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 -
I looked at the complaint, which you can read for yourself here. It is 120 pages long, with 505 paragraphs. The Unz article is discussed in only four of those paragraphs, and is only mentioned on three pages. The Petitioner's actual briefs at the Supreme Court level don't appear to cite the article at all.
The guardian article also lists four Amicus briefs as containing references to the Unz article. My impression was always that amicus briefs can be submitted by any random group that claims an interest in the outcome of the litigation. Scotusblog lists a huge number of amicus briefs in this case.
Clearly, the plaintiffs did not "rely on this single article." This looks like an attempt by the Guardian to tar the plaintiffs by association based on an extremely tenuous connection to a controversial figure.
Yeah, it's a brief reference, 224 paragraphs in, as one of several "additional studies" that also support plaintiffs' claims. It's a single, relatively minor, piece of evidence used to support the plausibility of their argument, which was subsequently discarded as soon as more complete information came to light through discovery. Is it slightly embarrassing for the attorneys, who should have been more critical of the authorities they were citing in their complaint? Sure. But that Guardian piece is really scraping the bottom of the barrel if this is the best it can do to tar and feather the SFFA plaintiffs. And somehow I doubt the author would appreciate the same scrutiny being placed on the randos they quote 5 paragraphs into stories bcause they need to pretend to have consulted an expert and know no one important will check anyway.
Also, the amicus briefs citing the Unz article clearly just cribbed the reference from the complaint and almost certainly have no idea who Unz is and almost certainly never even read the article. This is because Supreme Court amicus briefs are mostly glorified op-eds that organizations pawn off on interns because they're low stakes (half the justices don't read them, parties rarely respond to them, and hardly anyone takes the time to bother checking to see if anything they say is true), easy, cheap, and can be used to trick donors into thinking the organization is more active/impactful than it actually is. As a general rule, amicus briefs can be ignored because they mostly just repackage the arguments made in the principle briefs, occasionally with some impressive person's name who never read (let alone wrote) the brief on the cover.
I agree with your post, but just for future reference, this kind of shit only happens with no name online only outfits. When you reach the Guardian level it's actually easier to just get an expert than to make one up - aside from the fact that there's always someone who will check, most "experts" would slaughter their own family to get called an expert by a big paper.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link