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 -
Look, you can argue that blacks are stupid, especially when compared to whites, but they aren't blind. They can look around and tell that they're worse off than whites and an explanation of "well, that's just how it is, umm, can we talk about something else" has very little appeal to them. Someone was going to fill the niche of blaming it all on racism and pretending there is no difference in outcomes is ignoring reality hard enough that you can't keep it up.
But it doesn’t seem like blacks created this current environment. It seems like this was mostly white on white crime.
If that isn’t stable then what is stable - teach differences in elementary school, noble lie, whatever we got now, or complete separation seem to be the only options.
Jim Crow worked and lasted for a long time. So did slavery. Those are sane, stable solutions to the problem of having a racial underclass that is much less intelligent, much more impulsive, and much more violent than average.
From "The White Man’s Burden: Reflections on the Custodial State" by Freed Reed:
From "What If HBD Is True?" by AntiDem:
From "Radish defends slavery" by the Dreaded Jim:
And from "Economic efficiency of slavery" by the same:
This stumbles right at the starting line, doesn’t it? American chattel slavery was not a solution to the presence of a less intelligent underclass.
It was a solution to the extremely high demand for agricultural labor in the colonies, the shortage of willing laborers who could survive the climate, and the increasing difficulty of forcing Irishmen into indenture or spiriting unfortunates off the streets of England’s port cities.
The enslaved Africans weren’t hanging around being stupid and problematic, getting underfoot, necessitating some productive use for them. Slavers had to cross oceans and force them into chains at considerable expense.
Slavery “worked” to make one percent of white people rich, but not nearly as rich as the barons of industry up north. The other ninety-nine percent, whose labor had been drastically devalued, toiled their lives away as hookworm-infested sharecroppers. Even the master up in the big house lived in rural ignorance and constant fear of overthrow. Establishing Southern society on a bedrock of slavery directly caused the Civil War, which was an utter fucking disaster for the South. Hundreds of thousands of poor whites died for their betters’ right to own people. Afterwards, the maintenance of Jim Crow required corruption, vigilantism, police brutality, and disrespect for constitutional rights. The institutional cultures that developed in this environment are most abusive to black citizens, but in their callousness they grind up vulnerable people of all colors. My region has lagged economically, because repressing the talents and capital accumulation of one third of your population makes everyone poorer. To this day the South suffers higher rates of poverty, disease, and violent crime. I’m an unreformed liberal, not a progressive, so I believe white supremacy is bad for me personally. It’s got a net negative ROI. It’s a devil’s bargain. It’s holding a wolf by the ears.
You and leading expert in race relations Robin DiAngelo seem to agree that white supremacy puts money in my pocket and beer in my fridge.
Curious.
Presumably the African slavers who forced them into slavery and sold them felt otherwise.
In all seriousness, every pre-industrial civilisation relied on some system of forcing people to do back-breaking physical labour. Africa had slavery since Ancient Egypt invaded Nubia, in Europe we had peasants and serfs. Now we have robotics (lit. Workers in Czech) and machines. Soon we will have AI.
From where I’m standing, the devil’s bargain is importing an ethnically distinct forced labour class. Once you do, even post industrialisation it will be very clear who was on which side of the metaphorical or literal whip and those wounds aren’t going to heal with time. Especially when the forces that put A on top of B end up not changing.
Since they were typically prisoners of war or raiding, no, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that their African captors considered them a stupid underclass getting underfoot. Problematic, perhaps, in the sense of “currently at war with my tribe.” But they weren’t useless, low-quality discards. They were sold because it was profitable, not because they were untermenschen.
Exactly. This was the problem American slavery solved, not the problem of a less intelligent underclass.
Losing a war kind of makes you untermenschen by default. One theory for why descendants of slavery underperform, say, Nigerian immigrants is that they are the children of the people who were easily conquered and didn’t provide much utility to their neighbours.
Would you consider US troops untermenschen by definition, and Afghan warlords their proven genetic superiors?
More options
Context Copy link
Almost all ethnic groups have lost at least one war. If losing a war makes you untermenschen, then English, French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Poles, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. are all untermenschen.
To be clear, I am speculating that a group descended by several generations from people taken captive after being conquered in war, or as the result of a successful raid, are likely to have worse outcomes than the children of the people who won those wars and committed those raids. Do you disagree?
I am not asserting that losing a war brands a group with the Mark of Perpetual Loserdom.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link