site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   15584 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 2022

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I had a good discussion regarding the case of Sam Brinton, buried deep in last week's thread. I am reposting here so that more people can see it and possibly participate. I hope this is appropriate and doesn't constitute self-promotion.

I wrote:

What would even constitute evidence that Brinton was hired based solely or primarily on his identity? He has a master's degree in the relevant field (from MIT, though other comments are telling me that doesn't really matter) and has co-authored several research papers. To me it looks like he's about as qualified as anyone.

@Astranagant replied:

Well this is the problem with identity hiring, isn't it? How does anyone know you didn't get the edge over your competitors because of that? Unless he was literally the only applicant for the job, I'd find it hard to swallow that the topic of his... presentation... never came up. Meaning the department most likely consciously chose him, and whether this is in spite of or because of his affectations would largely come down to whether he was wildly head-and-shoulders better than his competition. Employers will overlook some affectation for a genuine rockstar employee, but there's a limit proportionate to how irreplaceable you are.

So either Brinton is hyper-competent and got the job in spite of his affectations, which according to the rest of the thread -- and your own comment "as qualified as anyone" -- his education history and performance on the job doesn't bear out. So if it's not that, can we then assume that the affectations served the purpose of the administration somehow? This is a government job, it's impossible... alright, improbable to believe they didn't do their due diligence.

To which I replied:

If the employer has whittled down the list of applicants to a group of people with similar qualifications, and more detailed information that might help the decision is impossible or infeasible to attain, then the choice of whom to hire will be arbitrary. In this case, I don't see how hiring Brinton because of his unusual presentation is any worse than rolling a die or flipping a coin to make the final choice.

To me, the phrase "hired for your identity" implies that standards have been lowered and the candidate was picked over someone more qualified but with a less-favoured identity. As far as I can tell, this is not true in Brinton's case.

One form of affirmative action that I've heard about is that, when two or more candidates appear to be equally qualified, and one belongs to a historically marginalized group, that candidate should be chosen. As I said above, when it comes down to this kind of decision, the choice is arbitrary, and I don't see any harm in the affirmative action method. Indeed, if the group to which the candidate belongs really does face some kind of disadvantage, picking them is the rational choice for the self-interested employer, as it indicates that the candidate has achieved the same qualifications despite more difficult circumstances. Of course, simply considering a few categories such as race and gender can never provide the full picture: for example, among two candidates there may be a woman from a rich family and a man whose family was poor growing up; overall, the man had it worse, but an application generally includes gender but not family circumstances, so applying the method here would lead to the wrong choice. It is just a heuristic, and no heuristic is perfect, but as I said, at some point acquiring more information about the candidates becomes impossible or infeasible; except for some very specific positions, an employer won't hire a personal investigator to carefully investigate the candidate's past: this is where heuristics come in.

The above method is very different from lowered standards for different groups, or straight-up quotas, both of which I vehemently oppose. Finally, it must be noted that:

  1. In the real world, "historically marginalized" groups have been granted various advantages, which might reduce the method's accuracy.
  1. Situations where several candidates are, in fact, equally qualified, and only one belongs to a historically marginalized group, are not actually that common.
  1. The heuristic requires that the candidates' identity not be considered until the final choice: a woman must be just as good as a man, without considering the fact that she is a woman. Otherwise, we would be adjusting for identity twice, which would result in a lower standard for women.

when two or more candidates appear to be equally qualified, and one belongs to a historically marginalized group, that candidate should be chosen

I feel like whoever came up with this policy was trying to pull a fast one. To the extent that it has any "affirmative" effect, it is unjust. If it is non-discriminatory as its advocates claim... it does nothing. Just like Google's 2nd-chance interview thing called out in Damore's famous memo.

2. Situations where several candidates are, in fact, equally qualified, and only one belongs to a historically marginalized group, are not actually that common.

Much less than uncommon, I think. Rather, nonexistent. Skill is continuous, not discrete. What "equally qualified" actually means is that it would cost more than it's worth to measure qualification finely enough to differentiate.

So the mechanism of this kind of affirmative action is to make mistakes favor historically marginalized groups, which might be worse for those groups' reputation than naked quotas. This kind of thumb on the scales means you'll more often meet surprisingly incompetent "marginalized" co-workers, and surprisingly competent "non-marginalized" ones. Eventually this will stop being a surprise. Quotas, one hopes, are satisfied by overpaying "marginalized" employees, which invites resentment, but at least it doesn't seed FUD.

One form of affirmative action that I've heard about is that, when two or more candidates appear to be equally qualified, and one belongs to a historically marginalized group, that candidate should be chosen

If racial and sex disparities were small enough for this to compensate for, they would already be incredibly small - and if this was the only mode of affirmative action, it'd have little effect. If US's history of slavery and racism was a total of 50 black people being enslaved, and it was actually a consensual fetish TPE thing, then slavery would've been fine and progressive, but it isn't!

In the real world, "historically marginalized" groups have been granted various advantages, which might reduce the method's accuracy.

Reduce? Its completely swamped the effects such that the heuristic is nearly always wrong.

People are never exactly the same. Standards are lowered. As the pressure rises on recruiters, the scales are pushed on ever harder. And typically, for the good jobs, you're punishing people who didn't benefit from their 'privilege' (more than their peers) and rewarding people who never suffered.

Competence matters, and it's hurting.

And really, come on -- you've seen the 300 pts on the SAT and the 80% of Berkeley professors being pitched on the diversity statement. Hell, we had the supreme court justice primarily selected on her identity. Apparently the question wasn't if a black woman would be taken, it was which one. It's not just tie-breakers, it's nowhere close, even if that were meaningful.

In a sense, it really is a motte and bailey, to harken back to the sub/site's name -- the motte is "when things are exactly equal, it's a small tie-breaker to help out" and the bailey is 300 points on the SAT and men being on 40% of college graduates, but women are the victims because there are still a few majors where there are more men.

Hell, we had the supreme court justice primarily selected on her identity

This is always the worst example people who dislike affirmative action bring up. First, the idea that there are specific seats for various ethnic groups or genders or whatever has been true of the Supreme Court since the early 20th century when there was a Jewish seat. In addition, there's no actual way to determine whose the best qualified person to be a Supreme Court Justice, outside of personal political beliefs, and if there are a few dozen people who'd basically vote the same, there's no reason to not try to diversify things.

In addition, there's no actual way to determine whose the best qualified person to be a Supreme Court Justice, outside of personal political beliefs

I find this to be a pretty dubious claim. There are particular skills required of a SC justice. They need a deep knowledge of constitutional law, they need to be able to understand and elucidate complex logical arguments, etc. It's certainly possible to evaluate these skills in a candidate (even if not with perfect precision or inter-annotator agreement). You might say that of the many candidates with the appropriate baseline level of experience, their respective competencies are just too close to distinguish, but that doesn't seem right to me.

Listening to SCOTUS oral arguments and reading decisions, I get the distinct sense that some justices are just a lot better at their jobs than others. Some consistently come up with incisive hypotheticals and clear, eloquent lines of reasoning, and some waste the court's time with meandering, muddled questions. Occasionally, some make even egregiously elementary errors. In one of the recent affirmative action cases, Sotomayor confused de jure and de facto segregation. (I'd ordinarily be happy to give the benefit of the doubt and say this was just a slip of the tongue, but if you look at the full context, it doesn't seem possible that this was the case. She repeats it a few times, and even when sort of given an opportunity to correct herself by Alito, she seems to double down on her misunderstanding.)

I mean, yes, I agree, and I think every Justice on the Court, even the ones I think are terrible and are making the country worse are well-qualified in that they know the law, etc. Like, I think Clarence Thomas has done irreparable harm, but I'm also sure he's smart enough to figure out arguments to get what he wants in an opinion.

If you go through the arguments and opinions of every single Justice in history, they all make mistakes or get caught up in a bad argument, because they're not robots.

if anything, due to the bias toward judges w/ elite credentials, the Supreme Court today has far more well-qualified people than when it was explicitly a place for political favors, whether it was former Congressman who were never judges, or anything else. It wasn't until the Nixon era the idea that the Supreme Court was a place for elite legal minds to put down judgement was even something thought of by many people at all, considering even Eisenhower named Earl Warren to the Court, basically to get his support at the RNC in 1952.

Some Supreme Court justices are better than others in some abstract sense, but in practice, the main consideration is that the appointee should reliably take the appointing party's side while being creative and erudite enough to avoid looking like too much of a hack while doing it.

This is the unfortunate reality but the institution does stand for something symbolic and it's worth preserving that symbol. People learn what to expect by what happens at the high profile appointments, if race is such an important characteristic as to be the deciding factor in appointing someone to one of the most powerful positions in the country what does that say to the common man? Race is hyper important and if your race is not getting favors then you should agitate. You can only broadcast this message so loudly and so long before you start getting whites to internalize it and wake up a racial consciousness and that has traditionally catalyzed the stuff on nightmares.

No, the not looking like a political hack thing is optional.

First, the idea that there are specific seats for various ethnic groups or genders or whatever has been true of the Supreme Court since the early 20th century when there was a Jewish seat.

And it's been an abominable affront to liberalism this whole time. Even if it goes back to the very founding, so did slavery.

Why is it affront to liberalism to name a well-qualified person to the Court who also happens to make sure the Court better reflects what the nation looks like? Like, I'm pretty sure for the entirety of it's existence, there existed Jewish judges that were qualified enough to be on the Court, because, the idea there is a most-qualified person to be on the Court just isn't true.

  • -10

Because emphasizing our differences fractures what should be a cohesive society. Without checking what is the hair color representation on the court? Height representation? Blood type representation? Would it be better if we arbitrarily tried to balance the court on these factors as well? And what about the 10th largest minority? The solution doesn't scale, isn't necesary and causes obvious and justified resentment in those overlooked because of the color of their skin. The idea that everyone is and should be responsible for looking after the interests of their coethnics over other groups is not just deeply unfair but dangerous.

Pretty much false. Jewish dominance of the upper end law schools/firms dates only from around the early 20th century in America. It wasn't until the mid to late 1800s that Jews even arrived in the USA in significant quantities, earlier examples have been magnified by the combined effects on historical fiction of Jewish writers dominating early Hollywood and of efforts towards mild easy diversity lessons.

Meant to add 'once a Jewish seat' was added, which was in 1916.

better reflects what the nation looks like?

1/9 of the US population isn't Jewish.

Sure, but they are a significant part of the nation, and more importantly, a significant minority that could get a seat on the Court in 1916. As opposed to other minorities. After all, 8 out of the other 9 seats were made up of white men, who even then, were less than half of the nation.

By their fruit you will know them, the bible says.

I've seen a lot of affirmative action hires, and not one single instance of it made me more positive on affirmative action.

As I said above, when it comes down to this kind of decision, the choice is arbitrary, and I don't see any harm in the affirmative action method.

You don't see the harm? You're saying you'd actively choosing to discriminate against someone for their skin colour or whatever, and you don't see the harm? Someone who, in all likelihood, has never actually received any benefits from their skin colour or whatever? Disregarding the harm, I could comprehend, but outright not seeing it?

The above method is very different from lowered standards for different groups, or straight-up quotas, both of which I vehemently oppose.

Not really. The victim won't really care why exactly he was discriminated against, only that he was. Whatever pretty justifications you dress it up in, you need to own what you're advocating for.

Except it is often the case that job postings may state that special characteristic holders will get shortlisted. This brings up the idea that it isn't a random choice between a final shortlist, but that a person is on the shortlist not because they are equally qualified and able but explicitly because of the special characteristic.

In this case, I don't see how hiring Brinton because of his unusual presentation is any worse than rolling a die or flipping a coin to make the final choice.

Brinton specifically? I think it's obviously worse because his unusual presentation is an excellent marker for being the sort of person that loves to antagonize others. This isn't a trans person that has a difficult mental condition that they're doing their best with, it's a fetishist that conscripts everyone around them into playing along with their fetish. That Brinton would behave badly and do things that would embarrass the employer seems like an obvious lock, right from the start.

Yeah, whatever about Brinton's real qualifications, there is no way that their previous advocacy for LGBT causes didn't come up, even on the application as to "So what were you working at for the past few years?" While they did do work in the field of nuclear waste disposal, they were also out and about in LGBT affairs:

Calling themselves a "survivor" of conversion therapy, Brinton was the first such individual to testify before the United Nations Convention against Torture regarding their experience in November 2014, as the advisory committee co-chair of the National Center for Lesbian Rights' #BornPerfect campaign. Brinton held the position until at least September 2015.

Brinton, on December 1, 2016, founded the #50Bills50States campaign with the goal of prohibiting the pseudoscientific practice of conversion therapy throughout the U.S.

In 2016 and 2018, Brinton was the principal officer for the Washington DC chapter of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an LGBTQ charity and human rights group.

From 2017 to 2019, Brinton was the head of advocacy and government affairs at the non-profit LGBTQ youth suicide prevention organization The Trevor Project.

Work they did in the field:

In 2016, Brinton was a senior policy analyst for the Bipartisan Policy Center, lobbying for updated regulations so nuclear waste can be used to power advanced nuclear reactors. In February 2020, the website of Deep Isolation, a Berkeley, California, nuclear waste storage and disposal company, listed them as its Director of Legislative Affairs and in May 2022 they were its Director of Global Political Strategy. In 2022, Brinton's profile at the Department of Energy (DOE) indicated their previous work with the Breakthrough Institute, the Clean Air Task Force, and Third Way.

2022, Brinton became a deputy assistant secretary at DOE, serving in the Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition.

In February 2022, an unidentified Department of Energy employee filed allegations of hiring malpractice with the Office of the Inspector General due to concern regarding Brinton's qualifications for a Senior Executive Service (SES) level position, i.e. "the class of federal career officials who rank just below top presidential appointees in seniority".

So they were indeed qualified for the job, but. And it's that "but" which is causing all the queries. Would Brinton have been hired if they had been "Samuel Otis Brinton, cis white bisexual man, he/him pronouns"? Maybe. But what about "Samuel Otis Brinton, cis white straight man, he/him pronouns"? All the publicity about "first non-binary gender-fluid person in federal government leadership" does mean that the question of "is this a diversity hire first and foremost?" will be asked. And then we have the two charges of stealing luggage, which only muddies the water even further. Sexual fetish? Impulse control disorder like kleptomania? Any more shoes to drop (as it were) when it comes to sticky fingers or other misdeeds?

One form of affirmative action that I've heard about is that, when two or more candidates appear to be equally qualified, and one belongs to a historically marginalized group, that candidate should be chosen. As I said above, when it comes down to this kind of decision, the choice is arbitrary, and I don't see any harm in the affirmative action method.

Yeah, but that does rely on them not blotting their copybook, like having little habits such as robbing other people's property. "We hired this stunning brave and valid token representation" looks like a bad decision when it becomes "and they're a thief/other criminal behaviour" because then you don't have the cover of "but they were really, really qualified!", so the rejoinder is "Well maybe you should have picked the equally qualified boring conventional type, there might be a chance they wouldn't turn out to be a whacko".

when two or more candidates appear to be equally qualified, and one belongs to a historically marginalized group, that candidate should be chosen

Just like how euthanasia is only ever used for 95 year-olds with terminal brain cancer and Alzheimer’s, right? The reality is that black students get the equivalent of over 300 bonus points on the SAT last I checked.

Just like how euthanasia is only ever used for 95 year-olds with terminal brain cancer and Alzheimer’s, right?

The snark combined with the strong claim without a source makes me dubious you're actually trying to 'argue to understand.' At least mention what you're referencing with the 300 bonus points metric?

"Historically Marginalized" is and will be useful to refuse AA to white men (or whites and men) when they are drastically underrepresented in academia and work sectors that are seen as important by those in power. Men are already moderately underrepresented in university attendance, yet very few are giving men AA, as they are not "historically marginalized". So all the current is against them, despite them already being underrepresented.

One form of affirmative action that I've heard about is that, when two or more candidates appear to be equally qualified, and one belongs to a historically marginalized group, that candidate should be chosen. As I said above, when it comes down to this kind of decision, the choice is arbitrary, and I don't see any harm in the affirmative action method.

Let's play a game. We both roll dice. If your number is higher, I give you money. If my number is higher, you give me money. If we both roll the same number, you also give me money. Let's go for 100 rolls at 100$ a roll. Fair?

The assumptions are:

  1. The marginalized groups really are marginalized. In your example, this would mean you have a significantly larger amount of money than me.

  2. We're looking at this dispassionately, from behind a veil of ignorance. Of course the group that benefits from inequality would support inequality. I usually cringe at this saying because it's so frequently abused by the left, but it does apply in this case: when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

I just want to add the usual switcheroo between marginalized people and historically marginalized people. As other people say, women now have 50% higher college enrolment compared to men. But if one grants argument that they were historically marginalized, this remains the same even if women are 100% of enrollment and no men are allowed.

when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

This is just a call to epistemic humility, it implies one cannot actually know for certain where they sit on the oppression scale which also applies to those who are currently receiving affirmative action. If we're being epistemically humble then innaction and thus not placing a thumb on the scale is the prudent move. If you want to claim you know who is oppressed you cannot use this tactic.

Yeah, relying on the whole "oppressed groups have epistemic advantage" argument in order to substantiate a claim of oppression always leads to some variant of the following horror: "I'm oppressed and you're privileged, thus I have a superior knowledge which allows me to tell you that I'm oppressed and you're privileged and you have no such standing. How can I be sure that I'm oppressed and you're privileged? Because I'm oppressed and you're privileged".

The fact that people genuinely use this circular argument and see no problem with the foundational logic behind it is shocking.

The fact that people genuinely use this circular argument and see no problem with the foundational logic behind it is shocking.

I have tried to get this exact point across to a group of ostensibly smart academics for months now. To very little avail.

You cannot logic people out of believing something they haven't been logicked into. Or something. As long as a belief is socially beneficial to have, people will revert to it almost immediately. It sometimes does feel like talking to an NPC.

All I wanted to get at with that post is for you to admit that tie-breakers are discriminatory. Once we have common ground there, we can discuss whether that discrimination is justified.

when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

That goes both ways. The root of the privilege here is of course the unassailable and unfalsifiable assumption of oppression that calls for never-ending special treatment. Become accustomed to that and equal opportunity starts to feel like oppression.

The problem with your argument is that the premise is faulty. Especially 1). First of all, we are more and more dealing with an "adversity of the gaps", where unequal treatment is nowhere to be found but outcome disparities are taken as sufficient proof of a lack of procedural fairness. Which is then countered with tampering of the procedure in the favour of the "oppressed", often with unintended consequences. Of course, the medicine not working is proof that we need more medicine and round it goes.

But even if you disagree with me on this one, the fact remains that membership of protected identity groups is a really bad proxy for adversity where others are readily available. Once you get to the point where you are considered for a high-level government position, chances are that you did not struggle in the same way other identity group members are (ostensibly) struggling. At that point it becomes rich kid #1 with accidental characteristics P vs. rich kid #2 with accidental characteristics Q. P means rich kid #1 must have faced adversity, therefore we need to stack the deck in her favour. I would have much, much less trouble with quotas for people growing up poor.

The marginalized groups really are marginalized. In your example, this would mean you have a significantly larger amount of money than me.

No. Your modification to the example is flawed. The correct modification would be, "this would mean that you belong to a demographic group that, on average, has a significantly larger amount of money than the demographic group that I belong to."

Is it mean of me to say that right now it looks like the marginalised and under-represented groups as represented by Brinton are "gender-fluid kleptomaniacs"? The "white and cis and male" parts of their identity, even as a bisexual, would normally be held to be totems of privilege, were it not for the "gender-fluid/non-binary" thing.

"All ties go to the marginalized group" in fact gives privilege to the marginalized group. It certainly isn't equality.

The heuristic requires that the candidates' identity not be considered until the final choice

University systems now screen out 80% of faculty hires on "diversity" scoring before even passing the remaining resumes on to the hiring committee to be judged on merit.

Just so we're clear that this hypothetical is entirely theoretical and has no bearing on diversity hiring as practiced, since it started by defending a real world example.

University systems now screen out 80% of faculty hires on "diversity" scoring before even passing the remaining resumes on to the hiring committee to be judged on merit.

Source?

My favorite part of the UC site you linked to is this: "As a reminder, candidates do not need to belong to a particular group or demographic, or to hold particular viewpoints, to be successful in this [getting a diversity score]."

I went through the first couple the sections of the evaluation and scoring rules, and a college administrator employed in a U.C. DEI office qualified for the highest possible score in both.

Yep. Only the top 20% most politically compliant people even being eligible for jobs is a huge coup for them. It chokes off the last possibility that some dissenter could earn a place through merit, since the quality of their work has no bearing on the DEI pre-screening.

Rejecting people for saying "minority" instead of this week's "minoritized persons" is the most effective shibboleth check since the original.

University systems now screen out 80% of faculty hires on "diversity" scoring before even passing the remaining resumes on to the hiring committee to be judged on merit.

This may be true for universities – I'm not sure about the exact numbers but I accept your overall point – but do we have any reason to believe this was also the case for Brinton? As I said, Brinton seems to be well qualified for the position. Does the US government regularly do this kind of screening? Do we know about other more qualified people who were automatically rejected for not being diverse enough? Someone with a PhD in nuclear waste management instead of just a master's degree? Without evidence, this is just assuming your outgroup did something bad and then getting angry about it.

That said, you brought up hiring at universities. In another comment, I dismissed concerns that narrow affirmative action would have a significant negative effect on the ability of members of the majority group to get hired, because situations where it may apply are exceedingly rare. However, this has made me reconsider. It is my understanding that, outside a few specific fields, getting an academic job is extremely difficult, and it is often the case that a large number of applicants are equally qualified. Narrow affirmative action could then make it straight-up impossible for some people to get hired. Honestly, as of writing this, I haven't quite made up my mind. But if we had deltas here, you'd definitely get one.

University systems now screen out 80% of faculty hires on "diversity" scoring before even passing the remaining resumes on to the hiring committee to be judged on merit.

Just so we're clear that this hypothetical is entirely theoretical and has no bearing on diversity hiring as practiced, since it started by defending a real world example.

In this particular case, then, wouldn't white man Sam Brinton fail at the first hurdle and never make it to the committee -- unless, he had some other identity trump card to see him through to the next phase? If so, then one could easily argue that his identity enabled him to get hired, even if he wasn't hired "only" because of his identity.

One could, but the government is not a university system, so this is a hypothetical Sam Brinton rather than a real one.

If the employer has whittled down the list of applicants to a group of people with similar qualifications, and more detailed information that might help the decision is impossible or infeasible to attain, then the choice of whom to hire will be arbitrary. In this case, I don't see how hiring Brinton because of his unusual presentation is any worse than rolling a die or flipping a coin to make the final choice.

It's worse in the very trivial way that it leaves a whole lot of the population fighting dice that are incapable of rolling in their favor. Yes, it actually feels quite bad to know that you automatically lose any tiebreaker no matter what for something you have no control over to fight a disparity you had no hand in.

edit: and of course there is the other factor which is that I have literally zero faith that the people making these choices are actually not rounding everything down as to what counts for qualifications for people with my phenotype and rounding everything up for qualifications that count for people like Brinton before they declare that several candidates are of equal qualifications. I have seen the faces of this kind of person when they see an unrepresented minority in a prestigious position.

In practice, true underrepresentation-as-tiebreaker practices are just not that big a deal for over- or proportionally represented candidates. The reason certain groups are underrepresented in certain positions is that they're underrepresented among qualified applicants, often dramatically. There just aren't that many to compete with, relative to the slots to be filled.

I guess one exception might be US Asians competing against whites, because we outnumber them so much. Tech companies aren't using race as a tiebreaker between Asians and whites, but universities probably are.

The bigger issue, as you say, is the bailey, where "tie" is defined loosely enough for a half-sigma difference to count as a tie.

It's worse in the very trivial way that it leaves a whole lot of the population fighting dice that are incapable of rolling in their favor. Yes, it actually feels quite bad to know that you automatically lose any tiebreaker no matter what for something you have no control over to fight a disparity you had no hand in.

I thought of this, but given that these situations are very rare, I don't think it really matters that much.

Besides, if the "marginalized" groups really do face a disadvantage, then they themselves may "feel quite bad" about their their own chances. If members of both the overrepresented and underrepresented groups adjust their beliefs rationally, the total amount of "feeling quite bad" should remain the same (that is, of course, an enormous if). It really is just levelling the playing field, unlike quotas or double standards.

and of course there is the other factor which is that I have literally zero faith that the people making these choices are actually not rounding everything down as to what counts for qualifications for people with my phenotype and rounding everything up for qualifications that count for people like Brinton before they declare that several candidates are of equal qualifications. I have seen the faces of this kind of person when they see an unrepresented minority in a prestigious position.

The current ideology does support affirmative action beyond what I consider justified, but they are pretty explicit about this. They're not pretending to only use identity as a tiebreaker and then secretly adjusting twice. If (another tremendous if) the belief that affirmative action is only justified in the narrow circumstances outlined above became widespread, I would expect people to implement it fairly.

I will admit that, given the magnitude of the ifs, this is mostly an intellectual exercise. Maybe I would be better off just supporting total identity-blindness, lest narrow affirmative action slip down the slope into wokeism. Not that it matters much, given that the world is already well past that point.

I thought of this, but given that these situations are very rare, I don't think it really matters that much.

Are they really? I've seen the thumb on the scale even in my relatively low stakes white collar office when I was told we were either getting a white/asian/male senior engineer or junior URM/woman with the same budget. Unsurprisingly we got a woman, who is absolutely fine and I don't blame at all but it's an unsettling thing to see a process that would have rejected you for no reason in the wild. If it doesn't matter much, how about we just don't do it? Save everyone the controversy, bring on the dice, hell record it's rolling publicly, hash the candidate names for privacy.

Besides, if the "marginalized" groups really do face a disadvantage

This is just shifting the power to whomever gets to decide which disadvantages count as you mention elsewhere. I put forward that by the time you get to applying for this position all the other legs up given to underrepresented minorities means white candidates have a disadvantage, please propose a way to determine who is correct.

If members of both the overrepresented and underrepresented groups adjust their beliefs rationally, the total amount of "feeling quite bad" should remain the same (that is, of course, an enormous if).

There is a reason this originally unironic comic is referred to as "bike cuck". It's even worse to expect other people to unwilling make their peace with their discrimination. It is hard to quantify exactly what effect this kind of resentment will have but Trump is not as bad as things can get when people move past wanting to show the establishment a middle finger to other displays of disapproval. Scott put it best here but replace "liberalism" with "identity blindness"

People talk about “liberalism” as if it’s just another word for capitalism, or libertarianism, or vague center-left-Democratic Clintonism. Liberalism is none of these things. Liberalism is a technology for preventing civil war. It was forged in the fires of Hell – the horrors of the endless seventeenth century religious wars. For a hundred years, Europe tore itself apart in some of the most brutal ways imaginable – until finally, from the burning wreckage, we drew forth this amazing piece of alien machinery. A machine that, when tuned just right, let people live together peacefully without doing the “kill people for being Protestant” thing. Popular historical strategies for dealing with differences have included: brutally enforced conformity, brutally efficient genocide, and making sure to keep the alien machine tuned really really carefully.

I think people on your side of this debate do not understand just how much rage bubbles under the surface when people see things like this going on and it's a pressure cooker that discussing and venting about this is a career endingly dangerous thing to do with your name attached. Some people tried to overthrow an election on behalf of the frankly embarrassing figure that is Trump, the democrats seem hellbent on forging the weapons of tyrants such as speech control and normalizing broad executive overreach. Someone is going to come along and show us all how to wield them. I do not like this path, I do not want to go where it leads. What you think we're getting out of this, it's not worth it.

I think people on your side of this debate do not understand just how much rage bubbles under the surface when people see things like this going on and it's a pressure cooker that discussing and venting about this is a career endingly dangerous thing to do with your name attached.

I can attest to that. I have been dealing with being discriminated against in my career for over a decade now, nearing two. That is rather dismaying. But the rage-inducing thing is that I get gaslighted every single week, via department emails, university events, comments by colleagues or bosses, that, actually, it is people who look like me who are being advantaged and only a misogynist fascist would complain about the treatment I have been getting (which doesn't exist anyway, you're paranoid).

I have turned rather bitter as a consequence and developed quite a bit of resentment against the type of person who would profit from, or engage in, this gaslighting. The only thing keeping me from kiplingposting(1) is my commitment to liberalism, which so far seems to be a non-depletable resource. But I doubt it is the same for others.

(1) It was not suddently bred. It will not swiftly abate and all that.

The strongest affirmative action seems confined, for the moment, to places like universities, where whites are probably more liberal(in the technical sense of the word) than average.

If this was a major issue the red tribe elite was dealing with, the picture would be rather different.

The strongest affirmative action seems confined, for the moment, to places like universities, where whites are probably more liberal(in the technical sense of the word) than average.

Explicit AA maybe. Implicit AA (because someone has to report how his dep. is doing on diversity metrics or because he wants to boast about diversity hires at his next job interview - or because he's a true believer) is much more widespread.

If this was a major issue the red tribe elite was dealing with, the picture would be rather different.

As soon as men are in positions of power, they are not affected by diversity hiring as much anymore. And they don't give a rat's ass about the men coming up behind them. To the contrary, they're their competition. I've recently been to a consortium meeting where the tenured professors clutched pearls about how there are too many men among them. No worries though, we'll just have preferential hiring for the post-docs and doctoral students! This is what feminists don't get (or don't want to get) about the "patriarchy". There is no male solidarity.

And they don't give a rat's ass about the men coming up behind them. To the contrary, they're their competition.

Have you considered that this is an effect of your bubble? Red tribers do not think or behave like this. If AA blatantly affects them and theirs, they will get upset about it. It very rarely does, however, because the blue tribe mostly implements it in places where there are few red tribers to begin with.

That is very possible. On the other hand, I have never seen a republican politician do anything against anti-male discrimination.

but given that these situations are very rare, I don't think it really matters that much

Well, given that these perfectly equivalent candidates are so vanishingly rare that any effects of such decisions are trivial, how about we just not do any affirmative action? It’s so rare it doesn’t really matter after all, right?

A very similar line of argument came up in the recent SCOTUS affirmative action cases. Harvard/UNC really tried to characterize their use of race in a minimal way. I.e. we're not picking students on race alone, it's just one of many factors in a holistic process, there are no quotas, no "points" for being a certain race, not a single specific applicant has been identified who was rejected because of their race, etc. The conservative justices seized on this to say something like "well then you wouldn't have any problem with us issuing a ruling saying you can't discriminate on race, right?"

We move inexorably yet imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can't be ended because the beneficiaries are too weak to one in which it can't be ended because they are too strong.

Which was always the point.

then the choice of whom to hire will be arbitrary. In this case, I don't see how hiring Brinton because of his unusual presentation is any worse than rolling a die or flipping a coin to make the final choice.

As an exercise, you have two candidates. Both are 40-something white men. They're identical in capabilities and expertise.

Candidate 1 has arrived to the interview dressed well, without being overboard in terms of stuffiness or luxury.

Candidate 2 arrives with greasy, unwashed hair and a mangled beard. His shoes are worn through with enough mysterious stains that you're unsure of their original color. A crumpled and frayed jacket covers a shirt that's deeply dark from various oils, never washed. He's eloquent and equally qualified to candidate 1, but does express that he'll never bathe more than once a month.

Many of your peers express admiration that he's rejected the societal norms that have led to widespread animal testing and a psychotic cycle of shampoo - condition - shampoo - condition when human hair naturally supports itself through the body's oils.

Would you flip a coin for these candidates?

The "unusual presentation" is the message. It is the qualifications. Sam Brinton can't be bothered to inconvenience himself with even the furthest edges of the Overton window. He's too special, too important to consider other people.

That alone should be factored into a hiring decision where he loses to someone equally qualified. It's that simple.

I was going to say that candidate 2's poor hygiene makes him less qualified, in the broad sense, but then you did it for me! Our disagreement here seems to be on how bad not bathing is as compared to wearing unconventional clothing.

I think the convention that men mustn't wear dresses is arbitrary and pointless and a man should be allowed to wear a dress if he so wishes. Very dress-like garments have been normal for men to wear in many cultures, so there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Even if you consider it ugly, that's just a personal preference; I consider leather jackets ugly, yet I don't think this justifies discrimination against people who like wearing them. Brinton is only inconveniencing people if they let themselves be inconvenienced, like a wokeist who chooses to be offended at everything.

Poor hygiene, however, should not be socially accepted, in my opinion. Of course that depends on what "poor hygiene" is: someone may say that, yes, poor hygiene should be unacceptable but only bathing once a month isn't poor hygiene. For the purpose of this discussion, I am using "poor hygiene" to refer specifically to what candidate 2 is doing.

as compared to wearing unconventional clothing.

This is the maximally charitable framing of the issue. More realistically this person has a fetish or an aggressive mental condition. If he simply wore dresses, sure. He does far more outrageous fashion things that take extreme levels of effort, and does other aggressive things in media.

Sam Brinton did not dress like a typical transwoman or like a ‘normal’ gender nonconformity type. He very specifically dressed like an oddball, albeit in ways that are often coded female.

This is the sign of someone who loves to be the center of attention.

a man should be allowed to wear a dress if he so wishes

This is arguable and there is a case to be made for it. However, Brinton seems capable of dressing conventionally (not alone for the court appearance, which may indeed have been their lawyer telling them to cool it on the freak show if they wanted to get bail, but also on the plane trips where they stole the luggage and where, from the CCTV images, they were dressed as male-presenting. Pro tip: do not wear easily identifiable clothing that you have just posted on social media if you're going to boost stuff).

So there is also an arguable case that Brinton is being controversial for the sake of it, and indeed almost flaunting it. 'Yes, I can wear a dress and heels even though I'm male and working in a government office, suck that up straights and normies!' Now, would I be less censorious if (1) Brinton dressed more conservatively (2) they actually looked good in red lipstick, stilettos, yellow sweetheart neckline gowns and the rest of it?

I am forced to admit that I am shallow enough that if they looked hot, instead of having the Balok head, I probably might be more sympathetic on those grounds. As it is, I think Brinton has an unfortunate potato head (can't help your genetics) and really should stick to "nerd T-shirts".

As it is, I think Brinton has an unfortunate potato head (can't help your genetics) and really should stick to "nerd T-shirts".

No. I'm sorry, but you Americans have a disastrous sense of fashion. I'm German and even we barbarian huns know how to dress better. Would it kill you to throw on a shirt every once in a while and wear something other than blue jeans?

Hell, even the suit Brinton put on for his court date looked ridiculous.

It sounds like you have no principles and standards then, just gut feelings that you've substituted instead.

You think one convention is arbitrary and another is obvious. You're just trying to reach the conclusion you already have ready.

My view might be summarized as "clothing is personal preference, hygiene is non-negotiable".

What are your principles and standards? Anything unusual is automatically bad? I guess that is less subjective.

Although, if your political beliefs are close to those of the average Mottizen, consider how unusual they are in universities, big companies and other significant employers in the current year.

What are your principles and standards? Anything unusual is automatically bad? I guess that is less subjective.

They're the same as yours. Disgust, of course. Your view can be summarized by, "I find one thing disgusting but not another." I find both unwashed people and cross-dressers to be physically disgusting, and react accordingly. Not much of a standard really, but honest if not principled.

This is also why I say you're not demonstrating principles, you're rationalizing your instincts.

This is also why I say you're not demonstrating principles, you're rationalizing your instincts.

Apart from like, half a dozen nerds (who are all posting here, love you <3 ), don't we all?

In the real world, the kind of affirmative action you describe is not that common, in part because of your second explanation. To the specific case of Brinton, they almost certainly don’t apply, given that although he was minimally qualified the majority of his recent work experience appeared to be in LGBT orgs; one has to imagine that there were people already working for the government on that particular problem who could have been promoted instead of hiring a non-binary drag queen whose actual work experience is mostly in sex Ed. Indeed, from what I know of government hiring, aren’t internal candidates normally supposed to be privileged over outside hires?

That type of position is usually outside career civil service ladders. They're often filled by people in their first government job.

According to Wikipedia, "In 2016, Brinton was a senior policy analyst for the Bipartisan Policy Center, lobbying for updated regulations so nuclear waste can be used to power advanced nuclear reactors.[21] In February 2020, the website of Deep Isolation, a Berkeley, California, nuclear waste storage and disposal company,[22] listed them as its Director of Legislative Affairs[23] and in May 2022 they were its Director of Global Political Strategy.[24] In 2022, Brinton's profile at the Department of Energy (DOE) indicated their previous work with the Breakthrough Institute, the Clean Air Task Force, and Third Way." Seems a reasonable background for a job with the DOE Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition.

Re hiring outsiders, Wikipedia says that deputy assistant secretaries are Senior Executive Service (SES) officials, and that "up to 10% of SES positions can be filled as political appointments rather than by career employees."

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