site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29974 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why might agencies be deciding be better? First, they often know more about the subject matter. See the protein example, where judges might not even know what it means, or the geographic region example, where judges might know the most relevant and important senses in which regions might or might not be distinct. With their expertise, agencies could better decide.

I wrote a bit about my frustration with this framing in another spot and I think the commentary applies here:

Listening to a couple lefty legal podcasts (Strict Scrutiny and Amicus), there's something notably absent in the discussion of Chevron. When they discuss the issue, there's a constant harping on the agencies having superior subject-matter expertise to justices, which I will concede is broadly true, but those aren't the parties in a case that are arguing with each other - someone brought whatever suit is being contested in front of those justices and those someones will often have quite a bit of expertise on whatever the topic in question is. I know I'm going to disagree with the broadly construed legal left on the matter, but it's just kind of weird to hear hours of discussion where no one even mentions that the whole point of the argument is that someone that files a suit with an agency actually does have expertise and the only thing they've won with the death of Chevron is the right to have their interpretation of the law treated with the same level of seriousness by a justice as the faceless bureaucracy they're fighting against. I don't know if this is an oversight on the part of the analysts, a misunderstanding on my end, or just a cynical ploy to ignore the legitimate interests and expertise of private parties in litigation.

For a question like, "When does an amino acid chain polymer count as a protein?", I do not expect that a federal judge will be particularly knowledgeable on the matter. What I do expect is that reasonable people can differ and that the very existence of litigation on such a question suggests that there is in fact a subject matter expert that disagrees. The FDA, its staff, and its attorneys are not actually neutral truthseekers that should be deferred to - they're one party to litigation in which an expert thinks they're wrong. In overruling Chevron, the Court isn't saying that judges themselves are better experts than the FDA staffers, they're saying that the FDA staffers are not entitled to preferential treatment in an argument against a litigant, that they must make their argument in a way that a neutral third party finds compelling rather than just saying, "I am the science" with no recourse for their opposition. Chevron was always an absurd dereliction of duty and in deferring to agencies effectively granted them an arbitrary power level as long as they could muddy the waters enough to avoid clarity.

In overruling Chevron, the Court isn't saying that judges themselves are better experts than the FDA staffers, they're saying that the FDA staffers are not entitled to preferential treatment in an argument against a litigant, that they must make their argument in a way that a neutral third party finds compelling

My beef with this is that some Congressional statutes are simply so poorly drafted that a neutral third party doesn't really have any solid basis on which to evaluate those arguments. To be more precise, this isn't about evaluating arguments for or against a policy or interpretation. This is about arguments about the meaning of the law (statutory construction, in fancy words). And an intellectually honest neutral third party might at some point throw their hands up and say that the law isn't written clearly enough to decide.

Of course, that's not an option in a court case. The case has to be resolved, even if what Congress wrote is vague, uninterpretable or even self-contradictory nonsense.

And for what it's worth, I do agree that Chevron was wrong. But it's not such a rosy future as "neutral third parties will now just evaluate arguments on statutory construction". This decision (rightly) forces Congress to specify clearly what it intends, but any measure of past experience shows that is it not up to the task.

It also ignores that many cases don’t require factual knowledge but are merely policy choices made by the agency (ie legislating).

Right. Roberts sort of says that (that the competing parties will have the expertise needed) on pages 24-25.

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