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 -
Certainly the corporate news media has been spinning wildly in hopes of a Trump defeat.
I have a number of criticisms of Harris, but historically, the most consequential impact of most Presidents has been through Supreme Court nominations. And Harris has always been a "no friends to the right of me, no enemies to the left of me" sort of politician. The independents/undecideds are rarely sufficiently dialed in to understand or care about the intricacies of law and its long-term impact on culture. Justice Jackson has already shown herself to be an unsophisticated jurist who simply votes for whatever seems Wokest, and Harris would appoint more of the same.
The fact that we've reached a point in our political history where every cultural disagreement turns into a Constitutional Question does not really bode well, I think. We are supposed to have a federal system; not every question of importance is supposed to be answered the same way for the entire nation. To the contrary--questions of importance are precisely the questions that states should be free to disagree about. Trump's nominees have moved the needle in the right direction, albeit only slightly. Harris would move us more toward totalitarianism and ruin than Trump could ever hope to manage, assuming she gets an even slightly sympathetic Congress (and I do expect her to win in November, as a direct result of the corporate news media being the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party--the fix is clearly in).
I don't like Trump, I've never liked Trump, and he has been a disaster for the Republican Party. But he was genuinely a kind of bland president who made okay SCOTUS picks. I would expect Harris to be essentially his equal-but-opposite--actually a much more boring President than one might expect from her public buffoonery, but something of a jurisprudential catastrophe in the long run.
I don't think this is true. The only time I genuinely couldn't comprehend where she was trying to go in terms of jurisprudence was her questioning in Murthy v Missouri. Aside from that case, she seems fine to me in oral arguments and writes opinions that I just disagree with. She's not stupid or unsophisticated, she's just wrong. Do you have an example of what you're referring to?
This was certainly my top example, but I don't think it was hard to comprehend. I think it was stupid.
Like, seriously? "The Constitution limits government power, but sometimes we don't like that. What are we supposed to do when the Constitution limits government power in ways we don't like?" This is almost as straightforwardly embarrassing as her inability to answer the question "what is a woman?"
She is similarly stupid in her engagement with issues on race (though Sotomayor has similar problems).
This is not a person who is sophisticated but merely wrong. She's probably smarter than, say, Kamala Harris. But she's definitely bottom-of-the-barrel for SCOTUS, maybe even for the Circuits.
If you read the rest of her comments she says "“I’m interested in your view that the context doesn’t change the First Amendment principles,” Jackson said. “I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you’re talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.”"
So she is obviously aware that the Constitution limits government power, but she is talking about there not being a total prohibition when there is a compelling interest.
Now you may of course disagree with the fact whether Covid or whatever is such a compelling interest, but I think positing that one question, means she is an idiot, about not understanding what the Constitution does is just cherry picking. The rest of her questioning clearly shows she does know that.
Her question shouldn't paraphrased as
"The Constitution limits government power, but sometimes we don't like that. What are we supposed to do when the Constitution limits government power in ways we don't like?"
but rather as
"The Constitution limits government power, but that limit is not all encompassing. In your view what should the government do when and if it does have such a compelling interest?"
Remembering her question here is in the context of a hypothetical about a viral social media stunt that is causing suicides among teenagers. So she is asking even if people are dying is your position that the government cannot encourage the media companies to suppress these posts. Is that not a compelling interest? And the advocate understands where she is going because he answers, no, the government can use positive speech to condemn the posts but it cannot ask the companies to take them down. So they both understand that government power is limited by the Constitution, what they are going back and forth about is what counts as a compelling interest and where those limits end.
Again, you may think she is wrong about where those limits are, but it is clear she isn't a moron who doesn't understand that the Constitution is there to put limits on government action. She clearly understands that.
I think it's clear that she is kind of a moron (see: "I'm not a biologist"). That aside, there is understanding, and then there is understanding. I'm sure she knows what enumerated powers means. I'm also sure she doesn't give a shit about enumerated powers if the principle happens to get in the way of the result she wants, which constitutes a failure to genuinely grasp the principle and her responsibility to it. That's the problem with results oriented jurisprudence. It's a naked exercise of power; it's illegible and thus illegitimate as a jurisprudence.
That isn't being a moron, that's her toeing the line on the current culture war. And similarly if she does understand it, but is choosing to ignore it, that doesn't make her stupid. I am sure she grasps the principle, she just disagrees over what her responsibility is to it. Which is a good reason to be against her as a justice to be clear! But it isn't the same as not understanding.
People who make themselves deliberately stupid, are still stupid. People who consistently act as if they are stupid, just are stupid. The kind of person who answers "what is a woman" with "I'm not a biologist" is being a stupid person, even if they could in theory generate a wall of text explaining to me why in context it was better to pretend to be an idiot than to give an intelligent answer--that is, even if they have the ability to not be a stupid person.
This is what it means, to be a mistake theorist: I genuinely believe that the people who disagree with me, are making a mistake, and that if they were smarter, it is not a mistake they would make.
For if she is not stupid, well, what remains is for her to be actually evil.
As a mistake theorist, I'm open to the possibility that it's a mistake to be a mistake theorist! But that's where I am right now.
This line of thought is so illogical to me. It's patently obvious that there are incentives to anyone even adjacent to politics to be mealy-mouthed and delicately sidestep questions that don't have a "good" answer. I know people get annoyed at politicans for giving non-answers but the fact of the matter is that giving non-answers actually works well, because politicians often rather slightly annoying many people over enraging a few people. Rather than acknowledge that these incentives exist, and they are quite strong, you're deliberately attempting to take the evasive answer at face value rather than acknowledge that smart people sometimes choose to say dumb things because it's beneficial for them to do so.
For example, lawyers do this all the time. Just because a lawyer states a fact in a tortuous way doesn't make the lawyer stupid, it just means they want to win their case and realize that sometimes even an absurd linguistic distortion that would make their middle school English teacher cry might help them win their case. I don't see a lawyer twist words into pretzels and then conclude "oh this lawyer must not understand English very well"...
A supreme court justice position is inherently a political position in the broad but most accurate meaning of the word (the philosophy of how we govern ourselves), and pretending otherwise does no one any favors. There is not an expectation of complete truth in all of their responses to a nomination board, merely a hope of general integrity.
No, I'm asserting that choosing to say stupid things because the incentives are strong is stupid. There are strong incentives to commit a variety of crimes. Depending on where you live and a host of other factors, there may be stronger incentives to not commit crimes, but on the whole society is better off if people choose to not commit crimes even when they would not be punished for it.
This is like, foundational Western political theory. It's the primary concern of Plato's Republic--should you value what is good and true, or only what is to your advantage? I tend to find Plato's conclusion compelling: that being bad is bad for you, and being bad is actually worse for you if you get away with it, because that makes you a worse person. Whether Justice Jackson is genuinely confused about what "woman" means, or is instead just so corruptible that she thought it would be better to pretend she was confused--either way, she showed herself to be a poor nominee and a stupid person. Sly, maybe? But not intelligent. Not honest. Not the sort of person who values justice above her own social standing.
"But lawyers do this all the time!" You bet they do, and people rightly hate us for it. I left the practice of law because I simply couldn't handle it. It was entirely too much work to live by my principles and make a profit at the same time. I won't say it was impossible, but it often felt that way. I make less than a tenth of what most of my old classmates are pulling down now, the opportunity costs of going into academia were so severe--and I've never once regretted the sacrifice.
Now, you can call that "illogical" if you want, but if you're going to accept that
I'm just going to disagree. It's not impossible to be truthful and also be appointed to the Supreme Court--just very, very hard. So yes: if Jackson is not stupid, then what remains is for her to be actually evil. And yes, maybe it is the kind of piteous evil that infects the vast majority of human beings everywhere in every age, the simple and banal evil of pretending to be good only when doing so will yield direct benefits, or avoid obvious costs. But I'm not going to hold appointees to the Supreme Court to a lower standard of truth and justice than I hold myself. You are free to make a different choice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link