site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31623 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The truth (cognitive and criminality differences) is in fact soft-racist using any non-perverted form of human morality.

The woke understand this (not it's truth value, but the logical conclusion if it were true) but their primary loyalty is to the black race so they'd rather enshrine it and it's vices as holy than see racism return. This shared moral assesment is why there was so little resistance from classical liberals to the woke takeover.

Rationalists (the top ones) are too smart to deny HBD (scientific racism), but being [insult against ingroup removed], they see nothing wrong with hurting good people who like them to help bad people (and their asociates) who hate them as long as total utilons increase. They are in fact offended that the woke would think they'd consider doing anything else. We've reached C.S Lewis reductio ad absurdum of total moral relativism, a previously implausible country in which "a man feels proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him". Conservatives are... irrelevant. They conserve whatever morality they are handed down, no matter how perverse and anti-racism as the raison d'etre of America was established long ago. Now they can't resist it, except by reifing it "Democrats are the real racists"!

I assume you're the same lepidus on the EA forum?

On the contrary, he's the same Lepidus as the one here on The Motte.

This is a whole lot of weakmanning. Stop making broad generalizations about "the woke" and rationalists without putting a lot more effort into substantiating your uncharitable hot takes.

I don't understand what more I'm supposed to do here. That's "perverted", is my opinion about a moral vision that tallies up total pleasure and suffering while ignoring whether it's experienced by a good person or a bad person. I believe low IQ and a temperamental disposition towards hurting others are bad traits, and that those posessing them have lower value. Rationalists regularly acknowledge that yes IQ differences exist, read and agree with Steve Sailer, and then mention how knowing all this doesn't change their moral assesment in any way. I suppose "moral mutants" was a bit harsh and I will remove it. My apologies.

You can state your opinions about perverted moral visions and rationalist thinking, but statements like "(the wokes') primary loyalty is to the black race so they'd rather enshrine it and it's vices as holy than see racism return" is certainly not true (at best, it's an uncharitable description of some woke people), and slipping in the crack about "the black race ... and its vices" is also sloppy and uncharitable. (It's one thing to talk about HBD, it's another to just baldly denigrate an entire group. Lots of people want to say things about Jews and blacks and wokes and Trump supporters and Muslims and Republicans and Democrats, and we do not look kindly on any statement that can be summarized as "They suck, all of them."). And yes, calling people "moral mutants" falls into the same category. You can talk about specific people or beliefs that you think fall into the category of "moral mutant." Saying "rationalists are moral mutants" is not specific.

but their primary loyalty is to the black race

I don't see how anyone could look at their rhetoric or their behavior and reasonably come to this conclusion. Seems to me that their primary loyalty (if one can call it that) is to politics.

It's actually pretty simple. The early liberal position was that blacks could and would reach equality with whites after the removal of discrimination and imposition of temporary positive discrimination. While some screwups were made early on - In the 90s, the Clintons and Joe Biden joined black leaders in pushing mandatory minimums and heavy law enforcement in black neighbourhoods, under the theory that neglect, tolerance of criminality, and retrograde welfare policies were the form of the racism that was keeping blacks down. And yet, inequality while reduced, wasn't fixed.

Blacks born to families making 200K were getting SAT scores equal to whites in families making 20K. The children of rich blacks were still going to jail at rates comparable to poor whites. At this point liberals could either:

  1. Choose to tolerate a world in which the vast majority of blacks, being judged by their actual abilities, would be found unequal to whites.

  2. Upgrade positive discrimination into pure anti-white racial hatred, crushing the white kulaks, taking their resources and representation in elite institutions away and giving these to blacks. Meanwhile, tar every positive white trait and figure as inherently evil (objectivity is white supremacy), while praising their black counterparts.

I don't need to mention which one they chose.

Qualifier: While Blacks are near the top of the totem pole, they are often outcompeted by other members of the Democratic coalition, which it needs to guarantee it's permanent power. Nonetheless, the fractures aren't as severe as anticipated. Latinos don't exactly like blacks, but they can deal with them through extra-political means while allying with them to continue squeezing whites.

"...their primary loyalty (if one can call it that) is to politics."

If it was, they'd take up a Bill Clinton style Law and Order campaign and pare it with at least making noises about immigration while pursuing extreme wealth redistribution and of course taking their cut at every step of the way. But more intuitively, do you think Dems are pushing trans kids because they think it polls well?

How, as our resident Christian, is it so hard for you to understand that people might be genuinely and unselfishly committed to an evil vision, for it's own sake.

And even outside of politics, it sure seems like transgenders/non-binaries/other gender minorities come above blacks.

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