site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26936 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.

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.

It wouldn’t be so blatant if they didn’t pre-announce the race and sex of their appointees. Even just the plausible deniability of not doing that would improve the optics.

Immediately narrowing the universe of candidates based on race and sex is definitionally racist and sexist.

The “political legitimacy” of the racial spoils system of South Africa surely provides much comfort to its citizens.

It wouldn’t be so blatant if they didn’t pre-announce the race and sex of their appointees. Even just the plausible deniability of not doing that would improve the optics.

Why would one need plausible deniability for doing something that you think is sound policy?

Immediately narrowing the universe of candidates based on race and sex is definitionally racist and sexist.

No, it is definitionally discriminatory. That is not the same as racist/sexist. And sometimes both racial and gender discrimination are fine. There are lots of boys-only and girls-only schools out there, after all.

The “political legitimacy” of the racial spoils system of South Africa surely provides much comfort to its citizens.

Political legitimacy does not guarantee good policy, and it seems to me that South Africa has greater threats to the political legitimacy of its government than its "racial spoils system." And Taiwan, Belgium, New Zealand, Singapore and Croatia seem to be doing fine, despite having ethnic quotas in their legislatures. I note that South Africa does not seem to have such quotas. Perhaps it would be doing better if it did?

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