site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   28172 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 2022

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://archive.ph/5qyEx#selection-2497.0-2497.8

Religious Zionism lawmaker Orit Strock … gave by way of example a situation in which a Christian wanted to hold a Christmas party with a Christmas tree in a venue owned by a religious Jew.

“I assume an observant Jewish person won’t want to do this because it contravenes his religious faith… Jews gave up their lives to not do such things throughout history. The law must not treat Jewish law as something of lesser value,” she said. "The State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people … "

The end result and goal by the zionist lawmakers is segregation. The "lgbt cake case" is more like that a Jew shouldn't be forced to provide a christmas tree (creative services). But not providing a venue, is like denying to sell a generic cake.

I personally don't see a problem with a religious Jew refusing to host a Christmas party. There are many venues to choose from in Israel.

BTW many Jews don't mind Christians celebrating Christmas. Some Jews indeed want nothing to do with Christians and anything related to them, but it is in no way a universal sentiment, and there's many historical precedents to it, both in Israel and in diaspora. E.g. some affluent Jewish families had a tradition of organizing Christmas parties for their staff - while they themselves did not celebrate, they organized it, provided the venue, bought the gifts, etc. But yes, I guess for a certain Jew it might be offensive if Christmas celebration happened in his venue, and in this case they should be able to refuse.

The "lgbt cake case" is more like that a Jew shouldn't be forced to provide a christmas tree (creative services). But not providing a venue, is like denying to sell a generic cake.

I think there's a useful distinction between providing a venue for a specific event, and providing a venue period, in a lot of the ways that Hurley v. Irish-American recognized that a specific organization's parade could (and would) be seen as endorsement.

((Not that Hurley means anything to anywhere outside of the US.))

I think the strictest read of some Orthodox Rules would be closer -- "that Jews shouldn’t do any business with those of foreign religions (I think including Christians) on or within three days of the pagans’ religious holidays, lest they seem to be supporting or participating in them", especially for groups like Catholics which have a saint for every other day. But I also don't think the Israeli lawmakers are proposing that be permitted nevermind required, I don't think it's popular even among most Orthodox in Israel, and it's not very practical.

Hurley was not about some generic right not to be seen as endorsing an idea you disagree with. It was about compelled speech. It was about whether, if you decide to speak, the government can compel you to include specific ideas in your speech: "Disapproval of a private speaker's statement does not legitimize use of the Commonwealth's power to compel the speaker to alter the message by including one more acceptable to others." Holding a parade is obviously a form of speech. Offering a venue for rent isn't, just as a government is not speaking merely because it offers flagpoles at city hall as a venue for the speech of others . Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. ___ (2022).

In the sense that the strict terms of art used by the justices were more focused on compelled speech as a legal standard, yes. From the sense of whether that connection was seen as speech rather than mere access… Shurtleff said merely offering flagpoles at city hall wasn't endorsing speech, but that's very specific to the facts of the case

The city employee who handled applications testified by deposition that he had previously “never requested to review a flag or requested changes to a flag in connection with approval”; nor did he even see flags before the events. The city’s practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception. It has no record of denying a request until Shurtleff ’s. Boston acknowledges it “hadn’t spent a lot of time really thinking about” its flag-raising practices until this case. App. in No. 20–1158 (CA1), at 140 (Rooney deposition). True to its word, the city had nothing—no written policies or clear internal guidance—about what flags groups could fly and what those flags would communicate.

Compare the extent of Boston’s control over flag raisings with the degree of government involvement in our most relevant precedents. In Summum, we emphasized that Pleasant Grove City always selected which monuments it would place in its park (whether or not the government funded those monuments), and it typically took ownership over them. 555 U. S., at 472–473. In Walker, a state board “maintain[ed] direct control” over license plate designs by “actively” reviewing every proposal and rejecting at least a dozen. 576 U. S., at 213. Boston has no comparable record.

And then explicitly notes that it could be seen as government speech had Boston made those policies, as other jurisdictions at the time did!

Boston could easily have done more to make clear it wished to speak for itself by raising flags. Other cities’ flag-flying policies support our conclusion. The City of San Jose, California, for example, provides in writing that its “ ‘flagpoles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public,’ ” and lists approved flags that may be flown “ ‘as an expression of the City’s official sentiments.’ ”

Now, that's a different test than the non-government variant, but it is relevant as an example.

Hurley's central framework is compelled speech, but the Turner Broadcasting analysis is, if not specifically using the word 'endorsement', very much about whether the GLIB's speech would be seen as part of the broader parade's speech.

You are agreeing with me. As you say, "very much about whether the GLIB's speech would be seen as part of the broader parade's speech." As I said, "Hurley was not about some generic right not to be seen as endorsing an idea you disagree with. It was about compelled speech. It was about whether, if you decide to speak, the government can compel you to include specific ideas in your speech.

And, as I said, "a government is not speaking merely because it offers flagpoles at city hall as a venue for the speech of others." I put "merely" in bold for a reason: If that is the govt is doing, it isn't speaking. If that is all that a rental facility is doing, it isn't speaking. As I said, "Holding a parade is obviously a form of speech. Offering a venue for rent isn't."

And that is also why the parties spent so much time in Masterpiece and 303 Creative discussing whether the baker/website maker were speaking, and that is why the lower court in Masterpiece rested its decision on a finding that "such conduct, even if compelled by the government, is not sufficiently expressive to warrant First Amendment protections." Note that I am NOT saying that the lower court was correct in its conclusion, but rather that the issue of compelled speech does not arise unless the person is speaking, and merely offering a space for rent is not speech, unlike a parade, which clearly is.

But not providing a venue, is like denying to sell a generic cake.

Can I book a gay sex orgy at a mosque then?

Obviously not. I don't see the difference. Nobody is obligated to use their talents or property for your benefit.

The issue is not whether anyone is obligated to use their talents or property for the benefit of others. It is the extent to which someone who is engaged in the business of using their talents or property for the benefit of others can discriminate against customers. You are framing the question in a way which avoids the actual issue at hand.

Can you book a regular orgy at any venue?

If you managed to somehow get a recognized religion that required an orgy as a ritual, you might be in luck - I think religion is a protected class in the US. Satanists are trying to (ab)use it for political goals but so far I didn't see any major success for it.

Aren't there a few neopagan groups with sex rite and which aren't obviously just reddit-tier trolls? I think the question would be what they get away with.

I mean obviously satanists get away with less than other groups because of the whole sincere religious belief test, which they quite obviously fail and will tell you that they fail.

With discrimination law it's important to distinguish the direction of discrimination to understand whether it is enhancing or restricting liberty. Majority>>Minority discrimination is very different from Minority>>Majority discrimination in the impact it has on people's lives. That's the way one distinguishes anti-discrimination laws which prohibit the majority whites from excluding minority Blacks from virtually every public accommodation in the South, leaving Black travelers to consult the Green Book or face a total lack of available restaurants, hotels, and even filling stations or even risk violence; versus the a gay couple who found the one baker in the county who wouldn't make them a cake just to fuck with the guy. One enhances liberty for more citizens, ensuring that everyone is able to find something, increases the speed and reduces the friction of commerce. One reduces liberty for a small number of citizens, pushes them out of commerce altogether, while not enhancing liberty for anyone in a significant way as substitutes were available.

These are at core factual rather than universal considerations.

I have no idea what the social circumstances in Tel Aviv are. Is it the case that I would have trouble finding a venue for my Christmas party? Or is it the case that I would have to go out of my way to find an Orthodox venue that wouldn't let me hold a Christmas party so I could make a stink about it? Anyone know?

majority whites from excluding minority Blacks from virtually every public accommodation in the South

Sorry for nitpick, but in many US states Black population was/is about 30-50%. IIRC there were three states which had >50% for certain period of time.

Correct, but not tremendously relevant to whether a motorist could find a place to stay at night in any given small town.

Seems to me the main question isn’t majority / minority but whether the market is thick or thin.

If the market is thick, discrimination is costly and therefore by and large not an issue (such as the gay cake — there were many bakers who would bake the cake).

If the market is thin (classic is common carrier), then anti discrimination laws may be needed.

Is it the case that I would have trouble finding a venue for my Christmas party?

There's a substantial Christian minority in Israel, and about 1/6th of the population is Russian and celebrates the equivalent Novi-God. You might face trouble if you try to use a venue from ultra-orthodox Jews (Haredim) or something, but otherwise your only problem is that everything is fully booked already.

Do the Haredim offer event venues generally? I was under the impression they were a largely impoverished minority made up of isolated cults and not the sort of thing that own businesses, real estate, and the like.

There’s a lot to say on this. It’s true that many Haredi men don’t work, but most Haredi women do, and a smaller percentage of the men also do work at least part time. The official statistics are also necessarily false, and trend too much towards unemployment, because that’s one way for Haredi men to avoid conscription (without getting into the details of why that is).

Even so, there are business owners that cater specifically to the Haredi market, both from within the community and from outside. It’s a very organized market, so securing a deal with them or even with a specific sect can be very lucrative. As an by anecdote, I used to work for a Haredi Spharadi man doing security for the Lithuanian Haredi population. He had plenty of steady work.

Officially, the great majority of Haredi are poor, but it’s not the same as being poor in the states. Health and education are practically free, public transport is cheap, basic food is donated to them from abroad, and they get very good deals from the aforementioned businesses owners who compete for the Haredi market. They also wield considerable political power, so they can get cheaper housing on the tax payer’s expense. Still, divide their income by the number of family members and they’re deep below the poverty line.

Even before Russians brought the Novi-God, there was Sylvester - which is how Israelis called New Year, because the Jewish New Year is, of course, happening about 2-3 months before. I don't think anybody (non-Catholic) in Israel knows or cares much who St. Sylvester was, but it's how it has been called, and there were parties and events and so on - among secular Jews mostly, of course. I would argue Novi-God is an improvement - at least the holiday is not named after a Catholic Pope now!

True, true. I didn’t think of that, since Sylvester celebrations are more akin to American new-year’s than Christmas (no tree, for example), but for the religious opposition to hosting an event of the sorts it’s roughly the same.

Actual rad-trads don't care about St. Sylvester, so I wouldn't expect the Polish genpop to either.

I appreciate the info! What percentage of Jews do you think would refuse to host an Xmas party, or an Easter party, or whatever?

Let’s say all the ultra orthodox will, just to make the numbers easier. That’s about 1/7th of all Israeli jews, roughly a million people. But, they don’t have a proportional number of venues, it’s much less and they’re generally dedicated for their own uses (e.g they only allow badatz kosher food, separate women and men’s areas).

I don’t know if Easter is well known enough to be refused by anyone.

Then this seems like a real non-story doesn't it.

Hard to say. There’s no actual legislation going on yet, so it’s all up in the air. The examples given to western media aren’t actually relevant either (who cares about Christmas, or Christians for that matter? It’s not really a front in the culture war). In a general sense it sounds pretty bad to me, but I can’t say what will happen in practice.

I think it would depend a lot on where the venue is. Like, in Tel Aviv, probably anything goes, but in the orthodox quarters of Jerusalem it's a different matter. I'm not sure I can talk percentages, but I don't think the religious question would be a problem if you really need a venue and not to make a statement.

I fail to see how this is consistent with the fourteenth amendment guarantee equal treatment under the law. If the law says you can get me, but I can't get you, then it's not treating us equally.

I have some issues with Gorsuch, but he's naively idealistic enough to apply this rationale in cases before him. It's possible that within my lifetime civil rights, the great trampling on my liberty by the federal government, will be reversed in some fashion. It would take some doing.

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