site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36049 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Didn't know that Volokh did that. Props to him.

Here's an argument in favor of explicit, quota-based affirmative action compared to what exists now: it adds transparency instead of driving it underground. Clearly adcoms want to engineer the racial composition of their classes and will do so by whatever means possible. But avoiding explicit quotas just shifts AA mechanisms to illegibility and makes it impossible to discuss. Any debate around the extent, values, and goals of AA gets obscured by a bunch of sand being thrown up in the air. "We are objective and meritocratic, it's just that Asian Americans have ineffably worse personalities" and all that dross.

People can debate the value of AA itself (I'm probably more supportive of it in some circumstances than most here), but it's better to make it explicit so people can reasonably discuss it instead of getting sidetracked about whether and to what extent it's happening. And psychologically it's better for students to know that they're being held to different standards instead of gaslighting them about mysterious personality defects that they all have but group X doesn't.

openly mock Asians is somehow not relevant to the issue

I don't read the quote from the memo as mocking Asians; it's mocking admissions committees and the ridiculous standards they apply to Asians. It's doubtlessly still relevant for trial and there's no reason it should be sealed, but if anything I read some empathy toward Asians and an acknowledgment that they face a much, much higher bar than other minority groups.

Someone needs to get Californians to pass another proposition, one that bans any admission criteria except state residence and SAT results in UC and CSU.

Here's an argument in favor of explicit, quota-based affirmative action compared to what exists now: it adds transparency instead of driving it underground. Clearly adcoms want to engineer the racial composition of their classes and will do so by whatever means possible. But avoiding explicit quotas just shifts AA mechanisms to illegibility and makes it impossible to discuss. Any debate around the extent, values, and goals of AA gets obscured by a bunch of sand being thrown up in the air. "We are objective and meritocratic, it's just that Asian Americans have ineffably worse personalities" and all that dross.

People can debate the value of AA itself (I'm probably more supportive of it in some circumstances than most here), but it's surely better to make it explicit so people can reasonably discuss it instead of getting sidetracked about what's actually happening. And psychologically it's better for students to know that they're being held to different standards instead of gaslighting them about mysterious personality defects that they all have but group X doesn't.

I agree with this, though I admit I haven't thought too deeply on it. Clearly the desire to discriminate against Asians is there, and this desire will be fulfilled one way or another due to the people who have this desire being the same people who control the levers to power in this context. It's best if it's all out in the open, so that potential applicants, their parents, and others can more accurately assess both their chances and the standards of Harvard and other universities.

However, I suspect that the obfuscation is a very important part of the point that is also desired by the people who desire to discriminate against Asians, and as such any implementation of AA will inevitably have to be obscured. AA's value in providing a nice-sounding mechanism for engineering the admissions results they're targeting would be lost if everything were out in the open, and that function might be a critical, irremovable portion of 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