site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29601 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

  1. The question (which I don’t know) is whether the young white population is the same size as the older white population. If so, then you’d expect new hires to roughly equal departures. On the other hand, if the younger population is larger, then you’d be hiring more POC relative to whites.

  2. That per se isn’t a problem if the POC are more qualified compared to whites. However in my experience at a large firm we have relaxed standards for POC hires (and relaxed standards once hired) and we know the traditional tools to determine quality at more entry position are corrupted by college level affirmative action.

The question (which I don’t know) is whether the young white population is the same size as the older white population.

Percentage of white population is decreasing over time, so no, the young white population is smaller.

As long as you're counting by the one drop rule, yes.

I was under the impression that this was the result of US census data, which I'm pretty sure was not compiled via the one drop rule. I'm open to being corrected if that impression is false.

Slightly complicated.

Census is based on self-ID. To the extent that the culture at large uses the one drop rule to define people - which it mostly does, in practice - the census will do the same.

Next layer of complexity is that the census allows you to select as many racial ids as you want, so you can say you are a white black hispanic asian if you want to.

This leads to the situation where people reporting on the census can parse categories in multiple ways, such as 'any white' (white plus other categories) vs. 'white alone' (white and no other categories).

Usually when someone cites a number that shows shrinking white populations, they are citing the 'white alone' number without mentioning that they are doing so to their audience. Which is about 18% lower than the 'any white' number.

The vast majority those people are Hispanics who aren't white and no amount of gaslighting about "White Hispanics" will change that.

I don’t think that’s the right metric. Let’s say there were 100 people and 80 were white and 20 were black. Full employment.

Now there are 120 people and 90 are white and 30 are black. If jobs scale with population, there would still be more total number of white jobs even if the percentage of white jobs decreased.

Looking at the population pyramid of non-hispanic whites in the US, shows the absolute population declining with age. Peak NHW population was 60 in 2020 with a smaller echo at 30 and from the 30 down it's in decline.

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