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 is a reframing of the original point in an uncharitable, unflattering way that makes thinking less clear and reduces understanding of the topic. Every single one of your objections was created by your poor understanding and misinterpretation of the point being made.
And it doesn't have to - when you remember that the actual statement is "propensity for criminal violence is heritable", then this problem disappears. At some point between then and now, something in the population and culture shifted in such a way as to reproductively reward genes which give a propensity for criminal violence.
Africa has a huge variety of differing tribes, clans, people and ethnicities. Different populations and groups have differing selections of traits, and the genes which contribute to that violent criminal propensity are not evenly distributed between them. The Igbo people, for instance, are outliers on a number of traits as well - and this only becomes a problem with your uncharitable phrasing, not the original idea.
This has nothing to do with the statement in question. The most straightforward response is that those countries simply do not have as many of those criminality-propensity-increasing genes - a low IQ is associated with criminality, but that's not what we're discussing here (and I think those two countries specifically have some interesting recent history which could definitely impact levels of violent tendencies in the remaining male population).
Genes which promoted a propensity for criminal violence were selected against among US white populations and so the level of expression of that gene was lowered as a result. Explained perfectly by the original claim, but not your rephrasing.
Black communities in Europe were selected in very different ways and from different populations (the Igbo are relevant again here) - the original statement provides explanatory value, your rephrasing obscures meaning and makes understanding harder.
Of course. That doesn't mean the genetic component doesn't exist.
More options
Context Copy link