site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37165 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The best old evidence we have is that she passed the bar on the second try, with the ameliorating factor of the California bar being somewhat nastier than the norm. So she’s probably at least as intelligent as Hillary, who also took two attempts (with preparation in a better law school, for whatever that is worth, and not in Cali).

How difficult is the bar, anyhow?

Considering Kamala Harris's genetics (parents both PhDs, father a Jamaican econ professor at Stanford and mother a Tamil biologist at LBNL), the fact that she attended Hastings is surprising, and doesn't really lend itself to "probably at least as intelligent as Hillary", however snobbish that might sound. It's not even like Howard, where you can claim you attended because you were really committed to the cause of HBCUs - Hastings is just a really mediocre school.

How high of LSAT did Hillary need to get into Yale?

My understanding is that Dems and gov officials consider Hillary to be plenty sharp. Kamala not so much.

The 1980s California bar was no joke. And adequately prepared law school graduate should be able to pass it first try, but it was a tough enough test that failing the first try doesn't necessarily say anything more than they didnt take the test prep seriously enough.

Funnily enough, Kamala almost certainly receieved better bar prep at Hastings than Hillary got at Yale. Regional schools like Hastings put A LOT of effort into prepping their students for the bar exam, often requiring every student take classes like Family Law that they'll never use, purely because they show up on the Bar. The Ivies just assume you're smart and/or rich enough to figure out the bar on your own (and the big New York law firms pay for private bar prep courses for their new hires anyway).

The pass rate of Harris's exam was 81 percent.

I wonder in 1989 how many people taking the California bar were not English first speakers.

Probably not very many? Maybe the odd Mexican?

Not hard. I did go to a good law school (not as good as Hilldawg; much much better than Harris). I don’t know any classmate who didn’t pass the bar.

Harris does not have an impressive academic background either—especially baking in affirmative action. Odds are she isn’t stupid (ie below 100 IQ) but probably not that smart (id bet 110 IQ).

As a follow up, looked recently at her law school (ie not LSAT when she went) and mid point for LSAT is 160. That correlates to between 115-20 IQ.

Black students get a pretty big boost to get into a law school (ie typically lower than average). But maybe 1989 scores were different compared to today.

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