site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29421 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If your go-to example (per your comment below) of "policies that destroyed American cities" is Shelley v Kramer, which simply prevented blatant, intentional racial discrimination, then you probably don't have much cause to be angry.

Why?

Have you ever been to the area where the Shelley House is located in North St. Louis? Sadly enough, what you see there today is better than what it was after the civil rights revolution. Whatever your opinions about racial discrimination are, the people supporting using it in restrictive covenants predicted their area would turn to ghettoized trash and that is exactly what happened. The Shelley House on Labadue Avenue in St. Louis, Missouri, is an excellent example of exactly what the above user was claiming and was angry about. The only argument is whether or not the intentional policy decisions of the SCOTUS contributed to what happened and what we see today.

Do you happen to know when that area of St. Louis became a hollowed out ghetto?

Why?

Because it is wrong, and because people can always come up with some rationalization for mistreating their outgroup, and because black parents have the same right to move to an area where their children will have a better life as everyone else, even assuming that the area they are trying to leave is bad because other black people live there.

except the "rationalization" for mistreating the outgroup in this circumstance predicted what would happen and then what they predicted proceeded to happen at enormous social cost, including in the exact "outgroup" you're claiming to be concerned with here

it is wrong

"rights" aren't some natural phenomena and neither is your vague "rights" morality, they're intentional decisions and those decisions have costs

The Shelley decision demonstrates that quite well which makes your response odd. Your post is essentially "it's wrong," which is fine, but it's not particularly interesting.

"rights" aren't some natural phenomena and neither is your vague "rights" morality,

Neither is your consequentialist morality. Not that you bother to actually weigh all of the consequences

Your post is essentially "it's wrong," which is fine, but it's not particularly interesting.

And yours is essentially "it has costs," which is not particularly interesting. All policies come with costs.

including in the exact "outgroup" you're claiming to be concerned with here

I not expressing concern for any particular outgroup. The principle would be the same, regardless of the outgroup. Hence my generalization about people in general, not these specific people.

As I noted, racial discrimination in housing prevented black parents from moving to areas where their children would have a better life. If a white parent could afford to move to some suburb with good schools, he or she was free to do so. But a black parent was out of luck. As you implicitly acknowledge, that is in fact a bad thing (or, if you prefer, it has costs). If you did not believe that it is a bad thing, you would argue that it does not matter, but you don't. Instead, you merely argue that the alternative had high costs.

Your post minimized/denied there were costs to the Shelley decision. I pointed out the doom-and-gloom predictions of the party who originally filed suit were proved correct. Despite your claims it wasn't a good example to validate the anger the OP was claiming, it's a great example.

your consequentialist morality.

As you implicitly acknowledge, that is in fact a bad thing (or, if you prefer, it has costs). If you did not believe that it is a bad thing, you would argue that it does not matter, but you don't. Instead, you merely argue that the alternative had high costs.

none of this is accurate

not a consequentialist, did not implicitly acknowledge that, didn't argue it was and the post was to argue the costs of the particular example you picked which you were implying wasn't much or at all; when asked you moved on to "it's wrong"

it's low-effort non-response and belittling with zero explanation or support

when asked you moved on to "it's wrong" it's low-effort non-response and belittling with zero explanation or support

Leaving aside why you think that the statement, "blatant, intentional racial discrimination is wrong" is "belittling", I said three things in response to your query:

  1. Because it is wrong
  2. because people can always come up with some rationalization for mistreating their outgroup
  3. because black parents have the same right to move to an area where their children will have a better life as everyone else, even assuming that the area they are trying to leave is bad because other black people live there.

You never engaged with #3 at all. Your only response to #2 was to claim that in this particular instance, on this particular street, the rationalization supposedly turned out to be well-founded, but you in no way addressed whether my argument is valid in general. As for #1, I was stating the current broad societal consensus that "blatant, intentional racial discrimination" is wrong. That doesn’t mean that you or anyone has to agree with it, nor that it is correct. But you haven't attempted to refute it, nor even claimed that you disagree with it. All you have done is avoid the issue by claiming that it is a "non-response."

Hence, it seems to me that you are the one who is engaging in little effort.

no, what was belittling was providing zero explanation or support and simply asserting the other user "didn't have a leg to stand on" with respect to a specific policy decision

which was why I asked for one and provided the results of the decision and its effects which you implicitly denied or at least heavily downplayed

the Shelley house on Labadue street isn't an example on a particular street, but the entire square miles area which had engaged in these sorts of explicitly racist covenants, which is discussed in the decision itself and makes up part of the rationale for the feds banning state governments enforcing such private contracts, and which is why I asked if you had ever been to the area

simply asserting the other user "didn't have a leg to stand on" with respect to a specific policy decision

I didn't say he "didn't have a leg to stand on." I said "you probably don't have much cause to be angry."

makes up part of the rationale for the feds banning state governments enforcing such private contracts

I don’t understand your reference to the rationale. The rationale is that there is a seller who wants to sell to a black buyer, and would have done so " but for the active intervention of the state courts, supported by the full panoply of state power", and that therefore the enforcement of the contract was state action which brought it under the prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause.

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