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 -
https://benthams.substack.com/p/hordes-of-vultures-descend-on-bostrom
Bentham’s Bulldog discusses a recent apology letter from Nick Bostrom for saying the n-word as well as saying that blacks have lower average intelligence in an offensive way in the mid-nineties. Bostrom also says in the apology letter that he’s not really a supporter of eugenics as some claim. Despite apologizing, Bostrom is attacked still for reiterating he believes in IQ gaps and “handwaving” about eugenics.
I think he needs to argue why more explicitly. There's no particular reason the truth can't have negative repercussions, such as lowering the status of black people, which I think most would agree would be racist.
Which is not an argument for censorship in my view, whatever can be destroyed by the truth should be, and so on. But it's a tricky bullet to bite, in this environment where preserving the clout of certain groups is oh-so-important.
I think that in casual English usage, definitions are subject to political adjustment, and "no true Scotsman" is an acceptable inference principle: "a is an instance of A, and A can't be B" doesn't mean that a is not an instance of (firm and immutable in its extension), but rather that either the definition of A or the definition of B, whichever holds less force and significance, ought to be adjusted to break the chain of inference.
To the extent "no true Scotsman" is intuitively felt to be a fallacy at all, it is on the basis of this adjustment being done too readily and to accommodate overly insignificant special cases. If someone asserted that those Scotsmen who sided with the Plantagenets were no true Scotsmen, few would bat an eye. The assertion you quote, I imagine, is trying to do something similar, in that it asserts that being The Truth(tm) is a sufficiently major exception that adjusting the definition of racism around it does not debase the importance of the latter.
Good comment, but then, this makes it sound like he should have said "The truth cannot be racist*", with the asterisk expanding out into the kind of impossibly nuanced argument that would allow one to claim "yes, they are generally dumber than you, but you should still respect them!".
I mean, can one respect someone while simultaneously claiming they're duller? Seems like it would take some real contortions, common-sensically, once you feel someone is not at least your equal, you don't respect them. Sure, you can still feel compassion for them, but it sounds very disempowering to say "whites should be compassionate towards blacks". Arguably, that's the attitude wokes take, but I think that's the reason they often say things that sound awfully racist.
It seems to me that you treat respect as purely binary, in the sense that you either respect someone or don't.
I claim otherwise, that there are varying degrees of respect, and that all it takes to be a decent-ish person is to extend a minimum level of respect to everyone unless they provide a reason to withdraw even that.
I respect otherwise normal people with below average intelligence, say a hard working janitor with 90 IQ. I wouldn't insult them, denigrate them, deny them any basic rights such as political representation, their wage, a right to speech etc.
Do I respect them less than say Von Neumann? Obviously, as do most people in general when they explicitly state that they have "great respect" for person X, a qualifier that would be pointless if there was only a singular level of respect that is either given or withheld.
As far as I'm concerned, treating other people politely, refraining from insulting them, and such is perfectly adequate. And that it by no means is a form of disrespect to advocate that a 140 IQ person is more appropriate/worthy of being assigned a job and wage that shows the scarcity of their cognitive labor than a 80 IQ person is, while still respecting both.
The problem is, people are asking for more than that. But yes, it is true respect is a spectrum and not a binary. It would be interesting if the case of the janitor could generalize to race relations, but it doesn't seem like it can because of the commitment to equality. It still seems impossible to attempt to use an analogy like that to handle a genetic explanation for the black IQ gap.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, obviously? Why would someone being duller than me have any sort of connection to my respect for them?
I run into people who are not my equal all the time and have no trouble respecting them. Some of them are shorter than me, physically weaker than me, or stupider than me. Everyone runs into people all the time who are not at least their equals, if they function in society. It is essentially a necessary component of a functioning society that people are able to respect others regardless of others being at least their equals or not. Choosing how much you respect someone based on whether they're at least your equal or not isn't common sense in any way.
That's the attitude wokes take, yes, and that's indeed a reason they often say things that sound awfully racist. So to avoid that, we can say that "individuals should respect other individuals without care for their intelligence." And then really live it.
One can respect people who are not one's equals yes, but I think this is conditional on one not thinking very often, or at all, of the ways in which one is superior, particularly if intellect is the disparity. Which suggests a way forward here, since it doesn't seem like individualism will be making a comeback: the truth about black IQ can't be in the water supply. It probably can only be safely handled in the ivory tower, though even there there's a vigorous effort to squelch it. But no, it would probably be healthier to come up with a way to process it.
I don't think this is true at all, and I don't see any reason why it would be true.
I disagree with both sentences here. Despite all the efforts by extremists on both (all) sides of the political spectrum, individualism is still around, even if weakened, and the idea that truth about IQ could only be handled safely in the ivory tower just seems like baseless scaremongering.
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