site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32961 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I read this twice. I have pretty good reading comprehension skills. You have tested those skills. Can you summerize your comment in plain and non-flowery language what you feel about about the artical OP posted? I'm sure if you summed it up in a few sentences it would help us all avoid a misunderstanding.

My point, if you will, is that the intellectual core of the left-wing political project, such as there is, has been well aware of the evidence for extreme black criminality (both in general and in this specific white-targeting sense) for many generations, probably 2+ centuries, and abundantly well aware in the last few decades. That making unwarrantable promises about possible rectification of the issue, moving from desegregation to stigmatising white flight to forced integration, suppressing evidence of the futility of attempts to rectify the issue, censoring and harassing people who propose workable solutions, encouraging and valorizing antisocial blacks, and other leftist stratagems have been at least partially rational. (Partially, because I assume that the overwhelming majority of rank and file have been sincerely deceived people, emotionally manipulated useful idiots and just conformists).

That the outcome of this approach is a society where neither workable solutions nor even crude measures like a return to segregation are politically possible, because the doctrine of equal treatment has been burned into people's minds, but the problem exists and prompts people to support genuine policy preferences of that intellectual core that have been unchanged at least since H.G. Wells and Stalin sympathizers, namely: increase of the power of the centralized state, more political propaganda in state-mandated education, prohibition of guns, blanket surveillance, and other steps towards disempowering laymen in favor of a political priesthood that determines the angle of propaganda and otherwise guides state efforts.

Likewise for other aspects of the racial issue and superficial leftist egalitarianism.

Is that plain enough?

And yet, throughout those years, the black homicide offending rate (used here as a proxy for extreme criminality - rape rates are notoriously hard to define since they depend not only on how often the crime is committed but also on how often it is reported, since it is so dependent on actually being reported) has gone down, indeed gone down considerably.

Clearly something must have happened, whether that is a result of left-wing policies, right-wing policies (but if it's the result of successful right-wing policies, it would be evidence that leftist hegemony in society is not quite as firm as claimed), or things like potential offenders just staying inside to smoke weed and play violent computer games (but even then the legality of weed and comparative lack of regulation for violent games have been policy issues in themselves). The issue is being partially rectified, and that's what counts, no? It still is rather more important whether people are actually getting murdered or not than what the actual ethnic ratios of the murderers are.

Wait, that spike in the white homicide graph in 2001... It can't be that they threw 9/11 under "homicides by whites," surely?

Rates are now back up to 90s levels, although not yet quite as bad as the peak of the "crack wars" that saw the highest murder rates in US history. Wikipedia for some reason hasn't chosen to update its graphs for 6 years to show this.

It seems like an issue can go from "partially rectified" to "spiralling out of control" in a matter of months, raising the concern that whatever policies caused the drop were just papering over an unsolved problem.

Wait, that spike in the white homicide graph in 2001... It can't be that they threw 9/11 under "homicides by whites," surely?

Why wouldn't they? It was, indeed, homicide, and it was, as a matter of fact, performed by people whom the official government racial classification scheme classifies as whites. Sure, this is a huge outlier, but I don't see why should this require us to treat it specially.

Probably not. Though I guess the order of magnitude is about right for such a trick.

I thought murders have gone down across the board until recently? I thought decreased exposure to lead leads to decreases in putting lead in a 3P.

or things like potential offenders just staying inside to smoke weed and play violent computer games

You know that part of the reason is them staying, but not exactly home. Sailer likes to return to this point. His other favorite example of things that work – in the exact period in question –is the tough-on-crime New York city policing. And yes, sure: this goes to show that liberal hegemony is not total.

On the other hand, such «triumphs» of forcefully managed diversity only reinforce the impression which I claim is the goal: that only an overbearing police state can solve the problem of black crime. NYPD is an army unto itself. What was that Madison's quote about standing armies?

It still is rather more important whether people are actually getting murdered or not than what the actual ethnic ratios of the murderers are.

Not sure. Technically people are always getting murdered so you mean «less often», but sure, lower murder rate is desirable. On the other hand, murder (and other sorts of violent crime such as rape) is, while terminally bad, already a very unlikely risk in the lives of most people (except black men of prime age, I guess), far below suicide and health problems. So I'd say it's up for debate whether the racially motivated gaslighting of the overwhelming majority is rather less important than the exact size of the very small minority that does get murdered. People fear death and violence, fear appearing to support murderism, and can be blackmailed into approving any absurdity, tolerating any indignity if it seems to mean less death and violence. There should be some resistance to this exploit.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd rather live in a place with 4-5ish murders per 100k but fewer cops and CCTVs than in London or Moscow or Chennai or NYC. And less gaslighting, please.

I imagine many black people would, if educated to think about this seriously, prefer a different point on the Pareto frontier – either an even laxer one, or one radically less liberal. I think both me and them should be free to explore those options, but not at the expense of others who don't subscribe to our philosophies.

right-wing policies (but if it's the result of successful right-wing policies, it would be evidence that leftist hegemony in society is not quite as firm as claimed), or

"Imprisoned criminals are less likely to murder, than if they were allowed to be free." is a possible explanation, which requires policies (prisons still existing) supported, until recently, by all but the most radical leftists. It certainly doesn't required non-leftists to hold any significant power, as long as centre-left still believes in at least temporarily separating rapists, murderers, and thieves from normal people.

Sure, almost everyone supports imprisoning criminals, but there's still a sliding scale as to how readily a society will imprison people, how long the sentences are etc. and those are generally left-right issues.

Si

Not to disparage your comprehension skills, but the points he's making are fairly simple:

Even if the research is spot on, what can be done?

This is not new, here's a study from 1994 that has similarly ugly conclusions, but there is no will to do anything about it.

The conclusions of the research were not unanticipated. In fact the motives behind the results have been understood for centuries.

Power is demonstrated by the ability to make outcomes that hurt people you don't like look like they occur naturally.

To solve the problem people need to admit they were wrong. They would rather keep searching for a solution that doesn't exist, rather than admit that the research shows what they think is unfavorable (in this case, black criminals prey on whites, and this has a direct correlation with white flight).

You can come up with all the facts you want, but there is no way around the problem that people understand the will to power.

To wit: they have now responded. If I were to be uncharitable thier more plain language version sounds more like mien kamph than rationalist. Peel back another layer and we might get there. But I am being charitable. They are right that "straw folk" ...i mean "woke folk" ignore statistics and don't seem to have anwers. But the implication that they push, and it's right there, is that some white nationalism is in order. That's what I wanted them to more articulately express so no one can misunderstand.

  • -12

This subthread was a shitshow, and you racked up an impressive number of reports.

You need to speak plainly, and avoid making inflammatory accusations with little evidence.

5 day ban

Thanks for providing an example. Since you have been molded by those efforts I describe, your conclusion is to pattern-match me to Hitler while handwaving away the mendacity of egalitarians like mere good-natured statistical ignorance and chortling about strawmen – rather than pattern-match their conspicuous denial of harm their policies cause to a hostile conspiracy, and dismiss alarms going off at me.

It's funny that you contrast the «white nationalist» reading to a «rationalist» one. Rationalists deal in hypotheses and adjustment of priors. Do you think you are being a better rationalist?

People's beliefs are determined by attractors built over years of indoctrination, so the word vomit they spew is largely post hoc rationalization for what they already can't not believe. Like I say:

But after a few generations grow up on a steady diet of mocking the very premise of the problem, it doesn't matter what facts you show them: their thought trajectories cannot exit the basin where this problem can be divorced from white people problems …

Like you say:

They are right that "straw folk" ...i mean "woke folk" ignore statistics and don't seem to have anwers. But the implication that they push, and it's right there, is that some white nationalism is in order.

Oooh, you caught me. It's right there. We can't have that, can we? I mean, repelling Section 8 or, G-d forbid, legalizing nonviolent race-exclusionary communities that you don't have to be rich or nonwhite to get into would be the worst, right right? Tearing that down in South Africa is a great success story, correct? Some fucking whiteys are still resisting, but it's clearly not acceptable and will be made unsustainable.

Peel back another layer and we might get there.

I appreciate the self-confidence.

But I am being charitable.

That too, but you know, I can take a bit more beating. Be my guest.

Oh this is fun! I've been banned from reddit so many times I finally gave up three years ago. Everytime for calling out the "woke left". Do you even know what they are? I can educate you as a "leftwinger" and we can circle jerk about what cucks they are and that sounds hot. But I am suspecious that you might think I am gay.

My self confidence about your trajectory is confirmed by this very comment. Socratic method works!

I really don't need to say anything. You have said what I wanted you to say.

  • -18

I think you misunderstand the «Socratic method», but you're welcome to keep going. (BTW, is the typo in your flair intentional?)

OP was using obtuse languge to say something they were afraid to say in plain language. In plain language I asked them to clarify.

Your success at this would be logically inconsistent with the premise of my being afraid to speak plainly. Now, how about you speak plainly, without bald assertions in the style of

sounds more like mien kamph than rationalist

But the implication that they push, and it's right there, is that some white nationalism is in order. That's what I wanted them to more articulately express so no one can misunderstand.

and self-congratulatory vague bullshit like

My self confidence about your trajectory is confirmed by this very comment.

I really don't need to say anything. You have said what I wanted you to say.

I was well aware of what they were saying. I wanted them to say it plainly so they couldn't hide what they really felt behind flowery, obtuse pseudo intellectual languge.

You appeal to forum rules and culture. There's a norm here against darkly hinting and insinuating, and also against building consensus. If you believe your conclusions are so self-evident that none could misunderstand, you clearly can afford to spell them out while you're at it. Running victory laps high on your own supply is pretty cringe.

Lol. I'm 8 deep. All I keep saying is that you can keep talking. I encourage you to keep talking. My goal is to hear you talk. I like talking to you. I want to hear you. You are seen and heard. This is me speaking plainly. I want to hear you. But you are not so good at being heard.

What do you think are my motives? Do you believe I have an agenda? By what mechanism are black folk different from white folk such that the only solution is segregation or some such?

You are loved.

  • -14

Answering a question with a stream of questions and vague platitudes is a foolish strategy. I ask you again to substantiate your mention of Mein Kampf specifically, and to describe what you think is damning in my posts without building consensus by circularly pointing to what I've written and going «see? see?».

By what mechanism are black folk different from white folk such that the only solution is segregation or some such?

By generic mechanisms of divergent evolution over the last 50 thousand years or so, which has resulted in inherently different norms of reaction on a large number of socially relevant traits, including cognitive ability, impulsivity, aggression, time preference, self-esteem. As a result, the distribution of outcomes of black people is a poor fit for a majority-white culture: it naturally puts a plurality of them into an underclass, dragging down the rest, while burdening everyone else with supporting and guarding against an underclass of a size that a majority-white society is not well equipped for; and it is not very ethical that this be solved at the expense of whites, especially by having them cope with lower standards.

Ironically I agree with you that promotion of institutional religiosity and strong family structure would «improve» blacks' outcomes relative to whites' ones, and diminish the whole problem. It's akin to the third option in my post («state-mandated upbringing») which you accuse of being too flowery and obscurantist. But doing so in practice would amount to social engineering, and I don't see how it could succeed without acknowledging facts on the ground, which is to say, inherently different norms of reaction and the necessity of disparate treatment, or indeed comprehensively different social environments.

You are loved.

I am well aware of being loved, but this transparent passive aggressive behavior is not welcome here. I don't mean I take issue with it, but mods may. If you want to keep being clever, do remember that we aren't on Reddit.

I hardly think asking you clarifying questions goes agianst the rules of this forum. As I said I have not been on Reddit for years. I am not a "redditor".

Am I clever? Or did I simply ask you to use plain language as is asked in the guidelines?

I used Mien Kamph as an end member on a scale on a conversation about your obtuse comment with someone who os not you. I never accused you directly of being a nazi but simply pointed out the fact that your language when simplified is closer to Mien Kamph than Bambi. Your advocation for racial segragation proves I am right. But I had to "trick" you in saying so. I am playing fair. I let you say the bad things. I just say you are loved and heard. I hear you bro.

  • -10
More comments

You missed the point of my comment. I was well aware of what they were saying. I wanted them to say it plainly so they couldn't hide what they really felt behind flowery, obtuse pseudo intellectual languge.

Then say that?

Not to disparage your reading comprehension but that should have been obvious by the words I used. I was just being diplomatic and charitable as peer the forum's culture and rules.

  • -13

This is hilarious; the entire apparent point of your comment chain was to get someone else to speak plainly. But for you it's okay to be arch and clever and whatever.

My mistake. I assumed you were making a request in good faith. I won't make that mistake again.

One of the rules here is to speak in plain language. OP was using obtuse languge to say something they were afraid to say in plain language. In plain language I asked them to clarify. My motivations for doing that are irrelevant. It is the socratic method. Something promoted on this forum all the time. It is part of civil discourse and completely inline with this forum's culture. You might as well criticize me for asking a question that you have no good answer to...which is exactly what you are doing.

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