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 -
The War at Stanford - The Atlantic
A few interesting things about this article:
The author is a sophomore student-journalist, and it's really good writing, by any standard. It turns out his parents are both top journalists. Nature vs nurture (vs high-status parents faking achievements by their kids to make them look good) is ambiguous, yet again!
One observation he makes that I hadn't seen in other reporting on campus protests, is that college admissions select for people who are "really good at looking really good," which includes strategic political posturing. This reminded me of my own experience at a high school that hyper-optimized for college admission, where I quickly became jaded by classmates openly-performative "activism." Are the elite student protestors my former classmates' gen-z counterparts? If so, how do my elite "betters" actually go on to do good things? Or, if the elite students are genuinely better than me, why are the people who are the best at looking the best mounting their (electrically conductive material, as required by this deliberately mixed metaphor) flagpole to the third rail? Or, is the sophomore student-journalist's observation true, but irrelevant, making this is just a really well-written, yet redundant, article about campus protests?
The Stanford administration banned calls for genocide, in response to the House hearing, but acknowledged to the reporter that this is illegal, due to a California statute requiring all universities to adhere to the First Amendment, not just public universities. I'm curious what the PR and legal discussions leading to this "ban" were, and what may result from it.
A problem with this essay is that it takes everything that a Jewish student says as true, when we don’t actually know if what they allege is true. There are no links to police reports and investigations, and no rigorous comparison of “Jewish student victimization” versus “Palestinian student victimization”. That is problematic because it allows a random anonymous Jewish student the power to change the discourse, because he can tell his story to the author who then writes it in the Atlantic. It’s doubtful that the author has as many Palestinian friends as Jewish friends, or considers everything a Palestinian student alleged to be true in the same way he does for Jewish students.
The piece in the Atlantic is… a story. It is written to persuade the reader. He omits things not part of his narrative, like that a Jewish organization was caught writing a hoax anti-semitic message at Stanford. Similar hoaxes have occurred at other universities: 1, 2, 3. Jewish groups love their hoaxes. If one of the only(?) people caught writing something antisemitic is Jewish, what then is the probability that the other writings and postings are by a Jewish student? We can’t ignore that there would be a strong motive to do this and that it has been done frequently before.
If there have been some altercations and insensitive comments which have victimized Jewish students at Stanford in the year 2024, I expect to see a video recording or audio recording, at the very least I would need it to be confirmed by two gentile witnesses who are not affiliated with Jewish organizations.
edit here’s a Twitter thread of alleged altercations at Stanford in which an Arab or Palestinian was victimized. Are these events real? Well, isn’t that the point — the author picks and choose which hearsay to post in his article. We need a clear breakdown of victimization rates, not more hearsay narratives.
Having commuted past the rival Palestine and Israel protest tents for most of their existence, I can say that the account in this story is hilariously overwrought and overdramatized.
Many people are anti Zionist to some degree. It’s not an extreme view. I guess if you’ve grown up in a particular bubble this might come as a shock to you as you enter the real world.
More options
Context Copy link
We find it easy to relate systematic behavior regarding black street crime to HBD. It's entirely rational to generalize that analysis to other group behavior. A Jewish journalist writing a journalistic piece about Jewish oppression, particularly in the context of a political hot-button issue, based primarily on hearsay from Jewish witnesses should not be believed unless receipts are provided. It should basically be assumed that they are just trying to manipulate public opinion by spinning the truth, or outright fabricating it. It's the equivalent of crossing the street when you see a hoodlum coming your way.
It's only Jews that you'd be that paranoid around, to be clear? Or does every group get the same assumption of bad faith?
Can you point me to any article in The Atlantic where a white person is published agitating for his ethnic interests? It is a quintessentially Jewish behavior for them to leverage their connections in the media apparatus to spin a story of their own oppression in order to manipulate public opinion.
That's a dodge. I didn't ask about that. I asked if you make the assumption about every group.
Let's recap:
There's a story in The Atlantic where a Jewish person discusses anti-semitism. There are obviously lots of stories in The Atlantic where people of other ethnicities talk about prejudice against them: it's easy to find articles criticising anti-black racism, anti-Hispanic feeling, and so on. Here are two pieces by Asian authors criticising anti-Asian feeling, for instance. I assume I don't need to do the same with black authors; we all know The Atlantic published Ta-Nehisi Coates.
There are also Atlantic stories that are, broadly speaking, anti-woke, or which criticising identitarianism. The Atlantic publishes Thomas Chatterton Williams and John McWhorter, for instance. Here's an article criticising a form of black activism (I can't tell the author's race; would that count as black in the US?). Meanwhile here's an article by a black person talking about anti-black racism. If you're interested in white people specifically, here's Reihan Salam (who according to the US census is a white person) criticising anti-white rhetoric. Here's Conor Friedersdorf (clearly white) criticising hateful anti-white rhetoric.
You have asserted that the existence of an Atlantic article by a Jewish person criticising anti-semitism is evidence of "a quintessentially Jewish behaviour" to "manipulate public opinion". Well, I think it's true enough that Jewish people want for other people to not hate Jews, and that sometimes they write things to that effect. But there is nothing sinister about that, especially since the very same outlet publishes things by other groups asking people not to hate them! Black authors, Hispanic authors, Asian authors, and yes, even white authors also get published saying, "Please do not hate us as a group."
The objection I have is that you take something very obvious and understandable - a member of an ethnic group writing an article criticising hatred towards that same ethnic group - and, in a way that you apparently do not do with any other group, immediately assert some sort of pan-ethnic deceptive nature. Are Jews a race of lying manipulators for this? Well, by the same logic, so are blacks. And Hispanics. And Asians. And whites. Because they all publish pieces in The Atlantic criticising racial animus towards them. Jewish authors are not acting remotely unusually here - they are acting the same way as everybody else.
Yes, let's recap:
I am referring the very long history of largely Jewish-owned newspapers with Jewish-run editorial control publishing articles written by Jews which heavily relies on rumors and hearsay from other Jews to present one-sided on-the-ground accounts and narratives describing salient political conflicts in a way that is intended to boost sympathy for Jews and alert the public to anti-Jewish sentiment. Your response is an article written by this guy (he's white on the census!), and from this guy with 0 actual advocacy for white people, and you apparently don't think you're stretching here.
In contrast with how far you are stretching to attribute this sort of behavior to non-Jewish white people, the pattern of behavior I am referring to stretches back centuries. Take that 1921 news article where Jews are begging America to "save 6,000,000 in Russia", saying "6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre. As the famine is spreading, the counter-revolutionary movement is gaining and the Soviet's control is waning", (also an interesting statement, for others reasons).
Or the 1936 article, talking about "the European holocaust" well before the war.
Various articles exaggerating conditions - i.e. "6,000,000 facing starvation" in 1920, or "reporting" on the apparent expulsion of "6,000,000 Jewish families" from Russia in the 19th century.
Was there conflict between Jews and Russians or Ukrainians? Absolutely. But in hindsight we can see that this is not journalism, it's Jewish propaganda being presented as journalism. The accounts of conditions on the ground are a combination of truth, exaggeration, and falsehood published to spin a narrative. In hindsight we can acknowledge how stories about 6,000,000 Jews facing extermination in Russia was pure nonsense, but at the time this was the information the public had access to in order to understand the political situation.
Jews especially have the penchant- the means, motives, and opportunity, to relate "their side" of the story as "journalism".
To me this behavior is very obvious and understandable, but just because a pattern of behavior is understandable doesn't mean I can't adjust my priors and acknowledge what is just another chapter in the very long history of Jews presenting their one-sided account of a political conflict as "journalism."
You didn't include any of that in your comment, so obviously I didn't respond to it. What I was responding to was the long record you have here of taking any instance of Jews writing anything, whether about Jews or not, and insinuating that it's evidence of some malevolent racial character. I asked whether you jump to the same overblown conclusions regardless of the ethnicity of the author - and in my judgement, you don't. It is a unique fixation on Jews.
I repeat: what we have here is an article by a Jew criticising anti-semitism. I have pointed to articles by Asians criticising anti-Asian feeling, by black people criticising anti-black feeling, and, yes, by white people criticising anti-white feeling. (Even if you don't count Middle Easterners as white, Conor Friedersdorf is undoubtedly white and he was criticising racial rhetoric that attacks or vilifies white people for perfectly innocent behaviour. It counts.) If a behaviour is carried out identically by pretty much every racial group, then it hardly seems to be something unique to Jews.
You might want to argue that specifically white identitarianism is not published, whereas other racial groups can publish identitarian content. This is true to an extent. The Atlantic probably wouldn't publish e.g. outright black nationalism of the same kind as white nationalism, but it does tend to publish explicitly pro-black-identity black authors more than it would white authors. That's a hypocrisy. It's just hard to see what if anything that has to do with Jews.
(As a side note here, I would gently remind you that Theo Baker's article isn't advocating for Jewish nationalism or anything like that either. It is just a straightforward piece against anti-semitism. The thrust of the article is not to advocate for special privileges or carve-outs for Jews - not the way that e.g. black authors openly advocate for reparations and other special privileges - but rather just to say "please stop attacking us". It is purely defensive.)
But this is what you always do - anything a Jew says is evidence of the sinister racial character of Jews, no matter how innocuous the thing, or no matter how much people of other cultures do the exact same thing. You cite "the very long history of Jews presenting their one-sided account of a political conflict as "journalism"" as if it isn't completely normal and expected for anyone's account of a political conflict to favour their own side. Hamza El Boudali's account of the conflict at Stanford is completely one-sided. Political tribalism is a human constant. Jews and Palestinians are no different to, say, pro-life and pro-choice journalists.
What we don't have is an ethnically Chinese-owned major national newspaper with a Chinese chief editor publishing reports from a Chinese journalist (in fact, a mere Sophomore who only is being published because of his Chinese parents who have connections in the industry), which selectively cites hearsay and reports from Chinese witnesses to "report" on a political conflict involving Chinese nationalism and ethnic Chinese interests on one side, and their political opposition on the other- and trying to pass that off as "objective journalism."
What you are talking about- "an article by a black person criticizing anti-black feelings" is not all comparable to the long-standing pattern of behavior I am identifying- a vertically integrated propaganda apparatus which presents ethnic advocacy as journalism.
I'm sorry but this is just absurd, Theo Baker's article is advocating for Jewish nationalism by writing propaganda for the benefit of the Jewish nationalist side of the conflict. It is not "purely defensive." It is offensive. They are framing the conflict and using their influence to present one side of that conflict while claiming an objectivity that doesn't exist. @coffee_enjoyer pointed out the ways in which this article is one-sided. This is not defensive this is how they have always sought to wrangle control of public opinion. They are the only ones who operate in this way to this extent in the United States.
I certainly agree that political tribalism is a human constant. How do Jews engage in political tribalism? By exploiting their ownership and connection over sources of information. This is how they operate. This it not how blacks or Arabs operate in the United States, they get patronized in various ways but they don't steer the ship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The relationship between crime rates and HBD is much less clear cut than the relationship with income and academic performance. Genetically highly similar populations have huge variation in crime rates around the world, which suggest that environment (particularly enforcement, obviously) plays a major role.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel this is good place to post recent events in Vanderbilt college. So a group of pro Palestine students decide to make a sit in and occupy a building. The university responds with the mildest possible measures (not letting them access bathrooms) instead of folding over and well - the protesters don't look that good when you ignore their crybulling.
https://vanderbilthustler.com/2024/03/26/inside-kirkland-hall-vanderbilt-divest-coalition-protestors-report-inhumane-treatment-amid-student-suspensions-and-arrest-of-reporter/
It isnt even that they weren't allowed access to restrooms... the building was closed (at least partially) due to construction, and the students had to shove past a security guard to get in. So it's more "You're not allowed to use the restrooms in the building you broke into (same as everyone else isn't allowed to enter and use them), but you can feel free to leave and use any other building on campus (like everyone else)."
Campus police also prohibited the people delivering Panera from entering the building to deliver it to the protestors (which, again, this building was in a somewhat-closed status unrelated to the protests).
It's also a bit ironic given that Vandy came out with a Free Expression Initiative a little while back, which I was heartily in favor of. I think overall, the admin has done a pretty good job of handling this, the overall Israel/Hamas conflict, and also the upcoming election.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I went to a normal but good public high school like @BahRamYou (please don't ram me), and understood from the get-go that an elite college was out of reach. I thought it was incredibly silly that anyone even countenanced elite college from this background, though some did, and the wokest ones got in. I don't resent it, because I understood that the elite colleges are for the upper class and people the upper class has pity on. I'm middle class, have always been middle class, and I followed the middle class path.
A "good school" to my class is a state school, a "bad school" is a private school, because the only private schools any of my peers were likely to get into would just be tens of thousands more a semester for no extra signaling benefit. Nobody in my class had a stone's chance in hell of getting into any school the upper-middle class would consider "good" unless they were some kind of minority. Getting in-state tuition at a flagship state school was the goal.
My peers are, generally, doing okay. Lots of people working in IT, office jobs, computer programming, nursing, teaching, medical tech, even a couple doctors if I recall correctly. Lots of people having cute babies and building lives together. Some aren't doing well, but that's true for any population of people. Not going to an elite college didn't destroy everyone's ability to live a good and happy life. It destroyed their chance of becoming elite, but they didn't have that expectation anyway. I'm going to teach my children that there's no way on earth they're going to be President or have an elite role, but there's every chance in the world they're going to have a meaningful, fulfilling life if they focus on living according to their values and focusing on the content of their friends' and partners' character instead of their status.
I don't understand the obsession with it, either. Not everyone in society is going to be elite. Some people are going to be normies. The struggle is to identify areas of economic need and study those. Blue collar work is in demand, and we desperately need conscientious people with integrity in these roles that are undervalued for status reasons. White collar jobs still exist.
When people describe all these expectations, all these extracurriculars, all this stress about test scores and good schools and networking and "don't you dare make a mistake"... it sounds so unbelievably suffocating that it's yet another non-miracle to me that so many preppy professional people have concluded our society is deeply oppressive. Because for them, it is.
It is totally fascinating to me that the upper-middle class folks typically hold an ideology that talks a lot about human equality, and says people don't choose their life outcomes, and we need to be respectful of people's different lifestyles, and yada yada yada, but also thinks mediocrity is a terrible life outcome, and you better go to an elite school and have an elite job! The intense pressure I see some people describe is totally alien to me. Sometimes I have to do a double-take, because it sounds like people are describing China and not America.
This is a drum I occasionally beat- the upper class kids aren’t alright. Mental health, transgenderism, it’s not just screens. Upper class kids from culturally liberal backgrounds are under an immense amount of pressure to do things that are extremely difficult in arbitrary ways. Understandably many of them don’t make it. Some become failsons, who have a laissez-faire attitude to community college and smoke lots of weed while living with their parents into adulthood. Some milk themselves and others try to change their gender first.
There’s no forgiveness for error, either. You wonder why cancel culture has no ramp back? That’s why.
More options
Context Copy link
I understand what you're saying, but you sound like you believe your outcomes are essentially fixed at birth, or very early in life. I agree that it's rare for someone to break out of their class origins, and it's also probably unrealistic and unhealthy to have "joining the elites" as a goal in life, such that you'll feel like a failure in life if you don't get there.
That said, it is possible to do this, and someone who really sets their mind to it (and has the raw ability, an important qualification) has at least a chance.
Currently reading a biography of Abraham Lincoln, our quintessential "born in a log cabin" American success story. And it does not disappoint: for once, the mythology is mostly true. His father was an uneducated shiftless failure who sneered at "book learning." His mother was a decent but equally uneducated woman who may also have been kind of a floozy. He grew up in crude, impoverished surroundings with violent, uneducated, low trust people who saw no value in working hard or being ambitious or trying to improve their lives because this was assumed to be foolish and pointless. Lincoln failed in most of his business ventures and several attempts at careers.
Now, Abraham Lincoln was obviously exceptional. Even at a young age, people were recognizing that he was smarter than his peers. But while obviously not everyone will be a log cabin to president success story, I would submit that what separated Lincoln was not so much his intelligence, but that at a young age he explicitly rejected your premise: "This is the class I was born into and I should not expect to escape it."
Lincoln was president in the 1800s. It's easy to believe that class divisions back then didn't work like they do now, especially given the proportionately greater rural population.
If anything, it was harder in the 1800s to move up in class.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't that going too far? The reality is that there is a small but real chance that your children actually are going to attain elite status in society. I don't see the benefit of trying to train them to not have outrageous-level ambition.
I think it makes sense to teach children not to put all their hopes in life on becoming NBA players, famous actors, or elite politicians. But I wouldn't want to train them to think that they have literally no chance of becoming elite.
For some people that is just the reality. They don't have the family background, connections, money, time or resources to white-knuckle their way into the elite. If they get involved in politics, they may become relatively important at a local level. Much less chance they'll be important nationally, and replicating Obama's success at "I went from the log cabin to the White House" is impossible. As it was for Obama, he most certainly was not from the log cabin background, and it's probably important to note that the first African-American president wasn't the typical, even upper-class, African-American.
They can do well, of course, which is what urquan is saying. But unless they're unusually talented, they are not going to be the next Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, to take examples. They're not going to get into the Ivies, they are not going to be hob-nobbing with the movers and shakers except on a local level, and that's perfectly fine because you don't have to agonise over being one of the 1% or 10% to have a good life.
Wanting to be rich and famous, when there isn't a realistic chance of that, is just going to make you unhappy. How many complaints do we see of the "I was told 'just be yourself' and that would get me a girlfriend, this was all lies" type? We'll see the same over "I was told 'you can be anything' but that was all lies" if you sell your ordinary kid the American Dream of being extraordinary. The American Dream is "you can make it", but it's "even a poor serf or peasant like you from the Old Country can make it, because the circumstances holding you down there don't apply here". It wasn't "Marco Abramohvic can be president fresh off the boat", it was "Marco Abramohvic, fresh off the boat, can work his way up to owning his own small shop selling cheese without being taxed out the door by the local squire, duke, or pogrom".
Now if Marco establishes a cheese empire, maybe his grand-kids who have changed their name to Abrams can get into the Ivies and be part of the elite, because rising up into the gentry class is a thing that happens. But if they're still Abramohvic with the small cheese shop, no. That's the reality that urquan is talking about. And it's not a bad life, either.
What is bad is the messaging that unless you scrabble your way into the elite, you are a loser in life, even if you have a normal, ordinary, decent life. That's harmful. If you don't go to Harvard, you are missing out! In fact, you are being denied! Discriminated against! It is your right to go to Harvard! Well, are you good enough to go to Harvard in the first place? If you are, and you are being hampered by deliberate obstacles set in your path, then go ahead and fight for your rights, and I'll support you. But if the answer is no, I'm smaller university if university at all level, then you are not being denied anything and the life you can get is not a bad life.
RDS is a national level politician and he came from a blue collar background.
DeSantis claims to have a working class background, but as far as I can tell it's largely fictional. His parents were more-or-less working-class, but he went straight from high school to Yale, was briefly a teacher, and then went to Harvard Law School. He then into the US Navy as an officer. DeSantis himself has never had a blue-collar job.
There's a point where "my father once had a job where he worked with his hands" doesn't count for that much.
Being born to a working class family is a working class background no matter how many scholarships you get.
More options
Context Copy link
Huh? I’m not disputing that RDS went to Yale and Harvard. I’m saying he didn’t grow up elite which is what OP suggested.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think federal office is more or less closed to non-elites. I can’t remember the last time someone from a normie background achieved such a thing. Maybe Carter, but even in his era, he’s an outlier, you’d probably need to go back the the 19th century to find a significant swath of congress being from relatively normal-people backgrounds.
As to what to teach kids, I mean I think it’s cruel to over promise on their futures. We’re in the third generation of people raised to dream big. And I think for the 99% who won’t get those things, their lives were hampered by these outrageously high aspirations that any adult could have told them were wildly unreasonable. The result is a generation saddled with a lifetime of debt for a degree that is quite literally worthless. It’s young adults feeling like failures because their wildly inflated expectations of success in fields where there are maybe ten thousand new graduates hoping for a single job. We graduate more psychology majors every year then there are psychologists in the USA. We graduated millions of aspiring artists with no real job skills despite the fact that even those who manage to sell their art almost certainly won’t make a living off their art. Publishing houses get mountains and mountains of letters from people who want to be writers. Now they can’t pay off their loans, can’t get a real job, and have been taught that the jobs they’re actually qualified for are beneath them. I’m sorry, but for the vast majority, the fine arts and liberal arts majors qualify the students for retail and restaurant jobs. Psychology is in a similar position. Had they been told at 18 that they were likely to get an ordinary job and live an ordinary life, they’d very likely have chosen a major of actual career value and not be making TikTok’s of themselves crying in the car because they got a worthless degree loads of debt and can only get jobs at call centers, retail and restaurants.
I think all of the above is a way to say that essentially people need to think more about what the failure state is. Over encouraging your kids to dream big rarely results in huge success and more likely results in heartache and financial difficulties.
Doesn’t Ron Desantis disprove your rule that non-elites can’t achieve high office or even Joe Biden?
Desantis has like 400k networth now. Yes he has has the elite degrees. This just says the filter for entering the elites may be earlier. He no doubt got great SAT scores early then got into elite schools. Paid for it looks like from ROTC money.
The thing with the filter being earlier it could mean one of two things.
Joe Biden doesn’t seem to have money or elite academics early.
The filter may fall in different ways for different people. Even in the days of aristocracy, a super-gifted person might be able to claw their way into elite circles. Or perhaps one of high ambition and the will to do what it takes to get in. But barring near obsession with making it or extremely high skill, I don’t think it’s possible to be in a federal elected position (and by the way, Desantis as governor is in state politics, not federal).
More options
Context Copy link
But that's the point there; you can say "DeSantis and Biden came from ordinary backgrounds" but when you look at them, yeah ordinary backgrounds but DeSantis was smart enough to get into the good university etc.
Biden, looking him up on Wikipedia, has a law degree. He's not an ex-coal miner like Keir Hardie. Indeed, he even was an adjunct professor, and even if we presume this was an easy gig, again it's not "and Joe is blue-collar salt of the earth background" as per the potted bio notion of his life:
And seemingly the family background was affluent, but then became what would be called elsewhere "distressed gentlefolk" until his father later got back on his feet:
He got into local politics, got elected to the Senate, and carved out a career as a good reliable old-style party hack with a solid reputation as the guy who didn't step out of line and knew how to wheel and deal. That was his major selling point both as Obama's VP and as President: "he's not gonna rock the boat".
I've seen the same thing in the Irish, and British, Labour Parties: the guys from the working-class, trade union background were slowly eased out or replaced by the middle-class striver types, who went to university and have affluent middle to upper-middle class family backgrounds and family members.
The last genuine working-class Labour leader for Ireland was Frank Cluskey from 1977-81. The current leaderette (I don't like her and never have) is Ivana Bacik. My personal fave of this trend is Ruairi Quinn, our first openly atheist minister, party leader from 1997-2002, so fierily socialist as a student radical that his nickname was Ho Chi Quinn, and... his brother and cousin are (or were) prominent businessmen, so none of the proletariat tendency there.
If coal miners became politicians today it would mean our entire meritocracy and educational system has failed.
I think it’s reasonable to say the leaders of our complex society should be IQ 130 and probably around a 1500 SAT score. The entire filter for our system would be failing if that kid isn’t getting selected into a top 25 university today.
It’s also been said of unions that the leaders no longer come from the workers but from outside of it. Back in the day poor immigrant kids who were smart might not have been caught up into our systems filters for leadership and would have taken the mill job. Their intelligence would have led them to leadership. But now they are filtered out earlier.
It just feels like going backwards and a thing for poor countries to not identify their most talented individuals early. Do we want 1500 SAT kids working at Wal-Mart for 20 years so they can be good working class people?
many such cases. https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/scores/1500-sat-score-is-this-good
Not sure on your point. I wasn’t saying that can get you into any school. But it does seem to be a reasonable IQ level for top American public offices.
Also every school in the top 17 except Cal Tech has per class enrollment of over 1k. So I’m fairly sure being the 20k best SAT score makes you competitive far earlier than the 17th school.
The 20th school is Notre Dame. In the fictional world of the West Wing the POTUS went to Notre Dame which seems to be a reasonable place approximately to start the academic achievement area for smart enough to handle the intellectual rigor of top office.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't have "tell your kids they can be and do anything" and also "only the top top men get the top top jobs".
I don’t believe any kid can be anything. So no hypocrisy there.
I would say though until you truly know a kids ability telling them they can do anything is a good thing and probably helped me. But that’s because I grew up lower class where most can’t rise up anymore but did end up having top 1% test scores. Until you figure out if someone has talent you should leave the door open.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Take the transitive closure of the inference steps you are doing here, and you basically arrive at "groups that are definitionally unsuited for governing roles should not self-govern". This may sound attractive to you as long as you can model the qualification as a one-dimensional parameter like IQ, but what if society develops sufficient complexity that a caste emerges which is (genetically, socially) optimised for politics in particular, rather than general intelligence? Would you then also consider it a failure of the system if any group is represented and governed by people who are not members of the caste of Superior Politicians, and thus either a born Superior Politician's potential was wasted, or administration is suboptimal? In that case, you've basically reinvented one standard argument for a medieval aristocracy.
It’s not a gotcha to me.
In that case society would be better governed by the Superior Politicians provided you mean by that they make decisions that mostly benefit all of society on net.
I also have no problem saying S Africa would be better off for everyone if only whites could vote versus everyone. I also believe that is being proven true.
And in the case of S Africa that with the whites not even giving a shit about the blacks. Your super politicians are implying that they actually would have a feel for how to benefit everyone versus being only incentivized to benefit themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
The public should be educated such that members of the public who are capable of understanding self-governing are taught it.
You could ask "what if society is so complex that it's not even possible to teach people?" but I'm skeptical that this can be a thing if the elite is capable of understanding it. And "the populace can't be taught" is a magnet for motivated reasoning (or lying thinly covered by motivated reasoning) and probably won't result in an accurate assessment of whether the populace can be taught.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't agree with this at all. Leaders should be people who actually have had to deal with the real world that most Americans experience on a daily basis. I don't give a damn about their IQ or their SAT scores.
Do you have an example of a well functioning government led by low IQ people?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is obviously terrible, but the problems with the leaders no longer coming from the workers is that not only are their interests no longer aligned with the workers' interests, but even if they were benevolent they aren't going to really understand the workers' interests.
IMO I mostly think the elites have done a good job for US workers. They work fewer hours than their parents and their homes have 10x the stuff.
In my opinion the actual erosion isn’t with economics it’s all the social policy that is hurting them the most. The working class was a lot better when they had more religiousity governing their behavior and not the elites culture of today. The tran stuff just confuses them. For every 1 in a couple thousand kids with actual biological transexualism there are hundred if not more working class kids confused who just work better with simpler sexual culture and traditions. Most would be better if the rule was just have sex with the person whose about your intelligence and attractiveness within a 10 min.walk and marry them for 70 years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem with that is you are brain-draining the labor class of all their natural leaders, and assimilating them into the gentry culture that considers working class culture its enemy. When the union leaders and managers come back from their elite colleges to manage the coal miners and Wal-Mart workers, they will no longer be working class kids who rose through the ranks and who understand and represent the interests of their people; they will instead be culturally-foreign occupiers.
Sure but then obviously you would need an India style class system where some people by birth would be restricted in their career options. This is contra to all of American history.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with MaicTheTrue. Ron DeSantis is one individual. Think of base rates: there is only one Ron DeSantis. Perhaps a handful of other politicians with similar backgrounds. What is the probability your kid is going to be the next one?
Think it in terms of sports. Some individuals become the elite sport stars worth millions of dollars and have a pretty nice life until they retire. it doesn't change the fact that 99.x% of kids who want to become top players in a major league never become one. For a parent of perfectly ordinary good kid with ordinary good talents, it would be very irresponsible to encourage their kids to start on the path of all necessary requirements to become a top athlete (invest heavily in training and start their sports career in their teens). It makes sense if you have a pretty good probability that either your kid is in the top 1/10,000 talent bracket or if you are from gang-ridden favela without any other prospects and there is absolutely nothing to lose. Neither case applies to most people in the first world, where there is a secure career path option.
I believe it is quite the same thing if you want to become an elite political operative. You need right personality, some intellectual capacity, right social talents, in-born ambition, and looks (or charisma, which is often again, the looks). If the kid is not naturally popular in his/her group of kids and demonstrating the instincts of top political operative by age 11, I don't think it would be useful feed them the ambition to be a top politician.
Ambition is good thing, but it is better to direct it to useful pursuits.
AOC? That’s two. I don’t think Massie was from some elite family and well it as well known as the other two is still pretty well known.
More options
Context Copy link
You don’t need to be a politician at 22 to be a politician at 60. They can go on the safer career paths (honestly prefer politicians with outside politics experience).
Truth is in a meritocracy especially with intelligence being highly hereditary you would expect the longer that meritocracy exists that elites would largely come from some form of elites (in Americas case it’s going to be dominated by the PMC or top 20%). The only way you get elites from the lower class with intelligence being hereditary is when you have another blocking force like in immigrant communities that are working class initially before those immigrant communities sort themselves on intelligence. And the occasional smart kids whose family was poor because of alcoholism (my dad died of liver cancer so I sort of fit this).
Sure. And my point kinda was, any random kid is going to better served by realistically geared aspirations and fully generic "how to be successful in life, at the margin" kind of lessons (less about becoming the president or going to Harvard, more about conscientiousness, habit forming, reading the room to observe true unwritten rules). If the kid has the special something to become the president, he/she will stumble upon that path by their own talents (or perhaps you already possess much more meaningful resources to help them than aspirations only, such as a trust fund or networks).
Unrelated, but there may be something wrong with that model, depending on how do you quantify "largely" and all the rest of the details. An example of a possible mechanic to consider: Consider differential birthrates in social strata. Suppose a fully deterministic hereditary model of genetic eliteness and the meritocratic elite has relatively less children than non-elite classes. Then, due to dwindling applicant pool, either the size of elite gets smaller each generation, or the brightest sons and daughters of plebeian background must be given opportunities to enter. Alternatively, if the meritocratic elite has relatively more kids but size of elite stays the same, in a couple of generations, there will be large class of nearly elite upper middle class class just below the threshold, with nearly the same genetic background as the members of elite. Due to random variation, some kids of this non-elite upper middle class again would have the merits to become elite again.
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree with your view on elites but I agree 100% with this. This is what people did for a very long period of time, and it's what led to all the old couples I know being happily married for decades. There are multiple stories in my family history of either a guy or girl at age 15 seeing the cute-one-next-door riding their bike and saying, out loud, "I'm going to marry that one." And then it happening. They found an eligible person who met their minimum standards for attractiveness and similarity, and chose to commit to them. By contrast, my girlfriend's mom had an insightful commentary on people in relationships today: "They keey divorcing because they just keep shopping." Stop shopping, stop comparing, stop optimizing, make an acceptable choice and allow the natural human instincts for pair-bonding do their job, and then continue to choose your partner even when it gets tough. That's what love means!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't mind being "normal" if normal means middle-class. But I'm worried that the middle-class is dying out. You're either a leader, or a follower. A manager/capitalist, or a worker/proletariat. We had, for a while, a middle class of technicians, educated from normal schools, who were able to use our brains to make a good living. But that option seems to be hollowing out.
I'm not sure who you mean, because I think "technicians", read broadly, are still in pretty good shape. There's a whole flurry of medical professions often requiring a 2-year degree that would fit the bill (many are "technologist" rather than "technician"). The blue collar jobs called "technician" are still around too, though obviously some are better than others. It's the vast class of lower-skill blue-collar factory jobs which have gone away, and those were always solidly in the "worker" realm.
More options
Context Copy link
This upper middle class group hasn't been hollowed out, it's been growing. What is hollowing out is the middle class factory line worker who makes good money despite being effectively a low skilled laborer. The skilled knowledge workers have been growing in numbers and income.
Until they in turn will be hollowed out by AI taking over their jobs, as is the fond hopes of the owners of the companies employing them. We may look back in future decades at these "skilled knowledge workers" as the equivalent of the "unskilled labourer" on the assembly line.
I don't think AI is going to be either the bugbear or the cornucopia of post-scarcity that it's being portrayed as, but I do think some people are going to get unpleasant surprises about how "skilled" their ability is deemed for work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This seems woefully optimistic to me, not least in the assumption that people would abandon these positions were they made less than maximally appealing. There's no small amount of the people leading this charge who headily predate modern college admissions being driven by "looking really good" -- up to and including professors and administrators.
I think the more plausible argument why this has gone so hard so fast is that the conventions against doing so were proven wrong. Until the mid-00s, there was an argument -- a credible and serious argument -- that the Progressive movement had to win by persuading people, not just as a matter of principle but principle and pragmatics. That one defeats one's enemies by making them your friends. But by 2012 making Bad People Afraid worked, by 2014 and the aftermath of the ACA, it had already become respectability politics; by 2015, the answer was yes, you could get everything you wanted by stigmatizing and shunning and silencing those opposed to you hard enough, and some turgid prose on top, too. All the people worried about pushback or the pendulum shifting or whatever metaphor you want were wrong, and I say that as someone who plead at length with exactly that argument in the belief my neck was on the line.
It's a genuinely harsh paradox, and harsher still for those of us who haven't let the New Respectability hollow us out like skin suits, but it doesn't stop existing just because you ignore it.
Search term you're looking for is the Leonard Law, passed in 1992. Not sure by how much; the California legis lookup only goes to 1992. Stanford did try the our ban is our free speech thing, but courts rejected it. The 2007 Amendment was passed with pretty clear margins, though Yee (better known for his other work) being involved doesn't encourage.
Wait, are you suggesting that Obergefell derived from making Bad People Afraid? Or just that it was the end which proved such means would be tolerated?
I don't know.
I'd like to believe that it merely proved people like Dan Savage would be tolerated and feted, rather than undermine and weaken their movements, and that in a counterfactual world where everyone instead focused on honest debate and open engagement, Obergefel would still have happened, perhaps with a bunch of references to South Park's Big Gay Al. In this world, though, we got that sorta stuff, and Savage bullying a bunch of teenagers as part of his anti-bullying campaign was just the most on-the-nose bit, rather than the worst or even highest profile.
And there is a large portion of the progressive movement believes that sort of behavior was a large portion of why they won, and it's not obvious that they're wrong. Putting massive social, career, and legal costs to opposing gay marriage genuinely blew apart a lot of anti-gay marriage movements; breaking any opposition to favored goals as homophobia worked; leaking donation records and sending newcasters to individual rando's homes increased the cost of doing those things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I meant I was curious about the PR and legal reasoning of Stanford announcing a "ban" they acknowledge is illegal to enforce.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I went to the opposite: good, solid, public high school in the Midwest where everyone was clueless about how admission for the elite colleges worked. There were lots of us who were smart, hard-working, good grades, good test scores, etc. And we just got our asses kicked in admissions to the elite schools, because none of us had the right kind of extracurriculars or the right essays, and the teachers didn't know how to write recommendation letters for us. In retrospect I can see the mistakes I made, but how was I supposed to know that as a naive quakka-like 16-yr-old? I'm still a little bitter about that, and I do think it results in a society that rewards machiavellian sociopaths.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link