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 -
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 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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link