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 -
I want to discuss a recent tweet:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F19537f87-70fe-4627-b5b7-e99e4855c933_606x519.png
The humor, I’m not sure if it’s intended, is that “Griggs v. Duke Republicans” are an almost entirely online phenomenon. They don’t have a mass of voting power in the real world. Republican politicians, to the extent they’re aware they exist, would be fine losing the few votes they have, many of which are locked in deep blue areas. They’re not serving in the Trump administration. Very few have actual influence on policymakers. Chris Rufo does. Richard Hanania, maybe a little.
The Roe v. Wade Republican is comfortable in the Republican coalition. He’s the type of guy nobody is surprised to learn votes Republican. The Griggs v. Duke Republican is cross-pressured; he’s white and male but also educated, irreligious, and urban. The Roe v. Wade Republican watched the Republican convention speeches. The Griggs v. Duke Republican didn’t because, deep down, he knows the speeches were not for him. It’s not really his party. But then he logs on to an online community of other Griggs v. Duke Republicans and fools himself into thinking people like him are a notable part of the Republican base.
Sometimes the Griggs v. Duke Republican is sufficiently disgusted by the low-class and religious portions of the Republican base that he angrily denounces it and becomes a centrist or even a left-winger. The Republican reaction is … nothing because they don’t even take any note of such people.
My message to Griggs v. Duke Republicans, from a Griggs v. Duke guy who used to be a Republican, is this. There is a difference between voting for a party and being part of that party’s coalition. Richard Spencer voted for Kamala but is not part of the Democratic coalition. You, Mr. Griggs v. Duke Republican, are not part of the Republican coalition. Maybe that will change someday. Maybe Griggs v. Duke Republicans will start running for office. Maybe you can be the change you want to see in the world and do that. But right now, you’re on the outside looking in.
What's is Griggs, and why does it define different types of Republicans?
The first major court case on disparate impact. Here, it's standing in for educated white voters who hate affirmative action.
At this time, I would like to steelman disparate-impact legislation.
Some people decide that they don't want to hire (or sell to, or admit to their schools) black people (or women or Chinese people or Irish people...), but are forbidden by law from having such a policy. They then impose a standard that many white people can meet, few black people can meet, and that they most likely wouldn't give a rat's arse about if it were un-correlated with race, and in some cases didn't give a rat's arse about when they were allowed to discriminate openly. (Sometimes they go further, and enforce a zero-tolerance standard on black people while ignoring violations by white people.) The government than comes in and says "That sounds like a whites-only sign with extra steps; I thought we had made it perfectly clear that you are not allowed to do that! What part of 'do not discriminate on the basis of race' did you not understand?"
Oh, certainly. I was not identifying as a 'Griggs Republican' myself. I tend to think that the idea of disparate impact can be followed off a cliff (e.g. Kendi-style arguments that any inequalities in outcome are evidence of unequal treatment), but at the same time, it's obviously true that facially neutral policies can be chosen and applied strategically in order to achieve a discriminatory outcome.
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