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 -
If we could uplift dogs or other non-sentient animals to sentience, should we? There's a Rick and Morty episode where they uplift the intelligence of a pet dog, who goes on to uplift all other dogs and lead a rebellion against humans. Theoretically the idea is that if humans and dogs had the same level of intelligence, the way we treat dogs would be inhumane.
While I agree with the statement above, obviously there's a vast gulf between the intelligence of humans and every other form of life we know of. If we accept the premise that once we have the technology to uplift dogs we not only must treat them different but have a moral imperative to uplift all dogs, we get into dangerous territory. Essentially as soon as we become capable of increasing the intelligence of any form of life, we must. This sounds like a bad idea, especially since at a certain point we may lose out to other forms of species that have evolved to kill us. (Mosquitos, insects generally that are hard to kill but venomous/diseased enough to kill us.)
Assuming uplifting other species is even possible, I wonder how this would change our outlook on how we treat animals today. Personally I am not a vegetarian, totally fine with pets, although I do find the state of factory farming today pretty dismal, and think we should treat animals we eat better. As someone's flair here says, how far will we last until we have to become outright speciesist?
We are already outright speciesist and we obviously should be. I think maybe the progressive drum has beat and suffixes like -ism/-phobia have totally lost their roots. It is only wrong to avoid -isms that cause you to discriminate in a way that is wrong/bad. Racism is wrong/bad because racism as a heuristic is both not all that good(It may cause you to assume Bruce Lee cannot fight or that Dirk Nowitzki will be bad at basketball) and violates the important inter-tribal truce that is liberalism without which there would be much suffering and gnashing of teeth. -phobias are bad because they imply irrational fear and things that are rational to fear often end up with the -phobia suffix incorrectly.
Speciesism is a perfectly rational and good position. It is a good heuristic that dogs are dumber than humans.
Why isn't it a good heuristic that some groups of humans are (generally) dumber than some others, despite all of the evidence supporting that? Because it's not quite as universal as dogs being dumber than humans (which isn't in fact even universal itself as there are some really brain-damaged, dementia-afflicted, etc. humans and some really smart dogs)? What degree of universality is required for a heuristic to be good? (My understanding of the word "heuristic" in the first place kind of precludes them from being universal as opposed to often true "rules of thumb" but perhaps you disagree.)
PS: I don't think any racist has ever stereotyped Asians as being bad at... traditionally East Asian martial arts.
Aren't suffering and gnashing of teeth sometimes necessary to escape a comfortable local maximum that is hindering discovering a higher point somewhere else along the function of human excellence? There has been much suffering throughout human history not just from illiberal conflict but also from even the perfectly peaceful aspects of the agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, etc. (You could argue that one or both of these has been a "disaster for the human race" and I won't necessarily disagree with you but even at that one must grant the objective technological advantages and improvements created by both.)
Well because the whole more in group variance than between group variance. It's over used but you're likely moving around in your daily life in an already heavily filtered bubble and should not assume that any black person who has made it near you is dumber than any white person who has made it near you. There are much much better heuristics for what you're trying to do on an individual level. On larger population levels you shouldn't be using heuristics at all and instead use better measurements.
Would you like to volunteer for the suffering? A world optimized for genetic fitness is not really a racist world unless you go by the kendi style outcome racism thing. Many many white and asian people also do not make the cut. And are you so sure you would? Maybe the cut is top 50% intelligence, maybe it's top 0.001%, more likely it's who is well connected people and you get recycled for your spare proteins. You better be damn sure you're going to end up on top if you are considering abandoning liberalism. If your ideas can only be discussed on obscure internet forums consider that you'd be the Jew and not the SS officer and think long and hard about it.
Are you referring to Lewontin's fallacy?
This isn't what a understanding of racial IQ statistics means though.
If your only defense of liberalism is "We need liberalism, because the only alternative to it is my strawman conception of ruthless, nepotistic survival of the fittest!" then that's not very convincing. By that logic I can say you should support illiberalism because how sure can you be that you or someone you care about won't fall in the long run to liberalism's degeneracy and become a drug addict or something?
Or if we look more into the future, how about a wirehead? Who will avoid the ever increasing levels of mindless wireheading (with social media scrolling being an obvious prototype of this) that liberalism encourages? Maybe the cut is top 50%, maybe it's top 0.001%, more likely it's who is well connected will know the cheat codes to save themselves from their own system's flaws and your daughter ends up on VR OnlyFans at best.
That depends on the suffering. Noble suffering is superior to ignoble pleasure. Of course one does not "volunteer" for it. That's besides the point though, unless you an absolute voluntaryist which I am not. Nobody volunteers for life in general. So what?
You seem to refuse to consider the possibility that the SS officer can be killed by the Jew, even though that's exactly what happened post-1945.
I'm not going to read a whole study to find out what your objection is. Studies should be included to support an argument, not in place of one.
Presumably you would have some ability to prevent those you care about from falling into some degenerate spiral or instantiate you own sub population within liberalism capable of forming norms to your liking like many populations like Mormons and the Amish have successfully done. You just can't use force to keep people in them. Before you cite interference with such communities I oppose such interference and consider it illiberal. You cannot prevent yourself from being liquidated by a superior force.
This is the same argument communists make and it's just as bad, you can make whatever society you want within liberalism, that you've failed to do so and you think the missing ingredient is access to state force is very telling.
So don't wire head.
Which outside super power do you expect to save you, not even as their main goal from this fate?
The central objection is right in the abstract. You can't read one paragraph?
That's debatable. I've had some decent amount of fun with Mormon girls.
Really? Your liberalism is going to let me create pedofascism? Doubt it.
Wow, amazing. I can't believe you just solved vice in four words. Have you told all of the overeaters, alcoholics, porn addicts, crack addicts, and other victims of liberal excess this? "lmao bro just prevent yourself and everyone you know and everyone whose actions could impact your life in anyway from being manipulated by perverse incentives, temptation, etc. It's not that hard!" Your statement is "Teach men not to rape!"-tier.
No super power is necessary. The outcomes listed in order of preference are:
Live as lion.
Die as lion.
Live as bug.
So while 1 is still superior to 2, since the modern status quo only creates 3, destroying it is still superior even if you only get 2 for your trouble.
Yes, I can read the paragraph, what I can't do is figure out how it contradicts anything I actually said. It argues against the belief that race is a social construct which is not what I asserted. This is a miss matched you would have noticed if you used studies as support for arguments and not in place of arguments.
I don't know what this has to do with anything.
No liberalism is not going to let you force your beliefs on others, that's the point. If you can't actually get people to willingly join your community what good is it? I'm sorry that everyone in the society you live in thinks your ideas are ridiculous and disgusting and wants nothing to do with you. Abandoning liberalism will not change this fact, you'll just be killed and left to rot and your weird beliefs will die with you. I'm serious, if I gave you a button that magically dissolved liberalism how precisely do you think that leads to pedo-fascism? If you want to live in a mad max like world you can go to the Nevada desert and act as a highway man until you're hunted down like a dog already.
I don't really see your proposed solution. Fascism has much the same failure modes, you're aware of the drug use among Nazis I presume? Is your sense of morality modeled after ants?
This philosophy can only really be carried out by one person. Lions famously do not build societies and have no fared well in contest with groups that do.
It is specifically the well-known scientific rebuttal (from 2003) to the study that originated the "more in group variance than between group variance" fallacy (which is from 1972). If you're going to ignorantly spout highly outdated information, then you should at least be aware of the most popular counterargument to it.
The word "social", much less the phrase "social construct", isn't even used once in the abstract. Do you actually not know how to read or did you just assume what the rest of it said after reading the first few words (which is ironic given that you're accusing me of using boilerplate language in place of an actual argument)?
C'mon, this isn't Reddit. Hold yourself to a bit of a higher standard than blatantly falsely characterizing sources that you're given. The argument advanced in the abstract is very clearly 100% biological/genetic in character and makes no reference to sociology at all.
What it has to do with the subject is that "liberal" (and in quotes this should be as there is nothing genuinely liberating about them) societies are a poison that seeps into all that surrounds them. So "form an enclave in a broader 'liberal' society" still isn't a good solution, especially when those societies do not rightfully recognize females as property. Would you be good neighbors with someone who thinks they have the right to keep your dog if it runs off?
Not true. On less normie corners of the Internet, plenty of people agree with me (and even here I've gotten more agreement with certain aspects of what I propose, including both the pedophilic and the fascist, than expected). Do we thus have the freedom to claim lebensraum for ourselves and establish an independent society under your "liberalism" though? Obviously not.
When did I say it does? To say that something is necessary to establish a particular condition is not to say that it is sufficient. (Even fully dissolving "liberalism" is not necessary. I am fundamentally a libertAryan as my flair says and ultimately won't beg anyone to abandon the globohomo matrix if they are really that enslaved and/or brainwashed by it. It simply must be chastened into relinquishing any claims of a universal dominion over human affairs.)
You do realize that fascism is the opposite of a "Mad Max-like world" right?
Nazis used drugs in an attempt to enhance their fighting prowess, which is perfectly valid, not out of the pursuit of idle pleasure. Their crime, and it is a crime, was that of lacking appropriate caution, knowledge, and prudence in their schemes of chemical enhancement.
But it was still not even remotely comparable to the vice of mindless hedonism and its widespread tolerance. I guarantee you that in Nazi Germany they didn't have citizens strung out on deadly opiates nodding off publicly on trains, street corners, etc. with zero repercussions. There were no homeless tents of crack and fent addicts. It's a complete false equivalence and I have no doubt that you know that, which highlights how disingenuously you're "arguing".
Well, luckily it is only a metaphor and we are sapient lions who understand how much more powerful dudes are when they rock together.
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