site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28781 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If the legal landscape does change, this is a chance to empirically test Richard Hanania's thesis that Woke Institutions is Just Civil Rights Law.

Affirmative action is legal permission to reverse-discriminate, not a requirement to reverse-discriminate. Companies are already able to compete on hiring policies just by saying "we don't have affirmative action at this company". There are laws which require companies to racially balance when they wouldn't want to otherwise, but these laws aren't affirmative action, and won't be affected by getting rid of affirmative action.

There is no such thing "reverse discrimination" to accept their behavior as anything other than "discrimination" full stop, is to grant the identitarians a victory that they do not deserve.

I've seen you post comments in opposition to idpol many times now but I'm still not sure what you believe. To me the argument that adopting idpol in the U.S. is tantamount to pressing the "defect" button in order to benefit at the expense of other groups who must coexist with you. So the logical response is for those other groups to start pushing "defect" themselves lest their lunches get eaten.

I'm not a fan o white nationalism and I think that "white" is a very incoherent, borderline-nonsensical concept in the U.S. But it seems like as a non-BIPOC person my long term choices are "do nothing and eventually pay reparations" or "start advocating for my racial group or coalition in order to counter enemy idpol tactics." I would prefer a third way. You seem to think there is one, so what is it?

I think the best answer is to reject the idea that these identities exist and get others to do the same. Identity politics are strengthened by people accepting the premise as most ideological constructs do. If you’re living in a country that’s based on religious ideals, playing in that sandbox makes it impossible to break out. If I accept that religion is real and should be a part of state government, then there’s no outside position. I might reject the ideas of Shariah, but if I’m rejecting them to implement the Talmud or Catholic Canons or something, we’ve already agreed on Theocracy, and the legitimacy of theocracy, we’re just arguing about the one on top.

You're not wrong but where I suspect that where we differ is that I do not see rationality as prerequisite for morality. Contrary to a lot of other users here, I do not think that having a good reason to press the defect button absolves one from the responsibility of having done so. Bad things happen to bad people. Bad things also happen to good people. So it goes.

Like in the old Matthew Brodrick movie, the wining move is not to play.

Like in the old Matthew Brodrick movie, the wining move is not to play.

As an even older saying goes, the game is rigged but it's the only game in town. Or perhaps you'd prefer the more recent "You may not be interested in the culture war, but the culture war is interested in you." "Not playing" is losing without a fight. Insisting that others who oppose the woke identitarians are wrong to play is giving aid and comfort to the woke identitiarians.

The EEOC has gotten many companies to agree to settlements merely for disparate impact: https://www.google.com/search?q=disparate+impact+eeoc+settlement

Here's one example: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/dollar-general-pay-6-million-settle-eeoc-class-race-discrimination-suit

CHICAGO - Major retail chain Dollar General will pay $6 million and furnish other relief to settle a class race discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Dollar General, the largest small-box discount retailer in the United States, violated federal law by denying employment to African Americans at a significantly higher rate than white applicants for failing the company's broad criminal background check.

Employment screens that have a disparate impact on the basis of race violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unless an employer can show the screen is job-related and is a business necessity. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago (EEOC v. Dolgencorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General, Civil Action No. 13 C 4307), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.

The three-year consent decree settling the suit, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Andrea Wood, requires that Dollar General pay $6 million into a settlement fund which will be distributed through a claims process at the direction of the EEOC to African Americans who lost their chance at employment at the company between 2004 and 2019. If Dollar General chooses to use a criminal background check during the term of the decree, the retailer must hire a criminology consultant to develop a new criminal background check based on several factors including the time since conviction, the number of offenses, the nature and gravity of the offense(s), and the risk of recidivism. Once the consultant provides a recommendation, the decree enjoins Dollar General from using any other criminal background check for its hiring process.

I don't think that's correct

Affirmative action is illegal by the black letter of the Constitution and indeed by civil rights law (which is race neutral -- formally, it is race which is a protected class, not minorities), but that doesn't seem to matter.

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