site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28908 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

they do some things that might seem obscenely ridiculous in the absence of corruption,

I do not agree with this premise. It is not ridiculous; it is rational:

When Gateway Computers announced the appointment of Elizabeth Dole to its board of directors, its stock price jumped 13.66% that day. The Disney Company’s stock price went up 4.24% when actor Sidney Poitier was announced as a director. Why do firms appoint O.J. Simpson, Evander Holyfield, Billy Jean King, Deepak Chopra, Lynn Swann, and other celebrities to their boards? ... Our first question investigates the effect on shareholder wealth by the appointment of celebrity directors. On the whole, we find that such appointments enhance firm value. These findings lead to our second research question. How does the appointment of celebrity directors improve firm value? We propose as an explanation that these appointments enhance a firm’s visibility to investors. Celebrities on boards can enhance the public prestige and standing of a given board. A celebrity can make a corporate board more visible to both consumers and investors. Elberse (2007), for instance, notes how a celebrity provides free advertising for an organization. She further argues that this increased prominence due to the celebrity’s presence can increase the ability of the organization to secure more resources. In the case of a corporate board, this might mean the recruitment of high ability directors. Podolny (1993) contends that the presence of celebrities within an organization can provide it with an advantage in its competition with others. That is, the development of a board with high ability directors might provide a firm with a competitive advantage over rivals with less talented boards. Groysberg, Polzer, and Anger-Elfenbein (2010) study Wall Street equity analysts and conclude that groups benefit from having members who achieve high levels of individual performance or renown. They argue that the contribution of star individuals can drive organizational success indirectly by enhancing the group’s perceived status among critical external constituencies. Hence, celebrities on boards might improve a firm’s ability to attract new customers, find business partners, or obtain new capital from investors.

Ferris, Stephen P., et al. "Reaching for the stars: the appointment of celebrities to corporate boards." International Review of Economics 58 (2011): 337-358.

Why do you choose to focus on the former and not the latter?

Because I was criticizing the common claim that the latter is the only explanation, which is incorrect, because it is based on a misapprehension

celebrity

Hunter Biden is a celebrity?

That's not really answering the question, anyway. You're losing track of your motte. Your motte is supposed to be that it could be corruption or it could be not corruption. You can try to act like you're not a partisan cheerleader and simply give a balanced view, acknowledging that companies might do stuff like this for not corruption reasons and companies might do stuff like this for corruption reasons. Instead, you're giving 100% of your time and attention to cheerleading Your Team's position and just talking about plausible ways it could be not corrupt. Ignoring plausible ways it could be corrupt.

The point is that corporations indeed make board appointments because "they have some weird 'appearance' argument."

Instead, you're giving 100% of your time and attention to cheerleading Your Team's position and just talking about plausible ways it could be not corrupt. Ignoring plausible ways it could be corrupt

Do you really not understand the difference between:

  1. Argument A that X is true is a poor argument; and
  2. X is not true

I have discussed only #1, not #2.

Ignoring plausible ways it could be corrupt.

I have said several times that it could be corrupt.

The point is that corporations indeed make board appointments because "they have some weird 'appearance' argument."

Like, for example, celebrities. Do you have a citation for all those board appointments of, say, children of Chinese government officials (we can throw out a few other countries, too) that are totally, uh, above-board? Like, a cite from a fancy economics journal or something, not a cite from a DoJ prosecution statement?

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