site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   33896 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A few tweets are catching my eye on college education today.

Seems like a lot of low IQ people are getting college degrees. IQ<90. Let’s be serious those people can’t do intellectual work. I actually think the modern world would be very confusing for people with an IQ well above there let alone doing intellectual work.

https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1679712417419341827?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ

There is a big discrepancy in repaying student loans between males and females. Being that the gap begins immediately I assume it has nothing to do with child birth. Perhaps hoping to marry a guy who will buy them out? Females do have more pressure to entering the dating market earlier versus developing personal finance.

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1679787590680031232?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ

Hannania had some affirmative action takes lately. Here’s one on mainstream conservative embracing hbd.

https://twitter.com/richardhanania/status/1679861286392434688?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ

Maybe it’s low effort to post a bunch of tweets but I’m noticing a trend here of the Supreme Court ruling getting people talking about issues in higher education and attacking it. These all seem to be attacking in slightly different directions but it seems a debate has been started on the right.

IMO Hannania keeps saying Musks buyout of twitter has helped the right a lot with activision. Protests work now. Lack of censorship helps them get there more intellectual debates out there which they couldn’t before.

The example I see getting kicked around a lot is how insanely bad Jackson's dissent in the Asian discrimination cases was. Her commentary about black babies and black doctors was just a complete hash, as if neither she nor her clerks have even a rudimentary grasp of statistics. Innumeracy is not a good look, especially when you pile it on top of her infamous failure to define "woman."

In fact Sotomayor's legal reasoning is noticeably weak, and Jackson makes her look bright by comparison. That this encompasses two-thirds of the Court's left wing can make this sound like a partisan dig, but in fact Kagan has no trouble holding her own (though I have seen speculation from both the right and the left that she has taken to "phoning it in" when she sides with someone they don't like). Judson Berger's "Weekend Jolt" from National Review last week had this to say:

Importantly, Roberts retains an ability to influence the conservative wing of the Court sheerly through his position as chief justice. (As such, he may assign controversial opinions to himself if he joins the majority.) But one other thing that deserves emphasis . . . is how intellectually outgunned the Court’s liberal wing is relative to the conservative side. It’s not merely a matter of numbers so much as a stark matter of judicial ability and temperament. Elena Kagan is a genuinely brilliant liberal justice with the ability to persuade those in the conservative majority as to the soundness of her views, but she has of late seemingly been phoning it in. Meanwhile Sonia Sotomayor is (to put it generously) notoriously lacking in the “intellectual outreach” department, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, though she may develop on the bench, is at this early date depressingly outmatched rhetorically and argumentatively even by Sotomayor.

So then it can seem like a race/HBD thing except of course that Thomas is black and seems to do fine. That may be substantially a matter of accumulated experience, at least in comparison with Jackson. But also, when it comes right down to it, he's no Scalia.

I do have an alternative explanation, but I'm not sure whether it's more charitable, or less. There is a tradition on the political left that leans in to the who/whom divide. As long as you're fighting the right bad guys (or in other words, attacking the right targets), truth is not only irrelevant, it might actually be something you should actively reject. Representative Cortez famously placed being "morally right" above being "factually correct", and was defended by the media on that. As a life-appointed justice, Jackson could very well be calling a deer a horse for all to see; what are we going to do, impeach her for it? By enshrining false claims about American racism into the canon of SCOTUS jurisprudence, she launders those claims into respectably citable assertions for generations of scholarly grifters.

So like, pick your poison? Jackson might just be so immersed in critical legal theory that she just looks like an idiot to people who think that intelligence is measured by one's grasp of empirical facts--when actually she's more Machiavellian, an "idiot" only to her enemies and a great manipulator of the levers of power for her friends. On this interpretation she is also a horrible justice who should never have been allowed anywhere near SCOTUS, but so long as she minds her Ps and Qs, she will never be removed and so the criticism is now moot. All anyone can do in response is vote Republican and pray.

On the other hand... she might just in fact be an idiot. Occam's Razor suggests that we should probably peer past the pomp and circumstance of pretending that the political appointment process is in any way meritocratic, and just call a spade a spade. And if this is that case, why, she should never have been allowed anywhere near SCOTUS, but so long as she minds her Ps and Qs, she will never be removed and so the criticism is now moot... ah. Looks like elections have consequences, and appointing justices explicitly for the color of their skin and the shape of their genitals does, too. And once that's done, there's surprisingly little anyone can do to fix it.

Some quick googling shows that it's not an issue limited to the liberal justices (also here and here), so it seems unfair to single out Jackson.

You are the one who asked about Jackson, specifically. If you think that was you being unfair, uh, okay? But I'm not sure what you want me to do about it.

Let's take a look at what Google has netted you.

The Supreme Court is Allergic to Math

The author suggests:

This problem was on full display earlier this month, when the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a case that will determine the future of partisan gerrymandering — and the contours of American democracy along with it. As my colleague Galen Druke has reported, the case hinges on math: Is there a way to measure a map’s partisan bias and to create a standard for when a gerrymandered map infringes on voters’ rights?

Now, already I'm thinking this is not going to show us that any of the justices are bad at math; my guess is that the justices just don't think math is the standard of analysis (which is probably good, in general the Court should see the Constitution as the standard of analysis). We get some quotes from various justices:

Gorsuch: “It reminds me a little bit of my steak rub. I like some turmeric, I like a few other little ingredients, but I’m not going to tell you how much of each. And so what’s this court supposed to do? A pinch of this, a pinch of that?”

Breyer: “I think the hard issue in this case is are there standards manageable by a court, not by some group of social science political ex … you know, computer experts? I understand that, and I am quite sympathetic to that.”

Roberts: “It may be simply my educational background, but I can only describe it as sociological gobbledygook.”

First of all, these are from oral argument rather than opinions, so that's probably an important difference to keep in mind. Second, these are not examples of anyone doing math poorly, but examples of justices wondering whether "throw some math at it" is really an adequate answer in a constitutional case. These are the kinds of arguments you often hear from people who are quite good at math, Cathy O'Neill's Weapons of Math Destruction being probably the most famous case.

The article goes on to talk about McCleskey v. Kemp, a 1986 case.

McCleskey cited sophisticated statistical research, performed by two law professors and a statistician, that found that a defendant in Georgia was more than four times as likely to be sentenced to death if the victim in a capital case was white compared to if the victim was black. McCleskey argued that that discrepancy violated his 14th Amendment right to equal protection. In his majority opinion, Justice Lewis Powell wrote, “Statistics, at most, may show only a likelihood that a particular factor entered into some decisions.” McCleskey lost the case. It’s been cited as one of the worst decisions since World War II and has been called “the Dred Scott decision of our time.”

But again--no one is doing math badly here. The Court said in effect "we're deciding your case, not solving for X." It might well be better for the Court to defer to statistical analysis, we can certainly have that conversation... but if you think the Court should defer to (correct) statistical analysis, then the evidence is that you do not want Justice Brown Jackson on the Court, because either she's bad at math, or she will prioritize "math" that confirms her biases without bothering to check it. Perhaps this is true of some other justices!

Then the article goes into this "negative effect fallacy" song and dance. I cannot possibly write a thorough response to the whole Enos paper here. But one of the cases they mention is Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC, et al. v. Bennett. This article says:

The state provided money to publicly funded candidates to match private contributions. The plaintiffs wanted to strike this policy down, claiming that it had negative effects on private political speech. A team of political scientists used quantitative techniques to assess this claim (see here and here), and they found no evidence to support it. Roberts, writing the majority opinion, briefly mentioned these findings but dismissed them, declaring “it is never easy to prove a negative.” His argument appears to be that it was inherently hard for the plaintiffs to show that the state’s matching scheme had negative consequences for free speech and that we should, therefore, ignore the statistical evidence that found no relationship. However, there’s no reason that negative effects are harder to quantitatively detect than positive ones, and Roberts’s statement is based on a blatant logical fallacy.

So I went to the text of the case and found the language used there:

While there is evidence to support the contention of the candidates and independent expenditure groups that the matching funds provision burdens their speech, “it is never easy to prove a negative”—here, that candidates and groups did not speak or limited their speech because of the Arizona law.

The statistician's response is, "no, that's fallacious, look, we ran some numbers through some models and we think it likely that groups did not change their speech as a result of the law." But again, I don't see Robert's doing math badly, I see him rejecting a particular framing in which mere statistical projections are substituted for positive evidence in cases where people assert their rights have been violated. This is an argument about how strongly we should rely on statistics in interpreting the law, not a case of "statistics done badly." Roberts can be entirely on the wrong side of this argument and still not be bad at math.

(There is a parallel situation in criminal law in connection with "beyond a reasonable doubt." Courts have sometimes attempted to attached confidence percentages to that phrase, and have always been told that they cannot. It's not "guilty beyond 80% credence." It's just the phrase.)

Ultimately,

Enos and his coauthors proposed “that courts alter their norms and standards regarding the consideration of statistical evidence”

So this is definitely a policy dispute, not a question of how good anyone is at math.

The Hill article does make a more direct attack on Roberts' mathematical abilities:

According to Roberts, “the 685 instances identified amount to a very small fraction—less than three hundredths of one percent—of the 2.5 million civil cases filed in the district courts in the nine years included in the study. That’s a 99.97% compliance rate.”

That was bad math, resulting in an overstated compliance figure, because it used the wrong denominator.

Hold up, though. Why is it the wrong denominator?

The total number of civil cases over nine years is completely irrelevant to the calculation of a “compliance rate” because there was never any reason for recusal in the overwhelming majority of those matters (either because the judge owned no stocks or because there were no corporate parties involved). . . . Substituting a corrected number for the exaggerated “2.5 million” figure would have revealed a much lower compliance rate, by more than an order of magnitude.

Ah. So his math was fine, actually. He's just picking comparison points that paint the judiciary in a better light than the comparison points preferred by its critics. A similar criticism is made regarding judicial pay:

In what was probably a first for a chief justice’s report, Roberts included three color-coded graphs, one of which purported to show how badly judges’ pay had lost ground in comparison to law school deans. While federal district judges had earned slightly more than the Harvard dean in 1969, they had fallen far behind by 2006.

But the devil was in the baseline. Federal judges had just gotten a huge pay raise in 1969, which only temporarily made them better off than deans. If Roberts had chosen 1968 for the starting point, a year when judges earned less than deans, the comparison would have lost its punch.

Sneaky Roberts! But yet again, "Chief Justice Roberts's bad math" appears to criticize his laundering arguments using numbers. There's nothing wrong with the numbers, from a strictly mathematical point of view. They just paint a different picture than his critics would prefer to paint using the numbers they choose. That's not to say there's nothing objectionable happening here! But it's a very different problem than having someone who doesn't notice (or doesn't care) when wildly implausible numerical claims come across their desk.

My guess is that, if someone went over SCOTUS cases with a fine-toothed math comb, we could find other instances of justices doing math poorly. But combined with other things she has said and written, I find it difficult to conclude that Jackson is anywhere near smart enough to do good work on the Court. In the alternative, perhaps she is smart, but just casually dishonest in service to her radical political aims. I think this is also true of Sotomayor. I also think Roberts and Kavanaugh are not especially bright, but Roberts is both a capable managerial type, and clearly feels bound by traditional principles of jurisprudence in ways that Jackson and Sotomayor do not.

But that is perhaps too much text. TL;DR: You are the one who asked about Jackson, specifically, so if it bothers you that she's being "singled out," I guess bear that in mind next time you ask a question.

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