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 -
There are a pair of long effort-post replies I made to a mutual on Tumblr (who also posts here rarely) that I should probably slightly edit into an effort-post here, on the legal-academic understanding of "racism" and civil rights law, starting with an argument I encountered pushing back on the usual criticism of Griggs, and extending through a sort of steelman of "Kendiism" (including references to Kendi's works and definitions).
To try to tl;dr summarize, "discriminatory intent" is irrelevant. The EEOC stands for "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission," and they define "equal opportunity" as the absence of "disparate impact." It doesn't matter if there's no discriminatory intent by any party, the mere fact that something (such as IQ tests) causes an ethnic minority to have a lower likelihood of being hired makes it presumptively forbidden. This may not have been the intent behind the civil rights act, on the part of many of its supporters (though I've seen people argue that for many of the more academic sorts, addressing "disparate impact" was always the goal, and "discriminatory intent" mattered only in that it was theorized as the primary cause), but it's how the enforcement bodies, and the academic consensus, very quickly came to interpret it. And, as they say, personnel is policy, therefore, so long as those same people are in charge of enforcement, no amount of "no really, this is about discrimination, we really mean it this time" from legislators is going to stop them from targeting "disparate impact."
That's probably fair. That said, a favorable supreme court ruling might be able to make a little of a difference. The law as it exists is clear enough, just badly misinterpreted. I'd be interested in seeing the effort posts. Could they mandate some standard of evidence, with it specified what sorts of things could count? (explicit evidence of intent counts, ratios that are off does not)
If legislators really wanted to rein in rogue agencies, I bet being able to sue individual employees for agency misbehavior that they participated in would do the trick, though that could be kind of extreme and lead to further breakdown of the government.
They could try, perhaps, but if the EEOC decides to ignore that and stick to the current (academic) consensus — "ratios that are off" matter, "evidence of intent" unnecessary — what is the recourse, then
Requires a number of factors that I find unlikely, most notably cooperative courts. AIUI, there are many precedents holding a broad immunity to this sort of thing, and I doubt they'd like to weaken those. And, of course, even if Congress grants you the ability to sue, they can't grant you the ability to win. If the courts find against the plaintiff and rule that there was no "agency misbehavior" in 100% of the cases brought before them, then does it really matter?
What breakdown?
Sure, you'd have to win, but it being in external courts would help.
I suppose I meant that it could lead to more government inaction and less trust in the governement, both of which we have plenty of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link