site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   23859 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I favor a more, well not entirely race-blind approach, but certainly a more targeted approach that mainly focuses on wealth as it is rather than other groupings.

Have you ever tried looking up achievement scores controlled for both race and income? The results are pretty gruesome across the board. Even if you completely leave aside all but the wealthiest blacks, you're left with a group that can compete with only the very poorest whites, while being crushed outright by even the most poverty-stricken Asians.

From an HBD point of view this is all totally unsurprising, but the other side is perpetually left scrambling for some kind of bullshit mini structural micro systemic racism that makes the family of a wealthy black doctor worse off than that of the Asian immigrant who scrubs their shitter for them. It's horseshit. It's a bad joke, and I don't need to fuck around in the weeds over statistical methodology to call it a joke.

I don't consider a Google Images search to be a well-sourced claim, and even beyond that, averages don't capture the whole picture. Which you might know, if you didn't have a complete disdain for statistical methodology. This isn't the weeds, it's the absolute bedrock basics, which I keep trying to tell you. Do you have an actual source? Do you recognize that your stated claims above don't even match the data you yourself hint at?

I don't consider a Google Images search to be a well-sourced claim,

I don't consider vague handwaving in the direction of poverty to be a serious argument in the first place. If there were any meaningful population-level cognitive metric where the racial gap could be plausibly reduced to income, or any other factor able to be discussed in polite company, the media would make sure absolutely everyone knew about it and this place would have fifty threads per month on the topic.

If you do happen to be sitting on such game-changing data then feel free to make a top-level post on the subject in this week's thread, as I'm sure everyone will be very much interested, but personally I'm done here.

If not, then don't feel glum. The people who agree with you are the ones actually making policy on the subject, and that's likely to remain the case indefinitely. You'll get to spend the rest of your life talking about how the gap can theoretically be closed.

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