site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36481 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's talk about the Stanford Law School situation that has gone on for a few days.

A Timeline:

  • The Federalist Society invited a judge, Kyle Duncan, to speak. 70 students emailed FedSoc to cancel the event. [https://freebeacon.com/campus/dogshit-federal-judge-decries-disruption-of-his-remarks-by-stanford-law-students-and-calls-for-termination-of-the-stanford-dean-who-joined-the-protesters/]("When the Federalist Society refused to cancel, students began putting up fliers with the names and faces of everyone on the board. "You should be ashamed," the posters read.")

  • Duncan was basically shouted down during his talk. Most in attendance were protestors to his speech, with people showing up with signs like "Duncan can't find the clit" and such. They accused him for ruling on cases that were against their beliefs, for example taking the right to vote away ("The students appeared to have little familiarity with Duncan’s jurisprudence. Some accused him of suppressing the voting rights of African Americans, Duncan said—only to cite a case in which Duncan had actually dissented from the majority.")

  • Duncan asked administrators to control the situation, and a DEI Dean went up to the podium and instead of controlling the crowd, read out a statement accusing Duncan of causing harm (video)

  • Duncan was escorted out by federal marshals

  • Dean of Stanford Law School + President of Stanford issued a joint apology letter to judge Kyle Duncan, and the Dean also sent an email to alumni

  • Now, the Dean of Stanford Law School is being targeted. She teaches Constitutional Law and her classroom white board was plastered with statements that argue for their 1st amendment rights and the heckler's veto (source). Some excerpts below:

  • When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon.

  • The majority of Martinez’s class—approximately 50 students out of the 60 enrolled—participated in the protest themselves, two students in the class said. The few who didn’t join the protesters received the same stare down as their professor as they hurried through the makeshift walk of shame.

  • "They gave us weird looks if we didn’t wear black" and join the crowd, said Luke Schumacher, a first-year law student in Martinez’s class who declined to participate in the protest. "It didn’t feel like the inclusive, belonging atmosphere that the DEI office claims to be creating."

  • The Stanford National Lawyers Guild said Saturday that Martinez had thrown "capable and compassionate administrators" under the bus. The law school’s Immigration & Human Rights Law Association issued a similar declaration on Sunday, writing to its mailing list that Stanford’s apology to Duncan "has only made this situation worse." And Stanford Law School’s chapter of the American Constitution Society expressed outrage that Martinez and Tessier-Lavigne had framed Duncan "as a victim, when in fact he himself had made civil dialogue impossible."

This follows on the heals of similar kind of situations at Yale Law School (no.1 in the country, Stanford's usually no.2).

Don't have much to add here. I've seen a few student protests (but didn't go to UC Berkeley and wasn't present at any big ones). None were like this, but maybe law school is different. Also I wonder whether Stanford and Yale law schools sizes (300-500 law students, versus Harvard's ~2000 law students) means that it's easier to pressure everyone to join in on something. Being starred down by a large % of your classmates is probably not a fun experience, especially when you know most of them.

I think fundamental to free speech is a right to NOT here someones speech. Call it a limit in time or that two people can’t speak at the same time limit. A right to ignore seems fundamental to balancing out two peoples right to speech.

The left seems to not realize that. I can’t have free speech if when I’m having a conversation you have a megaphone yelling next to me. Law students should get this complexity.

While Rights always need balanced since they often interfere with others rights. I don’t think a lot of 2020 riots were 1st amendment protected. Because they interfered with others right to speech. If I owned a sandwich shop or say a CVS I can’t advertise my goods/sell if a crowd is outside yelling. A merchant would seem to me to have a right to communicate with their customer.

Obviously all things need to be balanced. On a typical walk in the city their are the annoying people trying to sell some do-gooders, they asks if I have time to stop and chat. And it’s admittedly annoying have to turn them down everyday. Sometimes I walk a marginally longer route because I know where they set up. I think they do violate my right to ignore but it’s relatively minor versus them having a spot to give their message. Sometimes I’m probably even posting on the motte some times while walking so their interruption interferes with my first amendment rights.

Point is there are always balancing acts. And I don’t think the first amendment is a right to interfere unlimited to others.

I’ve never understood where the idea of a “right to not hear”. The right to speak sure. But I don’t see anything in that statement that requires either that others not disrupt or that you get to have an audience.

If you don’t have a right not to hear then no one has a right to speech. Seems implicit. Since any corporation could blast out noise pollution to disrupt anyone’s speech.

And freedom of association exists to and is after speech.

I don't agree that there's anything implicit about a right to not hear. I think that what is actually implicit in free speech is a right to hear what is being said. Someone disrupting a lecture or whatever isn't infringing on a right to not hear them, but rather on your right to hear the person who is supposed to be speaking.

I guess you could just call that a tragedy if the commons but then you just end up with people competing on who has the loudest microphone to the point that human ears are damaged. And the end result is no communication happens. I don’t think the first amendments purpose is to facilitate ear damage. It’s goal is the exchange of ideas. By founding intent that’s what they were trying to achieve. Not turning the public square into an Aviici concert.

The only way communication is achieved is with a right to hear.

I agree that there's a right to hear what someone has to say implicit in the right to free speech. But I see you vacillating in different posts about whether you describe there being a "right to hear" or a "right to not hear". I don't agree that the latter is implicit in the right to free speech.

A right to not hear would be scope creep. It would not only apply to situations where someone was disrupting speech but also would apply when you just plain didn't like what someone had to say. Indeed, the protestors at Stanford would probably agree that they have a right to not hear this guy give his lecture.

So yes, I agree with you that the right to free speech implies a right to hear what is said (otherwise it would be just shouting into the void and meaningless). I do not agree with your assertion that there is also a right to not hear something/someone which is implicit in the right to free speech.

Are there not always competing Speech to hear at the same time? During the summer 2020 riots were there not store clerks trying to sell goods? Talking to customers? The protest would have interfered with their ability to speak to each other.

Or even if I wanted to stand in Times Square and protest came. I had my AirPods in listening to Tupac. I want to hear his speech?

For the Stanford situation it was in a classroom so they weren’t exposed to that speech.

So yes I think there is always some balancing of rights. Wanting to listen to Tupac in a highly public space probably shouldn’t block a larger protest. A store Can shutdown a day for a protest but they probably do have a right not to be shutdown for 6 months straight of protest.

Technically freedom of assembly is listed after speech so I don’t think speech can interfere with others freedom of assembly. I guess what it comes down to you need balance in these things. Otherwise you don’t really have these rights and it’s a free for all blocking everything.

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