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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
UNC is not un-woke, lol.
University of North Carolina?
UNC is pretty woke, they were one of the colleges that got sue for DEI-flavored affirmative action along with Harvard.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-university-of-north-carolina/
I don't think that Certiorari proves as much as you think.
SFFA argues that UNC is discriminating against SouthEast Asians by privileging minorities born within the state over minorities born outside the state (not many SE-Asians in NC). I feel thats a bit different in kind, and the court seems to have agreed by splitting the case, and ultimately ruling against Harvard but in favor of UNC.
I'm not sure what you read but the court ruled against UNC. They found they were discriminating against people in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
There's not many SE-Asians in NC but there are a ton in the Triangle: Chapel Hill (Location of UNC)-Raleigh-Durham. I live here and the area is a medium sized tech hub with the associated demographics that one would expect in a tech hub.
I'm not sure why you think UNC was conservative to begin with except that it's a flagship school in the south. Yes, it has a ton of Preppy Southerners but having met them, most are pretty much Neo-libs, and at least superficially onboard with wokeness.
I read it in the same blog you just linked, The US Supreme Court seperated the cases and remanded the UNC portion of the case back to the lower courts.
Thats why despite the aricle being titled Students for Fair Admissions vs North Carolina, the title of the actual decision featured in the link reads "STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE".
Interesting, well here's an a bunch of posts that seems to say the decision was as I said it was. I don't particularly care if they separated it or not, feels like semantics. The reality is that UNC attempted to discriminate against Asians and White people on the basis of race and was found to have done so in violation of the 14th amendment. Aka being woke.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-707 https://abc11.com/unc-admissions-supreme-court-affirmative-action-ruling-scotus/13440517/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-admissions-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/
Also this link does not contain the actual case you said it does. I'm pretty sure you are trolling at this point.
You linked this article.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-university-of-north-carolina/
If you click the "Judgment" link in that article it takes you to this document.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
That is: "STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE"
You shouldn't believe everything you read in the New York Times. In fact i would argue that you shouldn't believe anything you read in the New York Times. Semantics or not, the truth remains.
Correct but you sent this link in the post before: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062722zor_b97d.pdf
When you click judgement, you get: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
The URLs are literally different.
Furthermore, if you scroll down in the judgement, you get:
While you might not believe the NYT there are 3 other articles there. They all agree with the facts that UNC was decided against.
I am now 100% sure you are trolling in bad faith, since you have considered no other evidence and just ignore anything that proves you wrong.
/images/17346226178013818.webp
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link