site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   25097 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As a Southern borderer I deeply wish Reconstruction had actually been completed because of the sheer damage that the psychopathic slaver caste was allowed to unleash upon freedman, unionists and anyone not on-board with white supremacist terror and segregation that echoes to this day in our damaged societies, de facto segregation, extractive economies, major brain drain and lack of local democratic rights. Christianity in the south still radically differs from elsewhere in the country due to abolitionist preachers being murdered or forced to flee for their lives and a lobotomized form promoted to enforce a slave society. They just straight up overthrew local governments when they lost elections, killed or intimidated the winners, and installed KKK, Red Hat & co approved office holders in their place. The feds merely enforcing laws against murder would've made for a significant improvement.

It's a quite baffling case where after winning the war, the majority that supported the winners gets taken out of power in a dirty war by the loser minority, who are given free reign to terrorize the loyalists, erase and rewrite southern history, implement Jim Crow, then promote neoconfederate propaganda in the public schools, public worker and law enforcement academies, etc to the present. My area was actually a heavy unionist area of the rural south but you'd never know from how hard that was put down the memory hole by neoconfederates.

It’s because the loser minority knew the truth and the black community is ungovernable. There is zero evidence any where in the world that 100% sub Saharan African descent can create first world countries. 100% African descent has failed countries, 85% african descent South Africa has failed, the south still has worse SES outcomes in those communities, the northern US has issues in those communities.

Sure there are members who can rise up like a Clarence Thomas but for every Clarence Thomas there are 30 that can’t do anything in an advanced society.

No matter what perfect policy of reconstruction we could have done nothing would have changed in the south because the populations group level average IQ is too low to function in an advanced society.

I honestly am getting annoyed with leftist who can see what looks extremely well statistically supported to me.

If a group fails in every environment it’s probably because the group has issues. If a group succeeds in a lot of environments it’s probably something about the group.

Edit: doesn’t seem like fair modding to me at all as there are multiple un-modded posts that are low effort calling for white genocide yet anything touching on black community weaknesses being the cause of southern dysfunction you are expected to write a full treatise (despite Im assuming most posters are aware of the bell curve and US criminal statistics).

This is just obviously not true. I believe in HBD etc but the idea that black are just violent entities is just absurd.

But if you make all the low IQ people slaves again, most of them would be white men.

Is that really what white supremacy is arguing for these days?

Most sharecroppers were white.

Even if we take as a hypothetical that enslaving low IQ people again (Make the Low IQ Slaves Again!) would be a goal of White Supremacists (as opposed to the mass deportation of blacks and illegal immigrants or something), what makes you so confident about that assertion?

I imagine most Very Online White Supremacists wouldn't get too upset about <=70 IQ white men getting enslaved, if slavery must be a thing again to be applied evenly across the board with respect to IQ.

Let's assume an average IQ of 100 for American non-Hispanic whites and 85 for American blacks, and a standard deviation of 16 for males and 14 for females (to acknowledge potential greater male variability), and simplify to American whites and blacks only as about 60% and 12% of the US population, respectively. Applying the normal distribution and a threshold model where the <70 IQ get enslaved, we get about 15%, 28%, 26%, and 32% for white females, white males, black females, and black males, respectively, as proportions of those enslaved.

So not only would the hypothetical slave population be easily less than 50% white, it'd be only about 28% white male. If we incorporate latinos (especially with their lower average IQ) and Asians (despite their higher average IQ), the 43% and 28% of the white and white male proportion of the hypothetical slave population would only go down.

I imagine most Very Online White Supremacists wouldn't get too upset about <=70 IQ white men getting enslaved

I do not know how upset most of them would be, but I think that most of them would not be in favor of it. The average very online white nationalist or white supremacist is much more like somebody on 4chan /pol/ than he is like almost anyone on The Motte. The average white nationalist or white supremacist doesn't care about applying some sort of IQ policy consistently, he wants to keep whites and get rid of blacks. If he ever managed to get rid of blacks, then at that point he would probably find some group of whites to target, but he hasn't thought that far ahead.

Even here on The Motte, a lot of the wordy rational arguing is just a thin disguise for visceral emotion. The average very online white nationalist or white supremacist has an even thinner disguise, and in many cases no disguise at all. They are, on average, pretty simple and stupid people. There is a thin upper caste of well-spoken ones, the type who write lengthy articles in various kinds of alternative media online, but that does not represent the average.

For a message board response best I can tell is your numbers seem correct for relative proportion.

<70 IQ is a point where I think the modern world becomes completely confusing to you. Likely many could still function as laborers but where filling out a tax return would be extremely painful and things like lotto tickets are just stealing your money. A point where never having to ever think about money and instead having housing, groceries, clothing all paid for would be superior.

Based on percentages it seems as though I should see far more white homeless on the streets or doing random crime annoyances but that isn’t true. My guess is this is where averages matters and the white being bigger standard deviations from the mean matter quite a bit. Easier to hide a family IQ of 85 with the occasional 70 IQ within a family.

Violent crime rates are missing something here. 54% is the often quoted black murder rate. These proportions aren’t working out on pure IQ so something else is going on.

If we ever lived in this described world I think standardized testing would be super interesting. If someone scored a 68 on a practice test would they do crazy study hours or decide to take the easier life? Like being sub <70 means your required to put 30 hrs a week in at McDonald’s and get your housing paid for but other freedoms restricted.

Yes it was a hunch based on tail effects but realised after posting that would be safer bet with just black-non black.

How normal are the tails though? If you adjust your thresholds, what is the sensitivity to your estimate? I contend there is still a chance you have majority non-blacks, let's forget about the sexes...

My point running alongside the white majority question is that if you find the explanatory factor at the root of OPs HBD motivation, then you should apply your theories, policies on the basis of that factor, so you would run it across all races.

I don't know what the policies are for people like OP but whatever they are I'd be more inclined to agree with them if they were universally applied, it wouldn't be scientific to do it any other way.

And yes I'm aware there does exist racial favouritism in regards to university admission etc and I'm against that too.

If that's true (and im inclined to agree with you) the correct move was deporting all the freed slaves back to Africa after the Civil War. Why didn't we do that?

@DradisPing brought up the founding of Liberia, but in fact that was only one of several large-scale but ultimately abortive attempts to achieve what was called, at the time, “colonization” of freed blacks. Liberia was a project primarily of the American Colonization Society, an organization about which I’ve spoken in this forum numerous times, and which included as its members and supporters an absolute all-star cast of American Founding Fathers and political heavyweights. Unfortunately, the ACS could not achieve the level of funding and logistics necessary to undertake the process on anywhere near the scale they had hoped for. They were not the only ones attempting to make it happen, though.

Abe Lincoln, a supporter of the ACS and of “colonization” since early in his political career, invited a delegation of black political/religious leaders to the White House in 1862 to try and convince them to support the mass deportation of blacks - this time, to a proposed Central American colony which he wanted to name Linconia. The black leaders were opposed, though, as were the various Central American nations who felt threatened and/or had their own territorial designs on the region. After Lincoln’s death, his particular proposal was never pursued by any of his successors.

However, in 1869 Ulysses S. Grant attempted to initiate the annexation of what is now the Dominican Republic (called “Santo Domingo” at the time) for similar purposes. Grant was actually able to secure a treaty proposal with the Dominican president; Grant also sent a committee, which included Frederick Douglass, to investigate the country and the feasibility of annexation. Sadly, this treaty was defeated in Congress.

There was also a private initiative in 1862 by Floridian entrepreneur and plantation owner Bernard Kock to purchase the Haitian island of Île-à-Vache and to invite blacks to come work there, offering Haitian citizenship (and revocation of American citizenship) to any takers. This initiative also failed after the financiers reneged on their promised investment.

Ultimately, the staggering costs and logistical realities of mass deportation of blacks were simply insurmountable at the time, to say nothing of the political difficulties and opposition from various important political constituencies.

They set up Liberia, but there was never broad support for mass deportations.

Truthful feels cruel to me to send them back since they have very little connection to Africa at that point.

I’ve probably come to a position of something like a lot of IQ testing to filter and some form of institutionalization for the rest. I’ve just seen too many black homeless that would seem to be better off in a controlled environment doing light manual labor than their ability to be fully functioning adults.

I’m fine with some form of Jim Crow to deal with areas like the south side of Chicago. Semi functioning people with way too much criminality.

Constitutionally probably impossible at this point.

I’d probably be fine though with going back to the deals we had on race in the 1980’s. Small amount of affirmative action, strict policing, and nobody tries to use disparate outcomes to claim everything is about race.

The same reason you can't just send black people back to Africa today. Who's going to take them? No poor African country wants afew million more impovrished mouths to feed, you'd have to pay them massively for it, which is a huge short term cost, much more expedient to let them stay and only bear a small annual cost instead.

Whatever it cost in 1865 would have been worth it

You can say that with the benefit of hindsight, whether the people actually living in 1865 thought the same way is another matter entirely.

The Greeks and Romans used to exile people, there's no reason we can't do the same. "You don't have to go home but you can't stay here."

I have posted before about the difficulties with such a scheme. In short, prepare to piss off the entire rest of the world if you go that route. Of course, as a non-American bristling under the pax Americana I would actually welcome a development that would make my country look for the light at the end of Uncle Sam's anal passage again, but do you think that for the US and its citizens, the future you suggest would still be net beneficial if on top of everything its network of allies of ideology rather than convenience cools on it?

And what happens if the exilee can't find another country to take him in?

I don't see why that matters to the society that does the exiling. In fact, if it mattered, it wouldn't really be exile, would it?

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