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 -
Sadly, for the 'Third Side', it finds itself falling into the very same trap it laments the 'good' side falling into.
Steve Sailer isn't a racist. He's just correct about the wrong things. Calling him a racist is just an appeal to the mercy of the 'good' side.
The 'good' really want to replace Cpt. Sully with Cpt. Shaniqua. Sailer is not wrong or racist for pointing this out.
The 'good' dress up their efforts that pervert the meritocratic process and discriminate against the more qualified to lift up brown people to a level they don't deserve by using pretty looking brown ladies in advertisements. Sailer correctly points this out and mocks it. He is not racist for doing so unless, of course, you presuppose the browns to be better than they actually are. Which makes you not just racist but also wrong.
The 'Third Side', spearheaded by the likes of TracingWoodgrains, can't handle this. I don't know why. Though I'd theorize oversocialization, social status and the trauma of watching Civil Rights propaganda took their toll on them like it did everyone else. In any case, if I had to read 5 paragraphs of excuses and 'well actually' every time a racist had been proven right before I could allow myself to acknowledge it, I'd start thinking inward as to why I'm doing this to myself. Because this entire rigamarole is absurd. It would take less effort to get through the cognitive dissonance of a 15 year old.
I can accept liars who just ignore these things or tow the party line to not lose their jobs. At least they know what they are. But the 'Third Side' is not that. It genuinely believes it's honest and standing up for truth. When in reality truth rests with the likes of Sailer. There's nothing 'more right' about not mocking the perverted and shameful nature of modern DEI. There's no respectability in claiming that, whilst the Emperor might not have any clothes, it might be because he was sleepwalking, and not because he is vain and has poor judgement. It's just groveling at the feet of those with power.
Is your point is that if "strong HBD" is right you can't be racist or that Sailer isn't negatively biased against black people? Because I seriously doubt the latter. And I don't see the former either, you can still be discriminatory against people with intellectual disabilities.
My point would be: If "strong HBD" is right, what does being 'racist' even mean, and why would it be bad to be one?
It's not just that we can be discriminatory against people with intellectual disabilities. We actually are. We make rules, laws and train professionals to deal with all sorts of people who fail to meet whatever standard society sets. Does that mean we are 'racist' against those people? Should we let people with Down Syndrome play with power tools on a construction site because we are not 'racist' and don't want to perpetuate 'harmful' hiring practices?
how is it relevant example? on constuction site, only workers are allowed and workers do not 'play' with tools but do what they're expected to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sailer is only correct insofar as one presumes that the "Social Sciences" are rigorous and scientific. A dubious presumption at best if you ask me. I see Sailer in much the same way I view Scott, Proffessional-class academic-types of west coast Jewish descent who hasn't quite wrapped their head around the true implications and scope of what they've stumbled upon.
They still think that "studies show"...
The truth is that it is all lies, all of it.
What I don't understand is how deep you think this goes. It's hard to try to have conversations with you about a lot of things because I can't figure out where the common ground is from which we might begin.
Could you elaborate? What are the implications and scope that they don't see?
I think it goes from the lowliest undergrad, to the president of Harvard. I get that this sound radical to some people, but I don't think that "sounding radical" necessarily equates to incorrect.
The implication is that they still think that's air they're breathing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link