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 -
I have no idea how you could combat indirect discrimination. If you have a clear-headed view on how to do this, please let me know.
I don't see how it's possible. Ban IQ tests for job applications and people will find some other way to discriminate against people they think are stupid (that conveniently lines up with whatever other factor that makes them discriminate). Regulations that harm industries with blue collar jobs will always happen because people with white collar jobs have more power and naturally don't know or care about blue collar people. Bans on disparate impact sound good but the statistics can be gamed by anyone who even knows anything about statistics.
To get people to stop discriminating against men you need to figure out how to get women to stop discriminating against men, which will never happen even if you unplugged the internet and somehow managed to bring back the golden age of marketing so powerful it got people to consider bacon a breakfast food.
IQ tests are not indirect discrimination. "Disparate impact" is not indirect discrimination based on race, it's a reason for implementing indirect discrimination based on race. Banning IQ tests for jobs where IQ matters is discrimination against the intelligent (and indirect discrimination against groups which are more intelligent on average). Some of the indirect discrimination I'm referring to is banning criteria that would result in advantages for young white men.
The thing is, I'm not sure banning it stops it. I'm sure there's been attempts to make a human entirely "free" of bias, either through chemical or electrical means. Even the AI models aren't free from Noticing, as some of the researchers are finding out to their own peril (the data pans out to make certain conclusions unpalatable).
I'm not sure it's possible. In much of the world discrimination in the workplace is just a fact of life, to be acknowledged. It can be overcome, definitely, but I'm not sure it can be done by fiat.
I'm not asking to make a human free of bias. I'm asking to make the law not discriminate against young white men. This is a much smaller request.
But that's my point. It's already illegal in many areas to discriminate against people on the basis of race or ethnicity. You think making it illegal to discriminate against white young men in the Harvard admissions process will suddenly make their applicants lily white? They already sandbag Asians heavily. What would change this would be a purging of the entire Harvard staff, which would defeat the point of Harvard as a place for the rich and powerful to rub shoulders and make connections.
In America, the whole "Hispanic" identity was an invention they created out of whole cloth to make it easier to manage. This was then used to make people racist both for and against the umbrella of people they had filed under the Hispanic identity.
De jure, but not de facto. De facto it's legal to discriminate against whites and Asian in college admissions.
If so, OK. Note that's staff and not faculty -- it's the latter you need to keep Harvard elite. It's probably not even necessary, though; purge the regulatory agencies, have the replacements make some threats, and follow through on a few of them, and the Harvard Corporation will get their admissions department aligned. Same for a lot of other schools. The problem is keeping it up long enough that they realize you're serious.
The category is invented (and somewhat incoherent) but it's persisted because it labels (if imperfectly) a real phenomenon. People had no problem with being racist against Mexicans before it was invented, even "Mexicans" who happened to be from Guatemala or something. And the Mexicans had no problem supporting other Mexicans (though not "Mexicans", as indeed they do not today)
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