site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28013 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 7, 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.

The same thing happened with the Dana Bash CNN interview. They clearly left a lot on the cutting room floor. She is a midwit. Basic 100 IQ person who through a combination of social striving, whoring, and being the right skin tone and gender at the right moment has ascended to almost be president. Sad state of affairs.

I doubt she is 100 iq. She did pass the bar. I would guess 110-115

There have been rumors circulating for a bit, at least on right-wing Twitter, that Kamala has a serious drinking and/or pills problem. That for many public appearances she’s on some combination of substances in order to quell her paralyzing anxiety. I have absolutely no idea if any of this is true, but if it is then it could explain why someone who, in her youth, was fairly cognitively acute could now, decades later, have lost a lot of that acuity or could be unable to demonstrate it when under the influence.

Yes because she laughs a lot and speaks in an odd manner; and seems confused or nervous at times. There was some leak about her asking her staff to put on a role-play dinner to help ease her nerves prior to meeting with some official. But it would be odd for someone so anxious to be also so ambitious and seeking the limelight. And if she was drunk or under medication I think she would seem worse somehow.

Didn’t she fail the first time?

She is also 60.

100 might be too low but she clearly is lower than 115 IQ.

The California Bar pass rate is about 1/3, including repeat testers.

Edit: Some other sites are giving me different numbers, about 50% here. But still I would argue knowing the general pass rate is important context.

That is for the February bar exam. Most new lawyers out of law school would be testing in July while those who failed in July would retest in February. I suspect that if you fail once the odds are good that you will fail again.

July 2023 pass rate was 51% and the overall pass rate seems to be between 40% and 50% depending on year.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/July-2023-CBX-Statistics.pdf

Fair. I actually did add most of that in an edit, because I do want to make sure I have my numbers right.

Still, I'm aware Kamala is not liked here, and I'm not that impressed by her either. But it seems a bit much to act like anyone at barely above average intelligence should be able to go to law school and pass the bar on the first try, when half of law school students couldn't.

The problem with bar exams isn't necessarily how difficult they are (the questions will be significantly easier than the ones you've been answering in your law school exams for three years already -- the logistical pain of dealing with the neurotic complaints of 10,000 law grads over every potentially ambiguous questions means everything is presented extremely straight-forwardly). It's that bar exams might ask you about random areas of the law youve never bothered studying because who the fuck wants to waste time in family law when you intend to be a commercial litigator.

Whenever a high-profile politician turns out to have failed the bar on their first attempt (surprisingly common), my assumption is that they were overconfident and/or already busy at whatever prestigious job they had lined up for after law school, blew off the bar prep, then got unlucky when the essay questions were all on subjects they never took.

No one that successful is going to be dumb enough that they can't pass the bar if they bother to actually put in the minimum expected effort. But they are arrogant enough to think they can skip doing the minimum expected effort.

I didn’t know she failed it, is that official or just a rumour?

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