site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29365 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Great post! I really appreciate the absurd amount of effort you put into your posts.

it's not clear how well the whole framework operates to resolve or discourage abuses of the court system. In this specific context, there's also quibbles about how much a million dollars matters to Facebook, compared to the cost of just their testifying internal experts nevermind the rest of the court case, but there's a deeper issue.

I agree. I have to assume that Facebook and Gibson Dunn went through all this obstructionist trouble because it was financially worthwhile. Just based on the ridiculous $725 million settlement amount, this had to have paid off dividends. The sanction in this particular case is less about the monetary amount and more about how the scathing rebuke from a federal judge can open the floodgates in future litigation. I imagine there is a certain apprehension from judges about pissing off Big Law, but if I was an attorney seeking sanctions against either Gibson Dunn or Facebook, you bet I will repeatedly drone on about how "parties/counsel have repeatedly engaged in this kind of behavior, as evidenced by the sanctions imposed recently". I have to deal with (what I think are) prosecutorial misconduct issues at work, and I constantly file motions complaining about issues I know will go nowhere. The best that I can hope for from the bench that is almost entirely former prosecutors is that eventually the pile will get too big to ignore.

Even as someone that's put a decent amount of effort into learning the lingo, it's hard to remember how rough a lot of the standards and formatting are for outsiders, here.

The points you bring up are something I hadn't considered. I really dislike the convention of inline citations in legal opinions, but I assumed everyone glossed over them like I did. I can see it being an issue if for example a citation to a transcript isn't recognized as such by the reader. That's relevant context missing. The problems with the different numbers you see on opinions is something I struggle with myself whenever I encounter an outside jurisdiction, but isn't really an issue if you're reading just one document no? I completely overlooked the problem with how certain common words have very specific legal meanings ("motion" is the most obvious).

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