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 -
Prediction challenge: The NYT recently released an article on the likely result of the supreme court ending affirmative action. What is the most common sentiment in the comments? (As measured by "reader picks", most recommended comments.)
To play, make a prediction regarding the NYT readership's first thought on ending affirmative action, in your head (easy mode) or in a reply to this comment (hard mode). Then read the most recommended comments here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/15/us/affirmative-action-admissions-scotus.html#commentsContainer Without editing your original prediction, reflect on how you did.
Affirmative action has repeatedly lost on the ballot in California. It might be one of the least popular ongoing policies in the US, probably on par with legalizing heroin and criminalizing Coca Cola.
... come on, I posted a poll. Different senses of AA get different results - "affirmative action", the word, gets 60% endorsing, while prioritizing diversity over candidate quality in hiring gets 72% oppose. By comparison, 86% oppose legalizing heroin.
Political incentives to 'motivate the base' and the idea that 'the people's voice matters, and we're the people' lead to all political outlets exaggerating the number of people who support their cause. Conservatives think there's a silent, moral majority behind them, socialists think that the people naturally dislike the elites and jobs, both think they just have to hear the truth and they'll rise up. But this isn't true, and believing it confuses you.
So its a policy with between 25 and 40% support? That is pretty bad for a thing practiced by just about every governmental institution in the country.
Perhaps you've heard of the Motte and Bailey fallacy?
OP (bailey):
I noted this isn't actually true.
Motte:
I'm not, exactly, a fan of affirmative action, or anti-racism generally. But accurately understanding anything requires not making things up when they make my side look like it's the "side of the people". The people are often wrong (as you'd expect from, say, 50% being below average IQ). A corollary is that if 'the people' oppose something, and the government does it - maybe that's just good, and the people are wrong, and this is a success of 'federalism', i.e. democracy-driven oligarchy, over 'direct democracy'. It isn't, but 'if the policy polls at 35%, abolish it, if it's popular do it' fails when the people support inflation!. Or - they oppose inflation, but support the policies that caused it. "The people oppose X, but it happens, so it's bad" is a bad democratic idea!
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