site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   20940 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 30, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

With Trump coming into office, won’t he now have ammunition for his justice dept to go after them? Will he? Maybe we need to send in the National Guard so that Ivy leagues will respect Civil Rights if whites and Asian students

On what basis? The ruling said they can’t nakedly discriminate against Asians on the basis of race, it didn’t demand that they only consider meritocracy (in any case they still clearly have legacies, athletes etc). If Harvard wants admission to be dependent upon some nebulous character assessment that is completely legal unless there is recorded evidence that the assessors involved openly and explicitly discriminate, which there certainly won’t be from now on.

To stop it congress would have to pass a law mandating (for example) that all colleges that receive federal funding must use solely x meritocratic test to determine admissions. I have my doubts that would pass in any event, regardless of what happens with the filibuster.

it feels weird because this the whole point of 'disparate impact' decisions from the courts in the past. apparently, some groups were coming up with proxies to derive their desired racial preferences instead of using explicit discrimination but now Harvard and other universities are doing exactly that and its magically ok. its even more messed up because i'm pretty sure i've seen them make statements into the public record saying this was exactly what they were planning to do.

Disparate impact is very powerful in Title VII cases that govern employment issues (hence why justice can sue police departments for using IQ tests to hire cops). When it comes to colleges it’s more vague, because the ‘purpose’ of admitting a student isn’t clear (is it to have a diverse class, is it to create the most successful professionals, to produce the highest quality academics, to have a good time and make friends).

it feels weird because this the whole point of 'disparate impact' decisions from the courts in the past. apparently, some groups were coming up with proxies to derive their desired racial preferences instead of using explicit discrimination but now Harvard and other universities are doing exactly that and its magically ok.

No, this isn't the case. The court in Griggs explicitly accepted that Duke Power was NOT using proxies to derive their desired racial preference. That would have been illegal without accepting "disparate impact" as being a violation in itself.

The Court of Appeals held that the Company had adopted the diploma and test requirements without any 'intention to discriminate against Negro employees.' 420 F.2d, at 1232. We do not suggest that either the District Court or the Court of Appeals erred in examining the employer's intent; but good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Company/Opinion_of_the_Court)

The court in Griggs explicitly accepted that Duke Power was NOT using proxies to derive their desired racial preference

"If the court accepts that, than the court is a ass — a idiot."¹

The Wonderlic test was first written in 1939; Duke Power Co. only adopted it as a requirement on the same day they could no longer legally discriminate directly on the basis of race.

The case should have fallen under the doctrine of noli meiere in cruro et dicere pluviam.

¹Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist.

The Wonderlic test was first written in 1939; Duke Power Co. only adopted it as a requirement on the same day they could no longer legally discriminate directly on the basis of race.

...So on the day the law said they could no longer screen by race, they stopped screening by race and started screening by IQ test. And this proves to you that they were still screening by race, because they... complied with the law to stop discriminating by race?

What screening method should they have switched to, in your view?

...So on the day the law said they could no longer screen by race, they stopped screening by race and started screening by IQ test. And this proves to you that they were still screening by race, because they... complied with the law to stop discriminating by race?

The fact that they explicitly discriminated by race as long as they could legally do so indicates mens rea; that they sought to exclude Black Americans for being Black Americans.

What screening method should they have switched to, in your view?

The same method they used to screen white people prior to the Civil Rights Act.

@The_Nybbler:

Ass or not, the court accepted it. Perhaps they felt Duke Power was not using the Wonderlic as a proxy for race, but had been using race as a proxy for what the Wonderlic measures.

That would have been somewhere in the vicinity of a plausible conclusion if, sometime between 1939 and 1964, Duke Power Co. had started requiring an IQ test for all applicants and stopped considering their race. The fact that they made the change not when the Wonderlic test was introduced, not when overt racial discrimination was becoming frowned upon, not when the Civil Rights Act passed Congress, but at the very last moment they thought they could get away with, points toward the grown-up equivalent of hovering one's finger 5 mm from someone's face while saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!".

"I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!".

In law it should probably actually matter if they're touching you.

The fact that they explicitly discriminated by race as long as they could legally do so indicates mens rea; that they sought to exclude Black Americans for being Black Americans.

No, mens rea does not work that way. That you were doing something now-illegal before it was illegal is not an element of any future offense. In any case, it does not matter; the reasoning of the decision was based on the judges' conclusion that they were not, in fact, intentionally discriminating. Griggs found that disparate impact was illegal in itself, not because it was evidence of disparate intent.

The fact that they explicitly discriminated by race as long as they could legally do so indicates mens rea; that they sought to exclude Black Americans for being Black Americans.

"They explicitly discriminated by race as long as they could legally" applies to anything they did after the ruling as well.

The same method they used to screen white people prior to the Civil Rights Act.

So any other method of screening that someone might want to try out is outlawed?

"They explicitly discriminated by race as long as they could legally" applies to anything they did after the ruling as well.

From 1939 (when the Wonderlic test was introduced) to 1964 (Civil Rights Act), they had the choice of (1.) whether or not to consider race and (2.) whether or not to consider (measured) intelligence. During that period, they chose to open doors for white people, no test required, but close them to black people, no matter how intelligent. This is evidence establishing motive; that their goal was to keep black people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.

So any other method of screening that someone might want to try out is outlawed?

Prior to the Civil Rights Act, Duke Power Co. did not use any screening method if the applicant was white; if they had had such a testing requirement prior to 1964, that would have been evidence that they were being honest about their motivations, and would have been justified in using a different instrument (unless they switched from a test that a random black person was half as likely to pass to one he was a hundredth as likely to pass). The fact that they felt no need to require any kind of test until they had to consider black people indicates that having any method of screening was a transparent attempt to weasel out of extending to Black Americans the same opportunities which had previously been reserved to the more melanin-lacking segments of the population.

More comments

Ass or not, the court accepted it. Perhaps they felt Duke Power was not using the Wonderlic as a proxy for race, but had been using race as a proxy for what the Wonderlic measures.

What I would give to see the president of Harvard standing in the schoolhouse door to block qualified Asians from enrolling

Makes me wonder- if you just show up at university classes, what would happen?

Nothing. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what universities do. The classes themselves are borderline useless. You are paying in time and money for a credential, which they will deny you in this scenario.

So you’re saying that if I want to improve gaps in my math skills, I should just show up to university math classes and follow along?

That would work for a motivated individual with a decent amount of background. The real students will even happily let you do their homework for them further improving your skills even more!

Generally you can just show up and attend most classes. A lot of the time they even upload lectures online so you can go through them at your own pace as you wish. Very good way to learn a new topic you were always interested in (this is how I learned about optics).

This was the premise of the 1965 TV comedy Hank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_(1965_TV_series)

(This was one of my favorite shows that year.) (Yes, I'm old.)

If there's space for another person to sit and you give the professor a head's up that you wish to attend because of your interest in the material, he or she will likely be thrilled that you may very well be increasing the population of such attendees in the class by a factor of infinity.

In a big lecture? Almost certainly nothing, assuming you can get into the building without a student ID. In a small class? You’d probably get found out because your name wouldn’t be on the attendance sheet. But even then, I wouldn’t be surprised if a passionate instructor turned a blind eye out of respect for your dedication to learning for its own sake.

The reason why approximately no one does this is that you don’t get a diploma out of it at the end.

Some older people do this, it’s called ‘auditing’ officially but in practice if you email the professor and they’re not super famous they’re usually happy to just invite you as a guest, you get a visitor’s badge and then walk in. Until the post-9/11 security state and the rise of the ubiquitous security door pretty much every college lecture hall in the West was completely open and you could just walk in, as I understand it.

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