have also explicitly said that if actions that would not end all tinkering are not enough, you would end all tinkering. You may prefer less drastic solutions, but if you are open to the possibility of ending all tinkering, then I have described your views 100% correctly.

We can move this to the other thread, because this was your solution.

Stop. I only brought this up as evidence that I have correctly characterized your views. Stop shifting your the responsibility for your responses on Nybbler, you're the one that said this.

but first let's see if you're willing to proceed with your own solution.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? I'm not the Nybbler. It is, in fact, my solution, so yes I'm willing to proceed with it. But I'm not willing to work with someone who's open to the option of abolishing all tinkering.

And you have also explicitly said that if actions that would not end all tinkering are not enough, you would end all tinkering.

This is not true. I have not said this.

Nybbler would declare that this is, in fact, changing the culture of people who mass produce end-use consumer goods. That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.

Notice that there is nothing in there about the entire culture of tinkering. I'm assuming that whatever culture it is that we're changing, it's not the entire culture of tinkering. If you/he want to press that it would require destroying the entire culture of tinkering, I'd have to learn a lot more about what proposal is deemed necessary, why it is necessary, what implications it has, etc. I really really wouldn't want to do that, so if it came down to the case where nothing can possibly work without destroying the entire culture of tinkering, I may not do it.

If you regulate mass-produced end-user consumer goods, you will destroy the culture of innovation in that sector, yes. But that's what you want, you've said so yourself; you explicitly want to change the culture of the outgroup you have that consists of software people who refuse to color within the lines.

There you have it, @ArjinFerman. You're a culture-destroyer. You just didn't know it.

I mean, I can hardly blame you, though. It was the only choice you had. Literally if you do anything, Nybbler will think that you're a culture-destroyer. There are only two options: do nothing and have billions of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords... or be a culture-destroyer. That's it. That's the dichotomy.

Again, explain to me, why are you expecting a reasonable response if this is how you interact with people?

Yeah, I don't understand what you're offended by. All we did was check to see if your solution destroys a culture, and we discovered that your solution destroys a culture. Simple as. This is just a straightforward description of what went down.

I'm not offended, I just think your behavior is immature, and it's bizarre you expect a response that is not like-for-like. One of your objections early on in our exchange was:

Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim, and are now claiming that I am making a hyperbolic reverse claim - that regulation cannot possibly impact innovation in any way. This is a bullshit strawman.

I don't understand what's wrong with that from your point of view. You love doing that shit yourself, so just let others do it as well.

My position is this:

-I believe that Nybbler's position is that any epsilon regulation would destroy a culture. I think you are coming into agreement with me that this is a reasonable description.

-I also believe that this position is totally hyperbolic. I don't actually think it's true, but it is the claim being made.

-I am not in any way claiming that regulation cannot possibly impact innovation.

Please specify which of the above you disagree with.

Turning now to the merits of your proposal. Now that you have discovered that your proposal will destroy a culture (as determined by Nybbler), are you willing to pursue it? Or is it now a no-go for you?

Please specify which of the above you disagree with.

I disagree with your constant immature behavior. The deliberate exaggeration of your opponent's views even as you do the same the same to them. Accusing others of lying about your views even as you are lying about your own views. I don't particularly like the constant deflections either.

Now that you have discovered that your proposal will destroy a culture (as determined by Nybbler), are you willing to pursue it?

  • Yes.

  • What the hell does Nybbler's opinion of my views have to do with my willingness to pursue the solution I proposed?

  • You are, again, deliberately misrepresenting his views.

The deliberate exaggeration of your opponent's views

Items 1 and 2 in my list is my description of my opponent's views. If you think there is an exaggeration, tell me where you think it is, specifically. I don't particularly like the constant deflections either.

Now that you have discovered that your proposal will destroy a culture (as determined by Nybbler), are you willing to pursue it?

Yes.

Ok, now we have discovered that you are willing to destroy a culture. I could act like you and claim that this means that you're willing to destroy the entire culture of tinkering, but that would feel a bit like an exaggeration, wouldn't it?

You are, again, deliberately misrepresenting his views.

Tell me, specifically, how I am misrepresenting his views. I don't particularly like the constant deflections either.

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