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 -
Let‘s get the slapfighty parts out of the way first: I am neither „disgruntled“ nor „salty“, just disappointed. And ‚projection‘ is overused at the best of times, the ‚I know you are, but what am I‘ of the debating world, but your use here doesn‘t even make sense. What opinions do I hold, that I project onto you? An ambivalence towards the truth? Where? I do not think people are incapable of processing the truth.
Onto your ‚stream of arguments‘ where you, imo, „align yourself with liars‘:
presenting HBD as pseudo-scientific
questioning why anyone would wish to proclaim the truth, including their motives, preferred policies, associates and intellectual forefathers
defending HBD censorship (on the sub that one time)
claiming that there is ‚no easy way forward‘ and that expecting people to accept the truth is ‚unrealistic‘
Telling the truth is the easy way forward. You ostensibly can‘t go forward, you‘re stuck in place, refusing to answer or move. From a distance, you do move somewhat. Backwards.
I suspect we are at the point where continuing to be very precise and specific and detailed in what I do and do not think will continue to be fruitless, because you are already at the point of making things up about what I do and do not think, but I will give it one more go:
Do you deny that it's abused in a pseudo-scientific way? That doesn't mean there is no legitimate science behind it, but the same applies to things like AI and transgenderism and gun control - there is a lot of science and a lot of pseudo-scientific hot takes based on half-understood kernels of fact.
I didn't do this.
I think a lot of HBDers lack humility or self-awareness: they know blacks have lower IQs on average and think they can state with certainty (though they don't actually understand what science there is any better than the average I Fucking Love Science person understands Newtonian physics) that this is a complete explanation for black poverty, black criminality rates, black educational outcomes, etc. It is what it is, it's biological, we should just "recognize reality" and wash our hands of it.
I do not think everyone who wants to "proclaim the truth" is a white nationalist, which is the reductionist claim you seem to be driving at. I do think HBD is a very convenient rhetorical tool that white nationalists are happy to use.
If any one topic was becoming insanely annoying and taking over every thread for weeks on end, I'd probably be provisionally in favor of a moratorium on it again.
Get over it.
Correct, I do not think there is an easy way forward, and I do think it's unrealistic to think most people today will accept that some races are biologically inferior. I think the idea of racial equality in the innate, born sense and blank slateism has the power of religious conviction for most of liberal Western society, and thinking that we should just "proclaim the truth" until they believe it sounds like tilting at windmills to me. Not that I don't respect a good windmill tilt, but even if you are Galileo, recognize that you are Galileo. (And yes, I know the Galileo story itself is more complicated, work with me here.) And also, I am not convinced that the HBDers, especially the "Hard HBDers," actually have rock-solid science on their side, whereas you apparently think this is unambiguously the side of truth and virtue.
That doesn't mean there is no path towards accepting unpleasant truths, but I stand by my position that I'm recognizing a bitter pill, not pretending it doesn't exist.
No, of course it's abused, like every true thing. Of course people who believe it will pretend to know and understand more than they really do. Something being abused and ‚I love science“-ed does not make it pseudo-scientific.
By your own admission it is true, so convenience is neither here nor there. How convenient for nazis that physics allowed them to build rockets.
I don‘t get over censorship of the truth. I honestly don‘t know why you feel I misrepresented you, we seem to be in perfect agreement on what your positions are.
You already agreed it is the side of truth. Is there a gap between the side of truth, and the side of virtue ?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link