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 -
Sure. HBD denial was established by and is maintained by the motivations of political actors, not random mistakes made by scientists and anthropologists. Those political motivations that gave rise to HBD denial are derived from ethnic conflict. That ethnic conflict is itself explained by HBD. Accepting HBD uncovers a deeper level of ethnic conflict than is generally understood.
Accepting this exposes other such movements which have presented a veneer of universalist principles, but scratching the surface reveals similar, particularistic motivations.
This could go in a lot of different directions. But it should just be sufficient to acknowledge that accepting HBD is tarred as racist and therefore highly immoral. So the opposition to HBD frames their position in terms of ethnic conflict.
The concern is that accepting HBD will alter the relations between ethnic groups. The greatest concern is that racially conscious whites will mistreat other groups based on this information. But ultimately, the observation that HBD denial is rooted in the concerns of anti-racism is sufficient for my point.
But on a deeper level, it's hard not to notice the history of HBD denial broadly falling along the lines of Protestant Darwinists versus immigrant Jews. Nobody is more responsible for the hegemony of HBD denial than Franz Boas, and his crusade against Madison Grant is understood as an expression of an ethnic conflict. This was not a clash of unbiased scientists who merely had different interpretations of data. They were, both, heavily influenced by their identities and their own inherited proclivities. The Boas academic takeover of anthropology in the Academy was the direct result of this conflict, which continues to this day.
If HBD denial was not a result of this conflict, why do you think HBD denial became hegemonic in academia and public consciousness? Do you think scientists were just trying to find the truth without respect to their own identities and personal proclivities or ethnic interests, and they just happened to get it wrong at the global height of the eugenics movement? Or did they win a conflict underpinned by ethnic motivations?
You've conceded the entire point. That HBD denial is rooted in a concern for the consequences of white race politics (and it always has been, even pre-WWII). That is an ethnic conflict. A scientific issue is transformed into political dogma because of ethnic conflict. Rationalists aspire to approach HBD without regards to the underlying ethnic conflict. Level 3 approach HBD with the appreciation that they are entering the political arena of an ethnic conflict, as they are in the analysis of a large portion of other cultural phenomena that are generally regarded as bottom-up and emergent.
It depends on what you mean by "most." Those most responsible for its hegemony in the academy have been Jewish. Franz Boas and his disciples who took over anthropology departments across the country, and opposed white Darwinists and eugenicists, were engaging in an ethnic struggle against those concerns of white racial politics. You admit to all the individual parts, you just don't accept the whole.
You asked me for evidence that HBD denial is the outcome of ethnic conflict. Then you say it's the result of "universalist worry about the consequences of white race politics". But it was not universalist. There was a conflict, which followed strong ethnic trends between Jews and Gentiles, in which the side dominated by the Jews won hegemony in the academy. The hegemony is now "universalist" because the Boasians won the conflict and fortified their hegemony using every dishonest, dogmatic, anti-scientific, and authoritarian tactic in the book.
HBD denial wasn't a scientific error, it was a political triumph.
You can have the last word, as far as I'm concerned you have conceded the point I was trying to make and now you're splitting hairs.
You're equating subversive intellectual and cultural influence with "conquest." Obviously you do so because it's easy to argue that Jews haven't conquered Gentiles, and it's very hard to argue that Jews have not had strong cultural and intellectual influence on issues like HBD.
Why don't you actually make an argument? Just say that Jews have had no particular strong influence in opposing HBD in anthropology and the sciences. You're too afraid to argue that, so you instead opt for spouting this cowardly garbage that has no content to respond to.
More options
Context Copy link
It does indeed reflect poorly on Whites. You understand now why there's such a sharp and bitter intra-White political divide.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it proportionally coming from them?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link