site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14d ago (text post)   34007 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 11, 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.

You keep accusing me calling you stupid, I'm not. I'm saying you don't know what you are talking about...because you don't. These are not the same thing. Intelligence is not required to make a judgement on this, information is, and you haven't exhibited any evidence of training or knowledge that would address that absence.

Arguing in the way you are now may be evidence of lack of intelligence or character flaws...so don't do that.

Passion on a topic is not a substitute for information or understanding, I've given you a significant number of rabbit holes you could go down to educate yourself on considerations you seem unaware of, and you are resistant to doing that. I also simplified my argument to the bare bones premises and tellingly, you made no effort to engage with those.

Ultimately you've fallen into the same trap that the overwhelming majority of patients who bring up this kind of thing do you, you want to make your own decisions, damn the consequences, without awareness that consequences may even exist and when told "no, you must actually think about this" you become upset and sling mud.

It's fundamentally the same conversation I have every time a patient demands an antibiotic for a viral infection.

These conversations, for the record, are what establishes our stance - because most people become riotously upset when told they need to learn.

Please just explain anything to do with Chesterton's fence. I don't understand, and I want to understand. Perhaps you can bring more information that I am missing about the period of time when this fence was erected, if it is information I am lacking.

Great sure, some suggested avenues of exploration-

"How much has the number of drugs increased since then? How much has polypharmacy increased since then? How much has comorbidity increase since then? How much has personal behavior in response to healthcare changed since?"

That is later then when the fence was erected. What information am I lacking concerning the how/why of the fence being erected?

"(public policy) The principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood."

It is not literally a fence.

reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood

So, what I think you're saying is that you want to talk about the current operation of the farm, given the existence of the fence. That may be an interesting conversation, when we can get to it, but the current operation of the farm is designed around the fact that there is a fence there. That a current farmhand says, "I've kinda figured out at least something nice I can get out of this fence here," is not our first question. Our first question is why. What for. What problem was it designed to solve? I have tried to endeavor to understand why it was put into place. What for. What problem it was designed to solve. What information am I lacking on that question? If I am not lacking in information on that question, I would appreciate some acknowledgement on that point, and then we can move toward other issues. As of now, my sense is that you're saying that I'm just so completely lacking in any information that I still don't even have any idea why it was built, what it was for, what problem it was designed to solve.

"Reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood."

The fence is not some abstract Platonic solid locked in time, it is a thought experiment to remind you to understand why the current state of affairs exists instead of some other possible state of affairs.

I have provided numerous questions whose answers may help explain the current states of affairs. You have quibbled over a fence like it is some sort of shamanic totem that if only you shake it in the right way argumentative success or understanding is reached.

This does nothing to address the issue at hand.

In all sincerity, I want to check, for myself, to make sure that I am not completely off base in my interpretation of your phrase.

What are some scholarly ways that a person can investigate the reasoning behind an existing state of affairs, where the existing state of affairs in question is a law or policy?

Investigating the reasoning behind an existing law or policy can be approached from several scholarly perspectives, each employing a range of methods and analytical tools. Below are some approaches that can help uncover the rationale behind a law or policy:

1. Legal Analysis (Doctrine-based Inquiry)

  • Statutory Interpretation: Scholars may start by analyzing the text of the law or policy, identifying its purpose, and exploring its language. This involves looking at the legal provisions and examining legislative intent, which can often be found in debates, committee reports, or legislative history.
  • Case Law: Reviewing judicial opinions on the law or policy provides insight into how courts interpret and apply the law. A close reading of key decisions may reveal the underlying legal principles, norms, or objectives that shaped the law.
  • Legal Doctrines and Principles: Analyzing whether the law or policy aligns with established legal doctrines (e.g., human rights, justice, equity, fairness) can shed light on its underlying reasoning.

2. Historical Analysis

  • Historical Context: Investigating the historical development of the law or policy can provide valuable insights. This involves looking at the political, economic, social, and cultural context in which the law or policy was enacted. The scholar could examine the timing of its introduction, significant historical events that might have influenced it, and the role of key individuals or groups.
  • Comparative Historical Approaches: Comparing similar laws or policies from different times or places can highlight the factors influencing their formulation and the lessons learned from prior implementations.

3. Political Science Approaches

  • Public Policy Analysis: This involves analyzing the policy-making process, identifying the actors involved (e.g., legislators, interest groups, bureaucrats), their objectives, and the political dynamics at play. This approach may involve:
    • Agenda-setting theory: Investigating how issues gain attention and become policy topics.
    • Policy process models: Examining how the policy is formulated, implemented, and evaluated.
  • Political Economy: Scholars may look at the economic interests that shape policy decisions, such as the role of lobbyists, political donations, and the influence of businesses or advocacy groups.
  • Institutional Analysis: Understanding how the structure of political institutions (e.g., executive, legislative, judiciary) and their interrelations contribute to the law or policy’s formulation.

4. Sociological Approaches

  • Social Theories of Law and Policy: Scholars from a sociological perspective often analyze how laws or policies reflect or enforce social norms, values, and power dynamics. This includes:
    • Critical Legal Studies: Investigating how the law is shaped by social power relations and how it might perpetuate inequality or social control.
    • Law and Society: Analyzing the broader societal context of law-making, considering how societal forces (e.g., public opinion, cultural attitudes) influence policy decisions.
  • Social Movements and Advocacy: Investigating the role of activism or advocacy groups in shaping the law or policy. This includes understanding the strategies used by interest groups to influence legislation.

5. Economic Analysis

  • Cost-Benefit Analysis: Economic scholars often investigate the efficiency of laws or policies by assessing their economic costs and benefits. This includes evaluating the outcomes of a policy in terms of economic indicators (e.g., growth, unemployment, income distribution) and assessing whether the law achieves its stated goals.
  • Behavioral Economics: Examining how laws and policies affect individual and collective behavior, such as through nudges or incentives, can reveal the underlying rationale for a policy.
  • Public Choice Theory: Analyzing how political actors (e.g., lawmakers, bureaucrats) make decisions based on their own interests and incentives, rather than public welfare.

6. Ethical and Philosophical Analysis

  • Normative Theories of Justice: Examining the law or policy through the lens of ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, deontology, or Rawlsian justice. This can help clarify the moral rationale behind the law, including whether it seeks to promote fairness, equality, or liberty.
  • Human Rights Perspectives: Analyzing whether the law or policy aligns with international human rights standards or principles such as dignity, autonomy, and equality. This is particularly useful when the law or policy in question affects vulnerable populations.
  • Public Morality: Investigating whether the law reflects certain moral values or societal goals, such as social cohesion, moral order, or public health.

7. Empirical Research and Data Analysis

  • Quantitative Analysis: Using statistical tools to analyze the effects of a policy. For example, if a law was intended to reduce crime rates, scholars may analyze crime data before and after its implementation to assess its effectiveness and the reasoning behind the policy's goals.
  • Qualitative Research: Conducting interviews, surveys, or focus groups with stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, affected groups, experts) to gather insights into the reasoning behind the law. This can also involve ethnographic methods to understand the law's impact on everyday life.

8. Critical and Interdisciplinary Approaches

  • Feminist Legal Theory: Examining laws or policies from the perspective of gender and power dynamics, considering how policies might reinforce or challenge gender inequality.
  • Critical Race Theory: Analyzing how race and racial dynamics influence the creation, interpretation, and implementation of laws or policies.
  • Intersectionality: Exploring how multiple social identities (race, gender, class, etc.) interact to shape both the policy’s creation and its effects on different groups in society.

9. International and Comparative Analysis

  • Comparative Law: Analyzing how similar laws or policies in different jurisdictions (e.g., countries or states) reflect differing priorities or reasoning. This may reveal the influences of international legal trends, global standards, or local conditions.
  • International Relations: Understanding how global agreements, treaties, or transnational issues (e.g., climate change, trade, human rights) shape domestic laws and policies.

By combining these various methods, scholars can develop a multi-dimensional understanding of the reasoning behind laws and policies, exploring their origins, implications, and effectiveness. This interdisciplinary approach helps reveal not only the practical considerations that led to the policy’s creation but also the broader social, economic, and political forces that shaped its development.

So, I don't think you're saying that the only thing we can do is start with Item 1 on that list (in fact, so far, I don't think this has been a significant point of discussion yet). I'm sure we can work through many of these methods, but I put in a bit of effort to make sure that we got Item 2 down, yet I can't tell what you think. Do you think we've gotten that one mostly figured out, or do you think that I'm still missing some information on that one?

EDIT: Just to triple-check that I'm not completely off base and got some aberrant first result, I asked:

If someone begins their scholarly approach by doing the second item on that list, historical analysis, would that be sophistic or shamanic?

Beginning a scholarly approach to investigating the reasoning behind a law or policy by engaging in historical analysis would neither be "sophistic" nor "shamanic" in a scholarly context. Rather, historical analysis is a legitimate and well-respected method in academic research, particularly in the fields of law, political science, sociology, and history itself.

Why it is not sophistic:

"Sophistry" refers to the use of fallacious reasoning or deceptive arguments, often with the intention of misleading others. Sophists in ancient Greece were known for manipulating language and logic to appear knowledgeable or persuasive without necessarily adhering to sound reasoning.

Historical analysis is grounded in evidence, documentation, and critical inquiry. When scholars use historical analysis to investigate the origins and development of a law or policy, they are engaging with primary sources, such as legislative records, political speeches, or societal events, to reconstruct the context and motivations behind the policy. This approach adheres to scholarly rigor and is not aimed at deceiving or distorting facts. It’s about understanding how a law came into being and the historical forces that shaped it, rather than manipulating or obscuring truth for rhetorical effect.

Why it is not shamanic:

"Shamanic" refers to practices associated with indigenous spiritual or religious rituals, often involving trance states, supernatural beliefs, or communication with spirits. In contrast, historical analysis in the scholarly sense involves using empirical evidence, documents, and critical thinking to understand past events and trends.

While some might see historical analysis as uncovering "hidden" meanings or interpreting events through a particular lens, it remains firmly grounded in empirical evidence and logical reasoning. It doesn't involve mystical or supernatural interpretation but rather seeks to understand the causes and effects of historical events through a scholarly, evidence-based process.

In summary:

Using historical analysis as a starting point for understanding the reasoning behind a law or policy is a valid scholarly approach. It is neither sophistic (which involves deceptive argumentation) nor shamanic (which involves mystical or spiritual practices), but rather a rigorous, evidence-based method that helps scholars understand the social, political, and economic factors that shaped a given law or policy.

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