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 -
Lynchings were a response to violent crime. Something like a third of those lynched were White. Africans were lynched more because they commit more violent crime, and also because their crimes were seen an attack on the community from a foreign community. Generally, it worked as follows: if you were to rape a girl, the community would strangulate you to death, and they would make a whole spectacle about this so as to deter future crime and to reaffirm that the community is protected. Lynchings are bad because justice is better, as a small percent of the lynching victims were innocent, though jury trials also pose their own problems. But we see in recent events eg Rotherham that lynching can produce better justice than subverted judicial processes even into the 21st century. Had the men of Rotherham lynched the rapists immediately, they would have prevented many thousands of rapes, which is clearly better than no justice at all over decades. Following from this, one problem in the south was that Blacks were allowed to be on juries, and we now know from studies that Blacks on average cannot judge defendants impartially. Blacks, but not Whites, are more likely to let someone of their own race go free yet convict someone of another race. Possibly because Blacks, but not Whites, have a high in-group preference.
You write
This depends on your values, really. If you believe that all groups should share in each others’ resources, despite having different behavioral tendencies, levels of intelligence, cultures, and histories, then the mainstream was wrong. But if you believe that White people are genetically and historically different, and consequently deserve to be raped less, and murdered less, and deserve to enjoy the justice system they created which requires honor and trust, in accordance to their ability, then the mainstream was obviously correct.
Yes, you are supposed to make generalizations based on observable evidence and trusted testimony when you lack superior evidence. This is the intelligent thing to do. This is the moral thing to do. It was their best option because they didn’t have an entire science of intelligence, and even if this did exist in some obscure intelligence journal, the average man did not have easy access it. So they say, “wow, this golden retriever is gentle and kind”, or “wow, this pitbull is aggressive and dangerous”, based on a collection of experiences. When Americans were debating the Chinese exclusion act, the argument was not that the Chinese were stupid or lazy. Even proponents of exclusion knew that the Han were industrious and intelligent. Is it really racism if human intuition is just that good at generalizing?
I don’t think there’s evidence for this.
These QBs are usually more than half-white, with light eyes (this has its own interesting genetic reasons), and there’s also been political pressure to introduce more black QBs. A lot of what you’ve written is just “some Whites underestimated Black athleticism”. We’re not talking about chess or strategy games here, we’re talking about a very base form of human leisure activity. Your opinion seems to be that we should shame Uncle Roy because, well, while his intuition may have been correct about the most important things in the world, it was wrong about…. sports. Something that doesn’t matter. Something done for leisure. Something that is more fun to do the worse you are at it. You didn’t attempt to prove an equality between the races for anything that actually matters (development, virtue, productivity, etc). Surely the best hominid heavyweight lifter is actually a gorilla, but does this matter? Has anyone checked if Terence Tao can dunk?
Cults
I don’t find the overriding argument compelling. NXIVM didn’t draw on the mainstream being wrong, and neither did Osho’s cult or the nascent Mormon cult. ISIS is probably the worst cult of the modern era, and they are wrong on virtually every issue. To understand cults it’s easier just to understand that humans have certain vulnerabilities which evil people can take advantage of. One of these vulnerabilities is our innate desire for equality and fraternity, which evolved to aid the tribe, which is why racism has been a powerful rallying cry since the 60s.
The other thing about lynchings, is that even if you believe that every one was actual murder, the total number of white-on-black lynchings for all of American history since the civil war, is far less than the excess number of black-on-white murders over the past fifty years. So if we are to focus on problems based on the size of the problem, the history textbook section on the problems of black crime should be many times larger than the section on lynching.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link