site banner
PaperclipPerfector  27d ago (text post)   25134 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 20, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Now you have me wondering if this might also be part of the answer to your question - clinics consciously avoiding potentially less qualified candidates from nearer to home, in a way that still makes them look "diverse".

This is the Harvard method. Supposedly, Harvard is like 20% black. The bad news is these are all rich international students, children of recent immigrants, and people with heavy European admixture.

It's been speculated that there are actually no Harvard students who have 4 ADS (American descendants of slaves) grandparents.

Hey, Google actually found it. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/10/15/gaasa-scrut/

Within Harvard’s GAA population today, O’Sullivan has noticed a seemingly large percentage of biracial students and students who come from socioeconomically-privileged backgrounds. “If we were to count the number of GAA students at Harvard who were descended from enslaved people, came from low income backgrounds, first generation, four grandparents descended from enslaved people, I feel like that number would be so low — like, maybe one person. It’s just so, so, so low,” she says.

Harvard is completely shutting out disadvantaged black people in America. Instead, Harvard pads its stats with people whose only connection with ADS people is the same skin color (and sometimes barely even that).

Ultimately, Harvard and the KKK share the same belief about race: That the color of your skin matters more than the content of your character.

Is this a fairly recent thing with Harvard? And is there a big gap between Harvard and 10-20 ranked American schools? I can’t think of people I know who went to the second tier of schools and one who went to Stanford who were ADOS. This article sounds like there are basically none. I think they said perhaps 17.

I think it is fair to say if ADOS at Harvard basically do not exists then all of DEI is just a grift. If your concern is structural racism then Harvard shouldn’t just be recruiting in Nigeria if they are extremely concerned about structural racism. If you believe the issue is structural racism as oppose to lack of ability admitting a ton of ADOS would be an obvious solution and something Harvard has the ability to fix (training plus credentialing) a ton of Nigerians and no ADOS would be a refusal to do the hard thing for laziness or tacit admission that ADOS are just too dumb to be at Harvard.

Also there is a big difference between padding the stats and the article sounding like there are a dozen or two ADOS at Harvard.

Is this a fairly recent thing with Harvard?

No, Harvard has been shutting out ADOS students for at least 20 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/us/top-colleges-take-more-blacks-but-which-ones.html

While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, Lani Guinier, a Harvard law professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of Harvard's African and African-American studies department, pointed out that the majority of them -- perhaps as many as two-thirds -- were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.

were West Indian

This really boggles the mind. They are as much DOS as ADOS are, the vast majority of them were worked to death so the survivors weren't chosen for their working ethic or intelligence, why aren't they as dysfunctional as ADOS?

  • It can't be their genes, unless you subscribe to the idea that it's the white trash admixture that is responsible for low ADOS performance
  • It can't be their socioeconomic circumstances, Jamaican GDP PPP per capita is $13543, according to IMF, while Mississippi's is $49911

Selective immigration, probably. We're not getting random Jamaicans.

But if America is getting the right tail of the West Indies DOS, shouldn't there also be a corresponding right tail for native ADOS? ADOS are about 42m as of 2020, while Wikipedia says that the entire West Indies is 44m, and a quarter of that is Cuba, and that's the entire population including whites and all other races.

The corresponding right tail for ADOS presents identically to the black families of progressive dreams. Suburban 2 parented households with no crime. These blacks just refuse to identify with their failed brethren, like how suburban whites do not identify with kensington fent zombies.

I agree, although I think "refuse to identify" is too strong - there seems to be a "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude, from what I've heard. But yes, from what I can tell, a lot of racial disparities seem to be mediated by class rather than coming directly from race.

Anyway, looking back at the original quote, those with four American DOS grandparents make up 33%, so there's 66% who have at least one grandparent who is from Africa or the West Indies, or who is non-black. Put that way, the numbers make a lot more sense. It could easily be the long-hoped-for cultural assimilation at work, where once people make it into the upper-middle-class (this being Harvard), they identify more and more with their class peers, regardless of geographical background and sometimes regardless of skin color. And so their children and grandchildren still count as "black" in America's racial classification, but they aren't the sort of "black" that intelligent progressives want to focus on.

The problem is that the 'blacks' progs want to lift up don't end up in prog circles to kiss the ring in thanks of prog generosity. The most black millionaires come from sports and rap industries, hardly fields progs find affinity or interest in. Progs want to raise a black girl out of the hood to be president and crowd down the normie whites that otherwise occupy that position, replacing white competitors with grateful black toadies.

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