site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32788 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 12, 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.

Exactly what else do you think it can explain that wouldn't be tied to IQ?

I'm not making any claims. I'm an HBD skeptic who thinks it has some explanatory power but not the power its more enthusiastic advocates claim. Such as all the other qualities I mentioned.

What I am noticing in your case is that it appears you believe that HBD is "correctly" used when it makes negative generalizations about your outgroup, and "incorrectly" used when it makes negative generalizations about your ingroup.

What I am noticing in your case is that it appears you believe that HBD is "correctly" used when it makes negative generalizations about your outgroup, and "incorrectly" used when it makes negative generalizations about your ingroup.

By this reasoning, most people here are well-educated, so generalizing that education is good is self-serving, and should be looked upon very suspiciously. I suspect that most people here are not murderers, either, so it would be self-serving to claim that being a murderer indicates something negative about oneself.

By this reasoning, most people here are well-educated, so generalizing that education is good is self-serving, and should be looked upon very suspiciously.

That's specious reasoning. I'm saying the dividing line you have created has no logical basis.

Do you believe HBD explains IQ differences, but nothing else about any behavioral or cognitive differences that are not a direct result of IQ?

If you are asking whether there could be, in theory, behavioral differences that are widespread among some group, are negative, are related to the brain, and are not the result of IQ, yes.

If you are asking whether such things have actually been measured for Jews the same way that IQ has been, so that they could be used to say negative things about Jews without just making shit up, then no.

In theory, someone could measure a "GQ index", discover that Jews score high on this factor, discover that this factor is inherited like IQ, and discover that this factor is correlated with greed. That would be HBD being used to explain something negative about Jews. But this hasn't actually happened.

If you are asking whether such things have actually been measured for Jews the same way that IQ has been, so that they could be used to say negative things about Jews without just making shit up, then no.

My point is that you object when such theories about offered about Jews, but not when they are offered about anyone else (such as blacks).

Why are the theories of people like @SecureSignals "making shit up," but the theories of all the many HBD posters saying similar things about blacks and Hispanics (and to a lesser degree, Asians) - not just comparing IQs - credible? Or do you find them equally non-credible, but you only feel moved to protest when it's about Jews? In which case, understandable enough, but that was really my point.

I wasn't even responding to SecureSignals; but to RococoBasilica. And I wasn't saying "your HBD theory about the Jews is nonsense", but rather "justifying the HBD moratorium by claiming that HBD encourages attacking the Jews, is nonsense".

I'd also like to know exactly who you think my outgroup is. All non-Jews?

but rather "justifying the HBD moratorium by claiming that HBD encourages attacking the Jews, is nonsense".

That isn't what RococoBasilisk said. What he said was that the Joo-posting is getting as annoying and repetitive as the HBD posting was back in the day, and that therefore he could now sympathize with putting a moratorium on topics that are getting really annoying and repetitive.

I'd also like to know exactly who you think my outgroup is. All non-Jews?

No, but it would appear to be blacks and other disfavored non-Jew minority groups about whom HBD theorizing is frequently directed.

I think you should speak a little more plainly. Are you claiming that if I defend against attacks on Jews disproportionately to defending attacks on other groups, I'm racist? Because that's what it sounds like you're claiming.

(Also, how many attacks on others do I have to defend against? One? Two? (Or does that not count because I made a Jew comparison?) Does this one count? Ten? One for each time I defend Jews? One more than whatever number I've actually posted? Only within the context of HBD specifically, so nothing else counts?

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