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 comment makes me vaguely uncomfortable.
On one hand, sure, someone who has such a deep level of contempt for a large percentage of a country's population probably should not be welcomed into that country. However large of a salary they earn, they're not going to be contributing positively to the welfare of people they more-or-less think are subhuman.
On the other hand, immigrants that do positively contribute on net in all aspects of society (i.e. not just monetarily) deserve to be welcomed. From the inside view of an individual person, it's morally commendable to always be grateful for what you have and not think you deserve anything. However, from an outside view, you shouldn't expect that high moral standard from others who do actually deserve the welcome.
And sometimes its just so satisfying to see white supremacist rhetoric about certain groups turned back on them this eloquently. The whole idea of judging large classes of people as subhuman and worthless is absolutely despicable, but sometimes you just want to say, "ok fine, I'm done with this, let's just accept your premise that we should do so. Wow, the 'worthless' groups aren't actually who you thought they were. Look at that, guess it's not such a good idea for you after all".
Why would it make you vaguely uncomfortable? As far as I'm concerned self_made_human's attitudes are perfectly valid, and should really be the norm for all immigrants. Is it the deference for white people that makes you feel uncomfortable?
Sorry, should've explained this more: basically, you're asking for people to shoulder an additional burden for the sole reason of where they happened to be born, something that was completely out of their control. Furthermore, this burden isn't some temporary thing, but forever---the skilled immigrant always has a responsibility to feel grateful and not believe they deserve things natives do and nothing they do over their entire life can change this.
I don't like this unegalitarian implication.
I do not believe that gratitude is a burden. Also, the immigrant by virtue of their citizenship is entitled to the full rights that that citizenship affords. I don't think its fair to say that conservatives or self_made_human don't believe that lawful immigrants don't deserve things that natives do, given that they've followed the appropriate pathway and contribute to the native's land.
My expectation for anyone who lives in western countries is to be grateful for that privilege, native or immigrant. As far as I am concerned, I am being egalitarian when I expect immigrants to feel grateful; I have the same expectations of them that I do for natives.
Broadly speaking, I think you're seeing a deference or obeisance from self_made_human that simply is not there. His gratitude (or any immigrants gratitude) does not preclude him from enjoying the fruits of western society. He explicitly states that he wants to move to western society to enjoy its benefits. I'd even say that many immigrants (professional ones at least) do not particularly care if they are welcomed or not; they just care about living and enjoying western society itself. The sense of immigrants deserving something is in my opinion non-sensical. Immigrants immigrate to better themselves, not to bless the natives with their contributions; expecting natives to be deferential to immigrants just foments division and resentment.
This is fair, as long as someone can reasonably earn the right to be treated the same as natives, I don't have any discomfort. For whatever reason, I was reading something different in the original post that on second thought might not have actually been there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For a typical person, I think they'd be uncomfortable for broadly that reason (Well, I think a conservative wouldn't find it uncomfortable initially - but they absolutely would once you point out the dynamic)
I agree - but obviously that can't happen in the current state. The official line is that all races are equal - and in this worldview self_made_human's attitude is deeply problematic, and a manifestation of trauma from the White supremacy enforced upon his ancestral homeland during colonization (if that were the case - I would also find it deeply uncomfortable)
I'm not sure how you'd envision this actually becoming a norm (maybe you're just idly wishing) - I don't have a serious proposal.
I wonder how far you'd get by "just" by making HBD common knowledge, and no further interference - how would a typical "brown" person (here I mean neither White nor Jewish nor East Asian) react to the knowledge that the ultimate cause of the dysfunctions in their old home is not White supremacy, the government, or even the culture - but the actual race who make up the country (which includes them!)
I mean this is already going to make them feel guilty - especially if they were progressive (these would be the main source of principled people who oppose SMH's sentiments): this whole time it wasn't White people causing the problems of the world - it was you! (The arguments about how White people are guilty of perpetrating White supremacy by being complicit, "silence is violence", etc - these are all still true on the meta level - except now you realise you're the one causing harm)
Also - in the case of a indidivual skilled immigrant, it is indeed a mutually beneficial arrangement. But obviously the benefit to the immigrant is massive compared to the country, to whom each specific person is just a rounding error - so already a kindness is being payed by actually affording them all the same legal privileges as the natives despite having all the leverage (in the non-HBD world - this is something the immigrant is morally entitled to since the country is only such a nice place to live because they stole resources from the 3rd World - how else could a tiny island of a few million people, of equal competence to all other humans, manage to have so many nice things?)
Well said, I wasn't quite sure what about my comment made him feel discomfort, but this seems like a good explanation.
I'd be genuinely perplexed if the Brits managed to give me any trauma, given that they fled the place about 50 years before I was born. They didn't really bother my grandpa, and sure my dad suffered greatly as a consequence of the half-assed Partition and ensuing civil war in Bangladesh, that was also far before my time.
I wonder if the people who claim to value lived experience uber alles would accept mine, or consider me to have mysteriously internalized something something.
Indians and most other "brown" people are race realists when it's convenient to them. They'll happily look down on Africans, for example, but most would throw a fit if you claimed they were as a group worse than Whites or East Asians.
I prefer my worldview be honest and coherent, so I don't bother. So what if the average Indian is dumber than the average White person? No skin off my back, I know my intelligence and that it runs in the family, why ought I particularly care?
At the end of the day, as long as talented individuals of an underperforming group have a way to demonstrate their qualities and be judged on their individual merit, I'm content. You could be black and score super well on the SAT, at which point coarse discrimination on the basis of race ceases to be relevant for the most part. Or you could be a Jew whose mother was too fond of the wine while pregnant, and be SOL regardless of the expectations others have of your group.
Most Westerners have their opinions of Indians informed by the fact that they usually only meet the tiny fraction that was talented/lucky/hard working enough to move away. I got to live with ~everyone else, and while I think they're perfectly fine people, they're not in the same class. Skimming off the top of a billion and change will get you incredible talent no matter how the average fares.
Indeed. Of course, it's also conveniently ignored that places that started out poorer than dirt, like Hong Kong and Singapore have sprinted ahead and might be better off than much of the West, while other areas languish no matter how much money you throw at them. I wonder who they're supposed to have ripped off, or what they've had stolen from them when there was little to steal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Alternatively, your moral resistance to racism observably diminishes so long as it's aimed at the "correct" race. Suppose the Count is wrong on the particulars, and an examination of the statistics reveals that, in fact, migrants in the UK are "worse", by whatever standards you are now flirting with, than the native underclass (and note the obvious dishonesty of comparing all immigrants to only the worst of the natives). If it turns out the natives are in fact better, does that mean the white supremacists had a point all along, or does it just prove that your entire interest in the topic begins and ends with its utility toward bashing the outgroup?
Between this and the luria-posting last week, Hlynka continues to age like fine wine.
This is not a reasonable argument that is worth replying to. Please don't reply to my posts---I'm not interested in discussing things with you since it's extremely tedious and unpleasant to deal with this sort of mess of malicious misinterpretation.
In this situation, I understand why you might choose to exercise the block button. However, I’ll ask you to avoid such a substance-free dismissal. If you aren’t going to respond on the merits, please don’t discourage others from doing so.
Do you think there's any substantive response to make here besides "please read what I wrote more carefully and try again"? Playing into someone's bad-faith debate games by trying to defend "no, I actually said (blah)" never goes well when they're actively trying to confuse the issue.
It's really not a good look for a moderator here to be employing this sort of tactic given your stated goals. If FCC's reply wasn't violating
then I don't know what is. But, again, it's your guys' website.
Then don’t play into the games. Don’t respond. Block him, if you must. We won’t hold it against you; blocking exists specifically for times when someone thinks a response is worthless.
More options
Context Copy link
You're free to report any post you think violates the rules, even a mod's. (Trust me, we get reported all the time.) But no, I don't think @FCfromSSC was violating any rules. People are allowed to point out what they think is hypocrisy if they are civil about. You can deny it, rebut it, or choose not to respond.
(And you're getting a response from multiple mods because I happened to be the one who saw this post in the new-user filter and approved it, not because we're all ganging up on you because you argued with a mod.)
Are you arguing that "obvious dishonesty" and "or does it just prove that your entire interest in the topic begins and ends with its utility toward bashing the outgroup?" are civil?
Idk, I get the impression that some of you are unhappy about the way this site is going---there have been enough discussions about echo chambers and things like that. Yet you keep refusing to listen to people who tell you the clear reasons why such things might be happing. Totally understandable if you don't take my word for it, but you guys should at least take something from the whole Tracingwoodgrains discussion earlier.
There's a political consensus here and many toxic arguments arguing in favor of the consensus are not moderated. Beyond this current example, I've pointed out before that racism violating "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be" is very often ignored (though somehow the entire discussion where this last happened was memory holed. I can only see the comments in my inbox with all links to the actual thread broken). You even put one of the worst perpetrators on the mod team!
This makes the environment quite unpleasant for people arguing against the consensus so most just end up leaving.
My stack of nickels keeps growing.
Yes, I get it, you want us to mod the other side more heavily and your side less heavily.
Would it shock you to know that the other side thinks we should mod your side more heavily and their side less heavily and that our failure to do so is why the site is dying?
No amount of evidence will convince you (or those who argue the opposite) that this isn't true, so ... shrug.
Being racist is not forbidden here. Saying "Blacks are stupid" would get modded; saying "I don't like black people" or "I think the US would be better if we were a white ethnostate" would not.
Who do you mean; @FCfromSSC? First of all, I don't recall him posting racist things. He's definitely a rightist and an accelerationist, but not a racist (though he can speak for himself). And he was put on the mod team by Zorba's complicated dogue system in which many members were involved. So we put him on the mod team, and by we I mean the Motte.
Look, I really do appreciate it when liberals choose to post here, but unfortunately, you are following a familiar pattern that reaffirms my observations here and everywhere else: liberals don't really believe they should have to put up with people who express views that are noxious to them. This is true of rightists too, of course (we have a couple of people who report all liberal posters like someone tapped their knee with a hammer), but far more so of leftists. You (and Trace) aren't completely wrong that a sort of consensus culture has formed here (not universal; I am certainly to the left of the median Motter) that is right-leaning and sometimes hostile and toxic, but that's due to a bunch of selection pressures. It's not just that people like you find it too toxic here and leave; it's also that people like you drive the sort of person who'd post here off of every other site.
This is actually a great example of a phenomenon I think greatly contributes to moderation issues here. You're rounding me off to a pattern you've seen a lot before---"liberals don't really believe they should have to put up with people who express views that are noxious to them"---instead of noticing that my actual complaint is different: I'm only opposed to the way in which these "noxious" views are being argued. I've complained before that @naraburns is also pretty bad at rounding off recklessly in this way.
I'm perfectly happy discussing with people who's values I think are very opposed to mine as long as those people are actually responding to the points of what I'm saying instead of strawmanning or making unjustified personal attacks (Just to link some interactions with a particularly hostile poster who somehow never ever got moderated for these). Case in point: I'm not saying FC is one of the worst perpetrators because he may or may not be racist or accelerationist or whatever, but rather because he has one of the worst habits of rudely accusing those he's arguing against of saying a billion things they didn't actually say!
All I'm asking is that you actually apply your rules on tone and argument style consistently instead of judging based on rounding discussions off to preconceived notions from your previous experience on the internet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link