site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So perhaps the objection to HBD needn't be based on how true or explanatory it is, but that the implications will only leave us with severely uncomfortable questions to examine with even more uncomfortable possible answers, which might be better to save for a later date when our tech is much improved. Not my preference, but arguably it's like drawing up plans to colonize the galaxy before we've even set up a presence anywhere beyond our primary planet: a fun question to ponder, but ultimately a task for later generations.

I'm already willing to bite the deterministic bullet and say that the universe is causal so I can say the water is just fine over here. I'm not so sure that we'd be doing ourselves any favors saving this for a later date, how many more rocks can blank slatists turn over trying to cure the achievement gap before the possible sources of discrimination start sounding like blood libel? I genuinely think HBD denial may be an existential threat.

I genuinely think HBD denial may be an existential threat.

I'd rank it very very low on the list (as in, less dangerous than many other risks) if so. Certainly could argue that to the extent it hobbles our ability to deal with other problems and slows our species' social and scientific progress it makes us more susceptible to other existential threats.

I'm already willing to bite the deterministic bullet and say that the universe is causal so I can say the water is just fine over here.

The question is slightly less about whether the universe is causal... more about whether there's anything we can 'do' about the causal universe from the inside. The acausal universe I'd 'accept' because then we can probably agree there's nothing we can do to impact anything, since anything could happen to anyone at any time for no reason.

But assuming we come to understand the rules of the universe well enough to comprehend the way events follow from one another down to a, say, molecular level, does that mean we're capable of acting on it? That's the agency question I'm trying to bring up.

e.g. if we simply don't have the tech to influence particular outcomes, there's simply no point in pretending we have any say in the outcome at this point.