site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35411 thread views

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No it isn't, given that most of the concern is coming from gentile whites.

It depends on what you mean by "most." Those most responsible for its hegemony in the academy have been Jewish. Franz Boas and his disciples who took over anthropology departments across the country, and opposed white Darwinists and eugenicists, were engaging in an ethnic struggle against those concerns of white racial politics. You admit to all the individual parts, you just don't accept the whole.

You asked me for evidence that HBD denial is the outcome of ethnic conflict. Then you say it's the result of "universalist worry about the consequences of white race politics". But it was not universalist. There was a conflict, which followed strong ethnic trends between Jews and Gentiles, in which the side dominated by the Jews won hegemony in the academy. The hegemony is now "universalist" because the Boasians won the conflict and fortified their hegemony using every dishonest, dogmatic, anti-scientific, and authoritarian tactic in the book.

HBD denial wasn't a scientific error, it was a political triumph.

You can have the last word, as far as I'm concerned you have conceded the point I was trying to make and now you're splitting hairs.

You're equating subversive intellectual and cultural influence with "conquest." Obviously you do so because it's easy to argue that Jews haven't conquered Gentiles, and it's very hard to argue that Jews have not had strong cultural and intellectual influence on issues like HBD.

Why don't you actually make an argument? Just say that Jews have had no particular strong influence in opposing HBD in anthropology and the sciences. You're too afraid to argue that, so you instead opt for spouting this cowardly garbage that has no content to respond to.

spouting this cowardly garbage

I'm not totally happy with the level of charity in this thread, but certainly your rhetoric here has crossed over into "unnecessarily antagonistic" territory. Please don't.

I’m saying that the MacDonald thesis and your “stage 3” go way, way beyond discussing the impact of Jewish academics on early evolutionary psychology

The argument is indeed generalizable. That is a testament to its strength. It's an argument that gives both Jews and Gentiles agency, unlike your suggestion that Jews have just been beholden to Red Tribe / Blue Tribe politics within the fixed liberal framework, without having any agency to frame the culture or debate in a way that they perceive to be in their ethnic benefit.

You also attribute extremely strong claims that nobody makes. MacDonald and others fully attribute liberalism to the Puritan Anglo tradition and to the particularities of that ethnos. MacDonald has an entire book on the evolutionary psychology of Europeans and how that led to individualism and liberalism. They perform the same mode of analysis in understanding the emergence of liberalism and individualism as being a product of evolutionary psychology. What you take issue with is when they generalize that analysis to movements with substantial Jewish influence in the development of liberalism in the 20th century.

Suffice it so say that as I’ve said before I have a broadly Churchill-Solzhenitsynesque view on the matter and think both ‘sides’ are dealing with motivated reasoning in a bout of interethnic hostility in which ‘science’ is just a tool to shore up the persuasiveness of one’s own preset position.

Not sure what you mean by "Churchill" view on the matter. Churchill, for his part, attributed Jewish influence as being the most decisive factor of the Bolshevik revolution that outweighed all other factors. I agree that the MacDonald/Cofnas debate is an expression of interethnic hostility. That's yet another example of these conclusions generalizing because they are true.

You will acknowledge the MacDonald/Cofnas debate as an expression of interethnic hostility. What about the feud between the Grantians and Boasisans? E.O Wilson vs Gould? Charles Murray vs Erich Turkheimer? These are all expressions of interethnic hostility, and that is the entire conclusion of Level 3 as such. That is not as strong a claim as you are trying to frame it as being "conquest" or universal blame for every single idea or movement.

It does indeed reflect poorly on Whites. You understand now why there's such a sharp and bitter intra-White political divide.

No it isn't, given that most of the concern is coming from gentile whites.

Is it proportionally coming from them?

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