site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27341 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.

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.

If we don’t care at all about sample sizes

The point is about camerality (if that is a word), not sample size. The Senate has veto power over legislation. If I gave Wyoming 50 seats in the House but none in the Senate, should its residents not complain because, overall, they are overrepresented?

Quit the semantic games for just one second please. “We” is obviously anyone who claims to care about “representation”.

That's my point. How about addressing the points I make, rather than those you think someone else might make?

To the Democratic Party, “representation” is merely a giveaway to groups most likely to vote Democrat.

  1. Which goes all the way back to my initial point, which is that the reason the OP is fairly described as uncharitable is that it failed to acknowledge the possibility that there might be a legitimate reason for Newsom to appoint an African American woman to the seat.
  2. If your point is that politics is a factor that goes into Supreme Court appointments, congratulations for stating the obvious. There is a reason that Donald Trump and other Republicans go in front of evangelical groups to brag about the Dodd decision. And, no, Clarence Thomas was not the most qualified candidate when he was nominated. Nor was Sandra Day O'Connor when she was nominated.

The only reason for doling out political appointments based on race, sex, etc. is “racism/sexism/etcism is good, actually”.

I do find it hard to give any charity to that view, I will admit.

And some people think that the only reason to oppose abortion rights is to oppress women. Those people are also wrong. Perhaps you need to some reading on democratic theory, or on political legitimacy. You might find that there are, indeed, other reasons, even if you personally don't agree with them. Perhaps the writing of Lani Guinier re evangelical Christians might be a place to start.

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.

I think class and occupation are much more relevant.

That is very possibly true. Some people have argued that apportionment should be more on those grounds and less on geography. That might be a great idea. However:

  1. "X is more relevant than Y" is not an argument that X is irrelevant.
  2. This seems to be a statement that some white people (eg a white auto worker) might know the will of working class African Americans better than some African American people (eg, an African American lawyer). Even if that is true, my statement was mere that an African American representative is more likely
  3. Just to be clear, you are endorsing the idea that representation of interest groups is indeed legitimate.

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done more to harm black people in the US than all the KKK members combined.

  1. I am not sure why you are lumping Jesse Jackson with Al Sharpton, nor what that harm you imagine that to be, nor why you are choosing two guys who have never held political office. A better example would be the majority of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted for the 1994 Crime Bill, which some would argue has done more harm than good to the African American community. I am sure there are other bills that have not turned out well. Which leads me to ..
  2. I said that an African American is more likely to represent the will of African Americans. Not that every action by every African American politician is always going to turn out for the best. As Supreme Court justices have noted many times, ""The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws." The majority of African Americans apparently supported the 1994 crime bill, according to sources cited here. And, where is your evidence that African Americans did not approve of what Jesse Jackson or even Al Sharpton did?

Black people are not a monolith

  1. Yes, obviously. If legitimate democratic representation required that those who are represented be a monolith, then all representative bodies would be illegitimate.
  2. More importantly, this is an argument in favor of Newsom's position: If no group is a monolith, including the People of the State of California, then it is even more important that representatives come from as diverse a background as possible, is it not?

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 don't know why it is either meaningless or trivial. It is not meaningless or trivial in Hawaii (21 percent non-Hispanic white) or in the by-far largest county in the country (25 percent non-Hispanic white)

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.

This is what your interlocutors are summing up as "racism is good, actually"

If that is the case, then my interlocutors need a more sophisticated understanding of what constitutes racism (rather than employing a definition that they almost certainly reject when used by their outgroup) as well as, more importantly, the issues surrounding representative democracy, including the very basic question of what makes it, and laws in general, legitimate. Do you know why the 26th Amendment passed when it did? Because drafting 18-20 yr olds to fight in an unpopular war when they had no right to vote for the legislators who were funding the war. And there is a reason that politicians from Bill Clinton to Nelson Rockefeller worked hard to get African American support for anti-crime laws. Because the perceived legitimacy of laws is important.

It is in direct contravention of the 90s colourblind ideal.

This is not correct. There were many intentionally "majority-minority" districts drawn at the time, particularly in the South. The South in the 90s, of course, was hardly a bastion of progressivism.

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