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 -
I'd believe that people think that. But no, I certainly don't think that's the actual effect. You can tell, even without looking at the data, by seeing that people care about it more because of racial dynamics than they do because it matches to merit.
It definitionally selects those who measure up less well along the axes that can be measured; my understanding was that those discrepancies are preserved over time and you just end up with less competent people.
And why not measure, then, by actual disequities of opportunity instead of using race as a proxy? Why is Claudine Gay, who comes from a wealthy background, the one who is advantaged time after time to end up at the highest and most prestigious heights of society? Are you really saying that one's skin makes a bigger difference in causing "disequities of opportunity" than one's wealth?
I'd prefer to stick to the actual, objective tests, directly measuring ability and performance. Just use the SAT or whatever.
Do you acknowledge that there's a racial gap in ability (of whatever cause)? Do you think affirmative action programs work to take that into account?
Yes. Any discrimination will be beaten out of corporations by more efficient, more meritocratic competitors, unless there are other substantial effects going on. (E.g. if x group is generally less efficient (at least, among those in your hiring pool), but all the other employees will protest and generally just be a pain unless you have more of them, it might make sense to hire them, as doing so improves everyone else's efficiency. But if there's some other competitor which can hire a similar number of competent workers without any of those problems, they'll do better.) So yes, I'll trust markets, because I think people value their own interest more than their prejudices, and if they don't, others will rise who do.
More options
Context Copy link