site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   29311 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Literally none of the arguments that you have made applied to the positions that I assume aquota espouses.

You are saying:

  1. Those who advocate for racial differences (on average) are basically the same as those who advocate for racial identitarianism.
  2. Racial identitarianism is bad, like progressives, opposed to colorblind meritocracy, etc.
  3. Therefore, those who think there are racial differences (on average) are bad, are like progressives, are opposed to colorblind meritocracy etc.

I hope you can see that that's a terrible argument.

Most here are trying to say that they aren't racial identitarians, that they aren't like progressives on those matters, that they are pro-meritocracy, and so forth.

Your response is to go back and say that we can lump them in as the same thing, and that protests are vain.

Okay, let's assume that reasoning is legitimate.

Then,

  1. HlynkaCG posts on themotte, and self-identifies as on the right, like those who advocate for racial identitarianism.
  2. Racial identitarianism is bad, like progressives, opposed to colorblind meritocracy, etc.
  3. Therefore, HlynkaCG is bad, is like progressives, and is opposed to colorblind meritocracy etc.

You may try to argue that you're not like those people, but really, you're in the same camp: those who post on the motte, and self-identify as on the right. We should dismiss any such protests.

I of course do not endorse such reasoning, but I hope you can see the parallels.

But please, characterize people's positions fairly, and listen when everyone's telling you that you don't understand, that we're not (most of us) like what you are saying. A claim does not escape being a strawman of someone's position just because there exists someone else in the world who might agree with that claim.

Edit: spelling

I think a more accurate summation would be something along the lines of...

1: Those who argue that racial differences (on average) outweigh individual differences are effectively arguing for racial identitarianism.

2: racial identitarianism is fundamentally incompatible with a colorblind meritocracy

3: Ergo those who argue that racial differences outweigh individual differences are lying when they claim to support a colorblind meritocracy

I hope you can see the problem there

1: Those who argue that racial differences (on average) outweigh individual differences are effectively arguing for racial identitarianism.

Alternatively, you could accept that the differences (sadly) exist, work on creating a society where people who differ (in any particular way we're talking about) will be treated as well as possible regardless of race, and fight back against anyone trying to use equality of outcome as a measure of racial discrimination (at least, without controlling for base rates).

On average, men are bigger and stronger than women, but the bell curves do have some overlap. We can try to create a world where shorter people can reach the top shelves, and weaker people can open jars, and where hand-to-hand violence isn't a way to resolve conflicts, without turning society into an identitarian battle of the sexes. And we should not look at jobs that require physical strength, see that they're almost entirely male, and claim that this is the result of discrimination against women.

Nor should we classify the job as "a man thing", or try to keep qualified women out of it, or criticize a strong woman by saying she's "acting like a man". But this is all about drawing fine lines and reaching for societal norms which have never existed and which we will only ever imperfectly approximate.

And yes, there will be some people who, for various reasons, attack even reasonable things that can be said. Possibly even an entire political movement full of them. Those people are still wrong. And yes, maybe there's actual discrimination going on, using the word in the bad sense. That's bad too. And yes, so are the people who manipulate or misunderstand statistics to justify the bad discrimination.

It's a long slow process of understanding the world and trying to make it better, without breaking it too much along the way.

I hope you can see the problem there

I see several, but the one I'll call attention to is number three.

3: Ergo those who argue that racial differences outweigh individual differences are lying when they claim to support a colorblind meritocracy

I genuinely and sincerely have absolutely no idea how a fully sane and functional human being could possibly come to the conclusion that "I think you're lying about your position, now defend this position that I've decided on for you!" is some kind of valid debate tactic.

It's flat-out bugfuck insane. You can suspect whatever you want, but you have to respond to the posts that actually exist. The idea that anyone else is supposed to care about your personal fantasies concerning what they believe is completely laughable.

Okay, I reject part one (for two different reasons), as would many others here.

Edit: That is, I don't think it follows that they are arguing for racial identitarianism, and I think many here would think that individual differences can often exceed racial differences.

A one standard deviation gap (which is I think what most say is the white-black gap in the US) still means that there are 16% or so of the one population on the other side of the other population's average, assuming things follow a normal distribution.

But I don't think it's really at all controversial that there's a gap, the only real questions are the causes, to what extent those are environmental vs. genetic, how best they can be remedied, etc. You can look at the SAT averages for a simple demonstration that there are "racial differences (on average)" in the US. (Yes, I know you're in all likelihood about to say that such differences don't matter, because you don't think IQ matters. Your statement in the previous comment didn't say that, but I'll allow you to add to your major premise that you're only talking about racial differences among things that matter, if you wish. I think you should concede that such differences in ability should matter at least in academia, since the SAT is one of the best measures of college performance, I'm led to understand, and since you've characterized IQ as mostly measuring how good people are at academic-like things.)

Thanks for reframing things in a way that's closer to a valid syllogism, even if I think the major premise doesn't really apply.

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