site banner
non_radical_centrist  8mo ago (astralcodexten.com)   2897 thread views

How Should We Think About Race And "Lived Experience"?

astralcodexten.com

I'm generally a fan of "blurry" definitions where something can qualify as X if it fulfills a few of many criteria. I think trying to create hard rules around blurry areas like race and culture is fool's errand, and Scott does a great job laying out how overly strict definitions can go wrong.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There is a simple explanation as to why the White Nationalists are more tolerant than other groups: There is nothing to be gained by being White. You only give up any chance at getting Affirmative Action benefits as well as the amorphous social benefits that come with being part of a minority. In fact, the more Whites there are, the more the burdens of affirmative action are spread, whereas more minorities means that the benefits of AA are spread more thinly. The incentives to have strong or weak barriers to entry are obvious.

So there is a simple option to solve this whole issue: Stop discriminating against and debasing Whites. Stop giving tangible and intangible benefits to non-Whites. If there is nothing to be gained from being non-White, there is no point in having "hard-and-fast rules" and we can go back to "letting communities make decisions".

Also, a minor point:

"An 18.001 year old has a relationship with a 17.999 year old (who claimed to be 18) and is prosecuted for statutory rape."

There is a solution to that called Romeo and Juliet laws. They allow some age difference if both parties are close to the cutoff point.

There is nothing to be gained by being White.

Being seen as God himself in the eyes of Asian (or any non white) woman, is pretty neat even if it's not a codified perk.

That requires only white appearance not white identification.

You should visit the 2nd/3rd world, white passport makes you a god amongst men.

I mean I've never done that, but why would my identification matter?

My point is the optimal stats are a white appearance but PoC identification on your college application. The sarong bar girls aren't going to check what I wrote in my admissions essay before they let me buy them a drink.

There is a solution to that called Romeo and Juliet laws. They allow some age difference if both parties are close to the cutoff point.

It doesn't solve the problem, it just shifts the cutoff points:

"An 18.001 year old has a relationship with a 15.999 year old (who claimed to be 16) and is prosecuted for statutory rape."

It solves the problem insofar that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is perfectly reasonable by anyone's standards but an 18 year old having sex with a mid teen is already pretty sus.

There is a simple explanation as to why the White Nationalists are more tolerant than other groups

Um... really? in the story, Indians accepted Elizabeth with supposed 1/8 ancestry. I do not think White Nationalists would accept a person who has only 1/8 of white ancestry...

American Indians are very European by ancestry. It isn't unusual at all to have people who look white despite having two Indian parents, to say nothing of Indians with one white parent/grandparent. Lots of famous Indian Chiefs had white mothers.

It's a big reason why the Indian population has been falling in the USA. Some Indian from the reservation moves out, marries a white person; and, has white looking children, who just get absorbed into the white majority as another white person with some story about an Indian ancestor.

One of Greg Cochran's random theories that may pan out, is that they're slightly more related than that. The idea is that about 20k years ago, there were a bunch of people in north-central Siberia; IIRC his daughter, being a Dr. Who fan, dubbed them "Sibermen". One group migrated E to NE Asia, mixed with the locals, and eventually their descendants crossed the land bridge and became the first wave of Amerinds. A few thousand years later, another group migrated SW to the Pontic steppe, mixed with the locals, and their descendants were the Yamnaya, the ancestral Indo-Europeans.

Apparently big beaky noses were their thing?

That's not a theory. The Ancient North Eurasians were a population that existed in Siberia 20+ thousand years ago before being demographically replaced by North East Asians. The Native Americans got stuck in Beringa during this process so they are about 30-40% ANE. Some of the ANE migrated east into Eastern Europe where they contributed a lot of ancestry to the Yamnaya as well as Scandinavian Hunter-gathers the Germans assimilated. Europeans are only about 20% ANE at most and it was so long ago and so little of the ancestry of moderns I doubt it really matters for any traits today.

As a bonus here is one of the last people who was mostly ANE by ancestry, shortly after her death her people were assimilated by Indo-Europeans.

Why hasn't this happened to the ADoS? Were the miscegenation restrictions different depending on the race of the non-White partner?

It has and is happening in ADoS. It's just there are lots more black people in the USA then there are Indians, especially in the deep south where most live. I see lots of very white looking black people who still identify as black and are culturally very black. And many have been absorbed into white majority once they start looking white enough.

True, but I think we have to grade on a curve due to the "one-drop rule".

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