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 -
In this NYT article, race isn't mentioned, so I assumed it was either a black-on-black or black-on-white killing, but apparently it was white-on-black! It's unusual for the NYT to not mention race in such a situation. Could it be that they're finally downplaying all races in their
crime reporting, and not just the ones that it's offensive to speak negatively about? That sounds too good to be true, but I want to believe.
As more hopeful news on another topic that's also of great interest here, This NYT was published recently. The comments are even more hopeful. As an even crazier example that I realize will be very hard for people here to believe, I figured out sometime last month that a large majority of my department at a liberal university in a county that went for Biden almost 90-10 is very strongly oppposed to Harvard in the ongoing supreme court fight over affirmative action (just to qualify it's more "we're against affirmative action as Harvard is currently practicing" it instead of "we're against affirmative action period").
To get to the fight-y, culture war part, I've tried to argue over and over on the old site that certain of this places extreme, bogeyman views are usually straw-men used to tar the entire American left. These views get outsize attention because of all the standard media/clickbait reasons and were never really supported that much. If you just talk to normal people and don't raise suspicion that you're not on board with the egalitarian ideal that people's fates should be mostly decided by their choices instead of their birth, you'll probably also find this.
The standard kumbayah, everyone-should-band-together-against extremists model isn't really so bad: 80% of people on either side mostly agree with each other on values. Such normal people on different sides of the political divide nevertheless have serious factual disagreements that lead to very different policy preferences. The problem is that each side attracts a 20% of moral aliens with bizarre value systems that happen to make them want far more extreme versions of these policy preferences. To achieve their goals, the best thing the aliens can do is disguise themselves as normals to convince at least the normals on their side. As a nice bonus, this might also make the other side suspect that everyone supporting these preferences is an alien, giving them even more support out of solidarity against "unfair" accusations. For the left, this has hopelessly tarred any kind of diversity initiative, for the right, any kind of tough-on-crime thing.
The best way to fight this is to be really careful in distinguishing who you have factual disagreements with vs. who you have values disagreements with. Both sides need to police themselves and kick out the aliens with bad values even if these aliens might agree with them on object-level policy questions. Also, be much more cautious before concluding someone on the other side is an alien. On the other hand, be really careful to emphasize to the other side that your values aren't alien---this is really hard because there'll be a lot of enemy action from the aliens who want to keep their side extreme. I can't say I'm super successful at it here, but I try to emphasize that I care about egalitarianism at the bottom and that my disagreements with the majority of the American right are due to factual disagreements about what's necessary to actually achieve true egalitarianism.
Great post, but one short question: what kind of affirmative action would they want, if not what Harvard is doing? The only alternatives I can think of are explicit race quotas (which are unconstitutional) and class-based affirmative action (which would create disparate impact).
So there are two actual justifications for affirmative action that people usually give. First, that complicated, subjective admissions systems are invariable going to be implicitly biased against certain groups so there needs to be some brute-force explicit bias to counteract this if the department is actually interested in selecting the most qualified candidates. The most popular affirmative action policies are therefore in line with something like, for example in graduate admissions: check outcomes at graduation/at prelims/at quals for these at-risk groups---women, the standard underrepresented racial minorities, etc. If these outcomes are better than average, modify the admissions policy to give those groups a leg up. Keep on calibrating the blunt modification until outcomes look about the same as an average student.
The second reason is that it's alienating to be one of very few people in a particular group in the department. Therefore, give enough of a leg up that there are at least, for example, 2 women in each graduate class. I guess this is effectively a quota by proxy, but it's never an explicit numerical target that needs to be reached, just if there were too few one year, increase the weight the next year. It's also such a low requirement that it shouldn't really ever come up unless the first point was horribly messed up.
Harvard's affirmative action on the other hand is seen as almost a complement to legacy admissions but with good publicity, at the most conspiratorial, way keep down an "uppity" new meritocratic class from competing with a hereditary elite. The whole "helping underrepresented minorities" thing, while they think is a good goal, in this case is just a Trojan horse for a true, nefarious goal.
Personal anecdote: I was in Australia's Chemistry Olympiad program twice. The setup of the program was that they put out an exam to anyone interested, best 21 people in the country went to a "scholar school" which was three weeks of extremely intensive university-level learning (we were all high school students), then based off a set of exams there and afterward they'd pick a team of four to represent Australia.
Now, I didn't get picked for the team either time (this was 07 and 08). But take a wild guess at the sex ratio, despite the total lack of any discrimination on the part of the program - it was simply "who had the highest marks on the exam".
Answer: I think there might have been one girl out of 21 one time? I know at least one time it was literally all boys. This wasn't unusual. Physics was similar; biology was typically something like 17:4 favouring girls (I was one of the boys in that one in 05 and 06).
The assumption that if you give everyone equal opportunity, the amount of men and women both able and willing to do X will be the same? It's not actually true. Usually it's not that dramatic, but under extreme selection (IIRC it was about 32,000 kids a year doing that exam? And that's, of course, just the ones who were interested and whose parents/teachers/etc. thought they had a chance) little tips to the balance become nearly pass/fail. And AIUI Harvard has roughly the same degree of selection as was going on there.
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