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 -
This is my first time posting so I hope I'm posting in the right place, following all the local conventions, etc. This is something that I've had on my mind for a while and this seems like one of the only places on the Internet where this kind of thing can go.
I've been thinking about how laws are described, and how lacking and vague they often are.
Imagine you are a preschool teacher, supervising a group of children on the playground. You decide to teach them the rules of soccer. You tell them some of the basic rules, like how there are two teams, and that the goal of the game is to score points by putting the ball into the other team's goal. You also tell them that You Are Not Allowed To Use Your Hands.
As the game begins, you leave to attend to some other business. When you return shortly afterward, all the children come flocking to you. They eagerly clamor to tell you that Johnny broke a rule. Specifically, he used his hand to stop the opposing team from scoring a goal. Johnny readily admits this, adding that he is sorry. One by one, the children line up to tell you what they think should happen.
Alicia says that Johnny should be given five minutes of timeout.
Braden says that Johnny's team should lose the game.
Carrie says that Johnny's opponents should be awarded one "point".
Darren says that Johnny should have to apologize to everyone else and promise never to do it again.
Esther says that Johnny should be banned from playing soccer because he clearly can't follow the rules.
Given the rule that you gave them (You Are Not Allowed To Use Your Hands), which, if any, of the children is correct? There is a correct answer in "real" soccer – Johnny's opponents should be given a free kick (or penalty kick, depending on where the offense occurred) and Johnny should be given a red card for denying a goalscoring opportunity. However, you never told the kids that rule. You only said that You Are Not Allowed To Use Your Hands. There was no way they could have figured out what your intended punishment for the infraction was. There's no reason why their suggestions aren't equally valid, since even though you stated that an action was illegal, you failed to tell them its consequences. Ultimately, you will have to appeal to the meta-rule of The Rule Is Whatever I Say It Is Because I Am The Adult And I Am In Charge, and the children will have a valid grumble about the arbitrariness of your tyrannical rule. However, their suffering is not in vain, as you have learned from this experience and in the future, you will formulate your rules in the form of a trigger ("when someone uses their hands") and a consequence ("the other team gets a free kick"), saving future generations of preschoolers from untold agony.
Okay, great. Some hypothetical preschoolers are unhappy. When has this ever happened in real life?
Take the case of the Pine Tar Incident. On July 24, 1983, the Kansas City Royals played the New York Yankees in a game of baseball. In the eighth inning, Royals third baseman George Brett hit a two-run home run, putting the Royals ahead 5-4. However, opposing manager Billy Martin then pointed out to the umpire that the bat Brett used to hit his home run had pine tar applied in an illegal fashion. Specifically, he contended that Brett violated the following rule:
The umpires examined the bat and agreed with Martin, ruling Brett out and his home run void. A whole flurry of events followed, including the Royals lodging a successful protest where the league office overruled the umpire's initial ruling and ordered a replay of the final innings of the game, stating that the appropriate consequence of the infraction was to remove the bat from the game, not overrule the home run that had been hit with it.
The ultimate ruling isn't very important, but the point is that Bats Can Have Pine Tar In Some Places But Not Others is the same kind of rule as You Are Not Allowed To Use Your Hands. It's a bad, ill-formed rule, leading to ad-hoc rulings that leave those involved feeling justifiably aggrieved. A better rule would be something like Bats That Have Pine Tar In The Wrong Places Will Be Removed From The Game. Indeed, Major League Baseball (one of the best-run organizations in terms of writing good rules) has recognized this deficit and has since amended its rule to be along those lines. Other examples of well-formed rules include If The Ball Goes Out Of Play Then The Other Team Gets A Throw-In (in soccer) or If A Pitcher's Socks Are Too Colorful He Has To Change Into Different Socks (in baseball), which both specify a clear trigger and consequence.
Obviously, these concepts apply to laws made by governments just as much as it applies to rules for games. There is a reason why the earliest laws read something like He Who Puts Another's Eye Out Shall Have His Own Eye Put Out and not like Putting Another's Eye Out Is Not Allowed. Transparency is important to having a fair set of laws, and clear consequences provide that transparency. In the case of Hammurabi's code, it means most people can live free from the fear of recreational eye stabbers, since they know that most people will be hesitant to stab eyes if it means getting their own eyes stabbed in return. On the other hand, if the law was Putting Another's Eye Out Is Not Allowed, the question of what the consequence is unanswered. In practice, it would default to The Law Is Whatever I Say It Is Because I Am The King And I Am In Charge, which is significantly more volatile. One would have to keep an eye out (har har) for eye stabbers that were unusually friendly with the king, for example.
How does this relate to the culture war? Well, I was thinking about the recent (okay, not really that recent) Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action. Every source I have ever read on the topic has talked about the ruling as something that says You Are Not Allowed To Discriminate On The Basis Of Race without any mention of what the consequences are. For example, the New York Times writes
Affirmative action is "unlawful", but what exactly is the penalty if someone discriminates on the basis of race? To draw a parallel to the preschool soccer situation above, one can easily imagine five people with the following suggestions:
All these suggestions are completely consistent with You Are Not Allowed To Discriminate On The Basis Of Race. In practice of course, the law defaults to The Law Is Whatever I Say It Is Because I Command A Byzantine Bureaucracy That Will Somewhat Enforce My Demands So I Am Vaguely In Charge. This is exactly the same kind of unclear situation as the handball and pine tar cases, except the stakes are much higher. If you ask various Experts (TM) what the current law actually is (in terms of trigger/consequence), you will only get speculation. Some say that universities will be able to continue to discriminate on the basis of race as long as it's in a way that isn't exactly the same as the way they had been doing in the past, while others say that the effect is slightly larger. No one knows what the law really is until it gets enforced.
On the other hand, there is also the possibility that we actually do know what the law is. After all, if a law is simply a trigger paired with a consequence, we've already witnessed at least one instance of the trigger (a university discriminating on the basis of race) along with the consequence brought about by that trigger (the universities are told nicely to stop doing whatever they were doing). That is, the law isn't You Are Not Allowed To Discriminate On The Basis Of Race, but rather If You Discriminate On The Basis Of Race, We Tell You To Stop Doing That. (As far as I know, the universities have not been penalized or ordered to compensate their victims in any way – if this is incorrect, I would be open to being corrected.)
If I'm right about this kind of law being bad, what can one reasonably do about this? If someone says "The Supreme Court just made affirmative action illegal", should I respond with "That is a non-central usage of the word 'illegal'"? If saying "AA is illegal now" is bad usage, what would be good usage of "X is illegal"? Certainly, there could be some cases where it is useful, as a code of laws can be made easier to understand if you group multiple triggers with the same consequence (for example, multiple actions in soccer are grouped together as "fouls" and have basically the same consequences). The category of "illegal" could be useful in a similar vein, where we group together various triggers that have the consequence "negative things happen to you". We could then exclude things from the "illegal" category if the consequences are not sufficiently bad, like how we don't consider earning income "illegal" even though it results in losing some amount of money through taxes.
I don't know how to end the post so this is the end of the post.
While this isn't exactly wrong, people tend to invoke it too broadly. Some aspects of the rule are what you say they are, but the rule itself isn't. The rule doesn't let you penalize teams because you didn't drink your coffee this morning and are cranky and decided to subtract points for S&G.
You could have a rule "I am the dictator and what I say goes, so I can penalize someone because I skipped my coffee", but that wouldn't be rule of law, even if it's literally following a rule.
This in turn incentivizes would-be-dictators to make tons of broad and vague rules with selective enforcement. If there is such a byzantine maze of laws that almost never get enforced, then nobody pays attention to them and then everyone ends up technically in violation of some sort of rule. Then the enforcer can pick and choose who gets penalized based on their own internal reasons, but always has some sort of justification in the actual rules to pin it to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link