site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Realistically:

The same proportions Harvard has now, but perhaps even more tilted in favor of blacks and latinos.

Harvard (and similar schools) will find a way to further stack the deck in favor of blacks and latinos, and against Asians and whites. Regardless of what SCOTUS has to say. It would be a distinct "fuck you" to SCOTUS, wrong thinkers, and those of the wrong demographics.

Naively:

As Espenshade and Chung (2005) found—at top schools, in the absence of racial preferences, nearly 4/5 of spots occupied by blacks and latinos would be assumed by Asians. This would only be more extreme at a school like Harvard nowadays, given tail-effects and how things in general have progressed since then.

So a conservative estimate would be like, via cocktail arithmetic and rounding "nearly 4/5" down to 3/4: 46% white, 31% Asian, 14.3% multiracial, 2.7% black, 1.6% latino, 3.8% South Asian, etc. by applying a 1 - 3/4 constant to blacks and latinos and transferring the residual to Asians. Given the assumptions, this would already be very favourable to blacks, and to a lesser extent, latinos (or should I say latinx?).