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 -
Did either Khan or Hsu make a statement to that effect? Note that this is different from stating that there is a racial IQ difference but hedging for individual differences.
I would argue that the process through which conclusions are reached generally matters.
If policeman A looks at a suspect, sees that he is white, well-dressed and looks innocent, and policeman B talks to the suspect and verifies that his alibi checks out, they may both conclude that their suspect is innocent, but the path which they took would matter to me.
I would consider writing a long, carefully reasoned article to be equivalent to our rule "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be."
If Darwin had just drunkenly jelled "Have you seen that hairy little man? I bet his ancestors were monkeys!" instead carefully curating his evidence for years before publishing The Origin of Species, the world would rightfully have judged him differently.
If we censure utterances like "all cunts are stupid", does this mean we should also proactively bar any research into any effect of sex hormones on intelligence? Should we try ethicists discussing the trolley problem for incitement to homicide?
There is a brand of utilitarianism called two-level utilitarianism. The idea is that you mostly follow well established heuristic rules for moral decisions -- perhaps even in system one. If a kid runs in front of your car, you don't calculate the odds of them being the next Hitler given the neighborhood you are in, you just hit the brakes. But under certain circumstances (like when speaking to a murderer asking you if you have seen his prospective victims) the usually good heuristic rules (like "don't lie") might cede to a more situational consequentialist analysis.
Likewise, I would propose a two-level handling system of utterances of opinions adjacent to verboten topics. Most utterances are low effort shitposts / tweets which can safely be dismissed out of hand. If someone posts "teh gayz should kill themselfs!!!1" it is valid to conclude that the poster is not contributing a method to fight demographic changes but just a bigot asshole.
Of course, every ugly sentiment can be padded with motivated reasoning and inflated into a scholarly-sounding article "voluntary suicide of non-reproducing individuals as a collective means of affect population dynamics" or whatever. There is probably someone out on the internet arguing lengthy that Nazi race "science" was 100% correct.
This is a pill I am willing to swallow as the alternative is to declare whole areas of research as verboten. Some Nazi rambling for tens of pages on skull forms or whatever will likely be memetically much less successful than someone who posts racist meme images. And in the odd case where the pre-decided societal consensus is actually factually false (it has happened once or twice in history!) we do not shoot the messenger.
In the words of Scott himself:
More options
Context Copy link