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 -
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
Correct, because the link to the article is not the link to the judgment described in said article.
I am going to take a shot at explaining to you what has happened here, on the off-chance that you don't already know.
You provided this link as demonstration of SCOTUS separating the Harvard case from the UNC case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062722zor_b97d.pdf
However, this link does not demonstrate anything of the sort. This link describes a bunch of SCOTUS procedural decisions, but the case being discussed is not among them. Providing a bogus citation like this admits three explanations:
When @YoungAchamian saw this, he responded thusly:
He considered option #3 the most likely (i.e. that you are acting with malice), which is somewhat uncharitable.
Note that if #1 were true, you would be near-certain to respond to your "citation" being called out as bogus by checking it, noticing that it was posted in error, and apologising (probably with a new link to whatever you had meant to link). You did not do so. This is part of why YA said:
The other part is that you posted this additional link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
This citation is, if anything, more suspicious than the first. The reason is that this citation is the judgement of both the cases SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC; the cases were indeed separated, but they were given a single judgement (the actual reason for separation was that Ketanji Brown Jackson was recused from the Harvard case but not the UNC case due to a conflict of interest). This is literally the primary source showing that the SCOTUS ruled against UNC, contrary to your main claim. Most relevant quotes:
a)
b)
As noted above, these are from a link you provided. Thus, there are only two options here:
Floor's yours.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No point telling him that; bad guys know they're bad guys. Report and move on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link