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 -
RIP James Watson
And so we lose one of the 20th Century pioneers of DNA research. He made it to a nice and comfortable 97 so at least he got to live a full life. His contributions were undeniable but we are all aware of what happened to him in his later years when his awards and honours got stripped because he talked to liberally about HBD. Back then I interpreted all this as yet another example of "Woke gone mad" left wingers who couldn't attack the argument so decided the best shot was to attack the man himself.
Other than the HBD stuff I thought he was a perfectly normal retired scientist, a bit wacky maybe but that's almost obligatory if you have a Nobel prize.
However I have very recently (in the last hour after news of his passing broke) learned that there's more to the sorts of things that Watson said than merely "respectable" HBD. For example there's this quote:
and this:
and this:
and then there's this:
This new knowledge has made me reevaluate my views on him. Now my new provisional views on him are that he clusters with Brian Josephson: academically brilliant but kooky in the head:
except that Watson's views were even more corrosive to modern civil society than Brian's. The more you know, as they say...
What, concretely, bothers you about this? (Are you a height-challenged guy?)
Is it that he seems to hold a belief that shorter guys compensate for a lack of height by choosing scientific occupations? I'm not sure about this, but I'm almost curious enough to pull NLSY data on height and major to find out.
Or is it that you object to the idea that occupational groups show differences in their anthropometric measurements at all? If so, these are very well-attested in the literature: managers, professionals, and especially politicians are all taller than average.
Or is it just that he's not treating possible discrimination in a very somber, serious tone? If so, whenever Obama dies, will you be posting here about how he made fun of Buttigieg and said he could never become President because he's too short?
Sometimes I’ve wondered if this stuff happens on some kind of unconscious level people aren’t entirely aware of. A lot of socially awkward people for instance find their way into reclusive activities and hobbies often because they don’t integrate well with others and are not invited to participate in a lot of outgoing activities. It’s not a coincidence that geeks and nerds all tend to ‘look’ a certain way physiologically and find their place in the same setting and occupied by the same hobbies. “Are you into computers because you can’t socialize or are you incapable of socializing because you’re into computers?”
Or it’s the same reason guys with big dongs find their way into pornography while guys with small dongs tend to become serial killers and ride motorcycles. This kind of self slotting of people into categories rarely happens through conscious and deliberate decision making. It’s some kind of social pattern that I haven’t deciphered yet but it’s a lot like when they gave testosterone to liberals how they instantly became republicans. Thankfully I’m not just right-wing but I’m far right-wing.
Any evidence for this?
It’s pretty hard to see.
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