site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26934 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Don’t fear. Newsom has promised to appoint a black woman. The only relevant qualification to the Democratic Party.

This is low effort boo outgroup. Don't do this.

Would the comment:

"Given that the VP slot was promised to a black woman, the open seat on the Supreme Court was promised to a black woman, and now this spot in the senate has been promised to a black woman, there seems to be an established trend that being a black woman is the only relevant qualification to the Democratic Party."

have been low effort boo outgroup?

I'm asking because Barron20204's comment seems less 'boo outgroup' and more pithy and accurate acknowledgement of the established fact that positions of the highest levels are now routinely promised by outgroup to black women.

It would have been much better, and I probably wouldn't have posted a mod warning at all.

Pithyness is the bigger sin. We do tone police around here. The comment as you wrote it would allow a democrat to come in here and push back. The comment as it was originally written would be much more likely to start a flame war.

We do tone police around here.

Is this a new thing for here, because I nearly am certain that was not over on the old Motte? I have a vague recollection of previous mod confrontations where the line was "we police content, not tone".

Though sarcasm was an exception to that: first it was "no we never ban for sarcasm alone", then it was "of course we ban for sarcasm".

Is this a new thing for here, because I nearly am certain that was not over on the old Motte? I have a vague recollection of previous mod confrontations where the line was "we police content, not tone".

What? How have you been here this long and gotten this so wrong? We have always policed tone and not content.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to wrt sarcasm, but I suspect it's something I said at some point. I generally will not ban someone for sarcasm alone (though I might issue a warning), but if you are a repeat offender and you post something that's sarcastic and antagonistic, of course that might earn you a ban.

Hmmm - I am getting definite "we have always been at war with Eastasia" vibes here, because I do have the feeling that there was this precise debate over a ban or modding or something and it was "we don't police tone, don't be silly, we're not going to ban someone just for the way they phrased something unless they were deliberately offensive".

Or maybe I'm just old and stupid and slowly sliding into dementia.

Hmmm - I am getting definite "we have always been at war with Eastasia" vibes here, because I do have the feeling that there was this precise debate over a ban or modding or something and it was "we don't police tone, don't be silly, we're not going to ban someone just for the way they phrased something unless they were deliberately offensive".

I am having a very, very hard time believing that you actually believe this. It would be easier to believe that you really are sliding into dementia, but no, I don't believe that either.

We have been criticized many times, by many people (including you) for how we mod, and one of the most frequent complaints is that we will warn or ban people who say "true" things or make valid points but are too belligerent or insulting about it. You, personally, have been modded many times precisely because of your tone. To say that we have always policed content and that we claim not to police tone is so dramatically contrary to the whole point of the Motte that I am literally sitting here gobsmacked and trying to figure out if you're just fucking with us. We police content, really? That's why we let "fascist pedophiles" and Holocaust deniers and white nationalists and people questioning whether women are sentient post weekly threads?

What the everloving fuck?

You, personally, have been modded many times precisely because of your tone.

I think that's where the problem comes in. X thinks they are being heated but civil, Y thinks they are being belligerent. On a topic where people feel strongly, it's hard to be cool and dispassionate.

The second and separate argument is "but we don't ban paedophile apologists, Holocause deniers, etc." and my response to that is "yeah, so?" That's your decision to make as to what content is acceptable. Where it bleeds over is "you are being banned for your belligerent tone (and also stop talking about this one thing all the time)".

More comments

Not commenting on the dementia, but yeah you are wrong here, moderating on tone is one of the things that interested me in the Motte, back in the day. You can have almost any position as long as you discuss it civilly.

Indeed, that might be the most important thing, given what is being discussed. The Motte without tone policing is a much worse place in my view. We've had some people banned only for breaches of tone. TrannyPornO for example was a prolific and useful poster who was unable to keep to the tone requirements and picked up escalating bans for it.

Modding on tone over content is one of the defining features of theMotte, i would suggest.

Just goes to show how interpretations differ. I was going on "we only ban for egregious insult and bad faith" but then that got caught up in "why did you ban this, it might be heated but it's not insulting" and a lot of to-and-fro over what the mods considered bad tone and what the posters thought, with views all over the place.

"we police content, not tone"

No, that is what most social media places do. We do the opposite. You can post about Nazis, or how you don't think trans people are real versions of their preferred gender. You need to do it politely and in a way that other people can engage you in conversation.

So yes, fluff everything out to triple length with AI, but don't admit it, got it.

fwiw, @firmamenti's post was pretty obviously written by an AI. Because it added nothing but more words. All you people whining that we just mod based on word count are wrong and always have been.

Of course if you start using AI to pad your posts, you might slip some by us, but I for one will start being quicker with the ban button if people decide it's cute to make us play "spot the AI."

We will ban people for making AI written posts.

It is often obvious what is an AI post, unless someone takes a bunch of steps to dirty up the writing. Then all they are doing is regular writing with extra steps.

The length of that post was not the issue. It was the pithyness and the attitude of "these people aren't worth talking to". If they had padded out the length while keeping the same attitude there still would have been a problem.

Don’t fear. Newsom has promised to appoint a black woman. The only relevant qualification to the Democratic Party.

Not a mod, but lets try to unpack a bit - Don't fear - when you start it is obliviously that at least some sarcasm will follow, more probably snark up to culture warring. Not that first two are against the rules, but are discouraged.

Second sentence - statement of truth - there is link (although a quote to give context would have been more appropriate) and it is fine.

Third sentence - here is where I think the OP got in trouble - statement of fact, that will be inflammatory to a sizeable chunk of the people here. Now if you start fires you better bring facts or quotations. Those are missing. There is not even attempt to soften it as expressing it as an opinion or at least saying it is a trend. I don't think that this is established fact when half the people think otherwise. It is established fact in an echo chamber.

It's up to the reader whether "Don't fear' is sarcastic and snarky or facetious and lighthearted. I read it as an attempt to soften what is quite obviously a terrible development: that our political spoils system has seemingly transitioned to one openly based on racial and gender politics. It's not new by any means. But there was something comforting about the decorum of it not being blatant.

And whether or not OP started their third sentence off with 'seemingly' or 'perhaps' or didn't doesn't change the established fact that democrats are now routinely promising to offer positions exclusively to black women

now routinely promising to offer positions exclusively to black women is not the same as The only relevant qualification to the Democratic Party

To me it seems that the politically promoted black women are qualified enough at least on paper for the post that they are taking. Feel free to pitch in. They are not taking AAVE speaking black grandmas from the poor working class areas. Although with their stereotypical no bullshit attitude and desire to smack people they may be a welcome addition to the political scene.

This is the fundamental difference between haters and proponents of AA (I’m a hater fwiw). The former believes qualification is relative so that if you limit the pool for a feature that isn’t relative to qualification you are incredibly likely to end up with a worse candidate whereas the latter believes qualification is a line to cross and once crossed it doesn’t matter too much who is picked so tie should go to the minority.

I feel like the recent AA SCOTUS justices support my view but YMMV.

Although with their stereotypical no bullshit attitude and desire to smack people they may be a welcome addition to the political scene.

If Sheila Jackson Lee is any indication, getting to federal congress takes it out of 'em.

They are not taking AAVE speaking black grandmas from the poor working class areas.

Although not as qualified, as you said, on paper, our hypothetical Ebonics Granny from the hood has real life experience and the resultant common sense that would bring a refreshing perspective to either the VP or SCOTUS that Kamala and Ketanji just...don't. And I'd almost-not-joking trust her more as president too, because she might be more likely than Kamala to be aware of just how much she didn't know. All I'm saying is let's hear her out

I agree with this point. If the goal of appointing these people is to enfranchise Black people whose opinions are marginalized in society then I don't see how putting someone who does not at all have the experience of those groups into power accomplishes this. It's like the recent immigrants taking the affirmative action spots in ivy leagues. The disconnect between the purported motivation and the outcome achieved along with the total lack of interest in aligning these things betrays that the motivation is not sincere.

What is the motivation, then? These people don’t literally believe blacks are magic, and affirmative action doesn’t on average do anything except make everything very slightly worse(and piss people off).

More comments

Surely what makes it boo outgroup is the failure to contemplate the possibility that said outgroup might have legitimate reasons for doing what they did. Not to mention that the claim is a caricature of the outgroup's actual stance, since rather obviously the two black women appointed so far have had all the conventional qualifications for the jobs at issue. And, of course, a non-boo outgroup approach might consider that taking representation into account when appointing someone to a representative body does not seem to be unreasonable on its face.

My original comment was pithy culture warring of course, though I think the point still stands.

the two black women appointed so far have had all the conventional qualifications for the jobs at issue.

This may be true but those conventional qualifications have been poisoned by affirmative action, so it’s impossible to tell how qualified they really are. I’ve been less than impressed by Jackson’s legal acumen, though I’m not a lawyer and fundamentally disagree with her so take that with a grain of salt.

taking representation into account when appointing someone to a representative body does not seem to be unreasonable on its face.

This would be supremely unreasonable if applied to other groups like Jews. Hell, Hispanics are much less represented in Congress than blacks relative to their proportion of the population. For some reason it’s always one specific group getting this racist boost.

  1. Justice Jackson actually was pretty light on traditional qualifications (though so was ACB). Jackson was barely a circuit judge. Spent a lot of time as a public defender. There were certainly many more people with a more impressive CV.

  2. Her opinions have been regularly panned by conservatives. Such conservatives don’t that with Kagan so it isn’t the holding itself but how that holding develops.

  1. There have been all of two female African American senators in the history of the Senate. I don’t personally care, but that is a fact.
  2. I believe there are currently 6 Hispanic senators and 3 African American senators, so African Americans are underrepresented in the Senate, compared to Hispanics.
  3. The last time Gavin Newsom appointed a senator, to replace Kamala Harris, he appointed Alex Padilla, who is Hispanic.

This would be supremely unreasonable if applied to other groups like Jews

Of course, for decades there was a de facto "Jewish seat " on the Supreme Court.

I was looking at congress as a whole where the sample size is more reasonable.

Of course, for decades there was a de facto "Jewish seat " on the Supreme Court.

If we truly cared about representation matching the population then there wouldn’t be a Jew on the Supreme Court, let alone an informal reserved seat.

I was looking at congress as a whole

And if Congress was unicameral, that would be great. But it isn't.

If we truly cared about representation matching the population

I'm not sure who "we" is. Because I didn't say that. There is a big difference between 1) "It is fine if appointments are made in a manner such that all groups have at least some representation" and 2) "Every group should have representation which exactly matches their percentage of the population."

And if Congress was unicameral, that would be great. But it isn't.

If we don’t care at all about sample sizes then all committees and subsets of congress should also be representative.

I'm not sure who "we" is.

Quit the semantic games for just one second please. “We” is obviously anyone who claims to care about “representation”. The Democratic Party claims that the entire country should care about that.

There is a big difference between 1) "It is fine if appointments are made in a manner such that all groups have at least some representation" and 2) "Every group should have representation which exactly matches their percentage of the population."

There are lots of minorities that are completely unrepresented in various government bodies. Let’s take the SCOTUS for instance where the last seat was explicitly promised to go to a black woman (and did), despite blacks as a group already being fairly represented. Where is the representation for the Asian-Americans? For the Senegalese-Americans? For the Australian-Americans? To the Democratic Party, “representation” is merely a giveaway to groups most likely to vote Democrat.

More comments

Surely what makes it boo outgroup is the failure to contemplate the possibility that said outgroup might have legitimate reasons for doing what they did.

The comment in no way indicated that Democrats were promising positions to black women for illegitimate reasons. Only that they were doing so routinely.

Not to mention that the claim is a caricature of the outgroup's actual stance, since rather obviously the two black women appointed so far have had all the conventional qualifications for the jobs at issue.

We have wildly, radically different views of what qualifies as 'all the conventional qualifications' for the Vice Presidency and Supreme Court. If you're going to assert that Kamala Harris is as conventionally qualified as Mike Pence, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Al Gore then you're going to have to provide evidence and you're not going to find any. Mike and Al were governors with actual governing experience. Joe and Dick had 30+ years each of dc insider experience. Hell before he was VP Dick Cheney was WH Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense.

If you'd like to put Ketanji '379 days on the Court of Appeals' Brown Jackson's record up against the conventional qualifications of, oh I don't know, having an established judicial record for the senate to be able to examine before confirmation, then feel free to do so, but just asserting it to be so has negative probative value.

And, of course, a non-boo outgroup approach might consider that taking representation into account when appointing someone to a representative body does not seem to be unreasonable on its face.

Representation of their constituents political desires. That's what they're supposed to be, at least. You're (likely inadvertently) advocating to replace that system with a South Africa style quota. Which, if enacted, would mean a great many black women would have to be fired and replaced. Because they are currently hilariously overrepresented at all levels of 'public service' given they are around ~6% of the American population.

If you'd like to put Ketanji '379 days on the Court of Appeals' Brown Jackson's record up against the conventional qualifications of, oh I don't know, having an established judicial record for the senate to be able to examine before confirmation, then feel free to do so, but just asserting it to be so has negative probative value.

I mean, Amy Coney Barrett was also very new as a federal judge when she was named to the supreme court. It's not exactly unprecedented for presidents to give supreme court seats to people who'll rule the way they want even if they're underqualified.

The comment in no way indicated that Democrats were promising positions to black women for illegitimate reasons. Only that they were doing so routinely.

I think we are going to have to disagree on that one.

If you're going to assert that Kamala Harris is as conventionally qualified as Mike Pence, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Al Gore

Well, Joe Biden and Mike Pence [edit: I meant Dick Cheney] might be the most conventionally qualified VPs ever, so they do not represent the norm. As for Al Gore, he served 8 years in the House and 7 in the Senate. No executive experience at all. Kamala Harris was a DA for 7 years and then Attorney General of the most populous state in the country for 6, and then Senator for 5 years. Then there is Dan Quayle (4 years in House, 8 years in the Senate). Then there are unsuccessful nominees like Sarah Palin and John Edwards (1 term in the Senate).

If you'd like to put Ketanji '379 days on the Court of Appeals' Brown Jackson's record up against the conventional qualifications of, oh I don't know, having an established judicial record for the senate to be able to examine before confirmation, then feel free to do so

Jackson has all the normal educational qualifications, clerked for the Supreme Court, served as the vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission, and was a US District Court judge for several years (which indeed created a judicial record for the Senate to examine). And note that commentators, including Justice Scalia, have long bemoaned the fact that few Supreme Court justices have experience as trial judges. In contrast, John Roberts had all of 13 months of experience as a judge before being appointed. Elena Kagan had no judicial experience. Clarence Thomas had a little more than a year. Sandra Day O'Connor had served five years as a judge at the county level and 1 1/2 years as a judge on an intermediate state appellate court.

You're (likely inadvertently) advocating to replace that system with a South Africa style quota.

No, I'm not. Because, you know, for 45 years, the Supreme Court distinguished between racial quotas and taking race into account. If they can understand that distinction, I am guessing you can, too.

Well, Joe Biden and Mike Pence might be the most conventionally qualified VPs ever, so they do not represent the norm.

Neither of them are even close to the "most" - HW Bush immediately comes to mind but there's probably an even better one

You said:

And, of course, a non-boo outgroup approach might consider that taking representation into account when appointing someone to a representative body does not seem to be unreasonable on its face.

I said:

Representation of their constituents political desires.

As in the thing the representative body is supposed to represent is the will of their constituents. It is absolutely unreasonable to pretend that your use of the word representation had anything to do with the stated purpose of a representative body. And your clever attempt to equate the two disparate concepts through wordplay is absolutely an advocation for representative bodies that look like the constituents they represent. Inadvertent or otherwise.

I find calling Pence or Biden as the most qualified ever pretty funny in the context where Adams, Jefferson, Burr, GWHB, George Clinton, Calhoun, LBJ we’re all VPs.

But to your point, let’s look back to see someone as unqualified as Kamala.

Let’s see. Mike Pence? More qualified. Joe Biden? More qualified. Dick Cheney? More qualified. Manbearpig? More qualified. Quayle? It’s close. GWHB? Not by a country mile. Mondale? More qualified. Rockefeller? More qualified. Ford? More qualified.

So amongst the last ten VP Kamala appears tied for last in terms of qualification.

Neither of them are even close to the "most"

My mistake. I meant to say Dick Chaney, rather than Mike Pence.

As in the thing the representative body is supposed to represent is the will of their constituents.

  1. Right. And someone who is African American is more likely to know the will of African Americans than someone who isn't.
  2. Moreover, representatives are also meant to represent the interests of their constituents, not just their will, which realistically does not exist re a lot of legislation. A diverse (not just racially but in many ways) body is more likely to represent everyone (and to understand how govt action will affect everyone) than a less diverse one. That is why the #1 selling point fir Jackson was her work as a public defender. Most judges with criminal experience are ex-prosecutors.

And someone who is African American is more likely to know the will of African Americans than someone who isn't.

Not to derail this thread, but I think this statement is mostly false. It used to seem self-evident to me. More and more, though, I think class and occupation are much more relevant.

Two points as to why: a) People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done more to harm black people in the US than all the KKK members combined. b) Black people are not a monolith (especially wrt the trans/gay stuff) even if they have a lot of statistical and biological things in common across the entire race.

It seems to me that you would probably agree that "Someone who is White is more likely to know the will of White Americans than someone who isn't" is kind of a meaningless statement. To the extent that it's true, it's trivial.

I recognize that this is probably one of the deepest core progressive concepts, though, so I don't expect many on the left to be eager to abandon it. I just think it's false and around here we should note stuff like that.

More comments

Right. And someone who is African American is more likely to know the will of African Americans than someone who isn't.

This is what your interlocutors are summing up as "racism is good, actually". It is in direct contravention of the 90s colourblind ideal.

More comments

The sooner the public accepts that the future of the West’s leadership is a combination of Brahmins and PoC women who have nerdy white husbands, the more comfortable we will all be.

Nope, I want a bunch of rednecks and accountants with male order brides.

Is that a typo or a reference to transsexuals?

That’s a typo. Good catch.

Behind every powerful black or brown woman is a nerdy white man.

Maybe if comfort is your concern, you should find some way to restrain Blue Tribe abuses and usurpations.

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