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 -
Nick Fuentes's ideas have zero intellectual worth. He is a mega-church pastor for the religion of inceldom. Incoherence is key to his movement. At least Candace Owens is schizophrenic. What's Fuentes' excuse ?
I'm not convinced that average-IQ is singularly responsible for societal-IQ. They're related, sure. But, IQ differentials have existed for millennia. If the correlation was so direct, then high IQ nations would've achieved insurmountable gaps between them and other nations. This hasn't been the case. Japan, South Korea and Scandinavia are high-IQ regions today. But, they were relatively backwards throughout history. That there is flux implies that IQ is not the primary factor in creating stable and flourishing societies.
Can't read goy without replaying the meme of a rabbi crashing out at Barney the dinosaur.
This is anti-HBD. Between Muslims, Blacks and Indians (presumably you mean south asians), you're looking at 4 billion people. Say their average IQ is 90. Let's call them group A. Let's say group B constitutes non-chinese desirable immigrant groups with an IQ of ~105. (I'm assuming most western Europeans do not want to immigrate to the US and Chinese are the rival civilization). Group B will have around 500 million people at best.
Doing some ChatGPT math, Group A has around 90 million people above IQ 120, and group B has about 80 million people above IQ 120. IQ is measurable and group A is more strongly motivated to immigrate. Therefore, if IQ = HBD and HBD = societal destiny, then the US will end up importing a very large number of blacks, south asians and muslims.
Personally, I believe cultural compatibility is just as important as the intelligence of the people you're importing. But, if HBD becomes the primary driver of immigration policy, then it will inevitably sample the cream of the largest (4 billion strong and growing) cohort.
No. I increasingly believe that liberal policy is a direct result of deeply internalizing HBD. (By liberal, I mean the American center-left, neo-libs, academic elites and NYT types. Not the communists). You can't tip-toe around landmines this effectively unless you know their precise location. I don't want to derail the discussion, but IMO, American liberals are the result of trying to reconcile protestant ideology with the realities of group IQ.
American Protestantism ties a person's self-worth to their economic productivity. It claims that people are created equal, and given equal opportunity, the hardest working will be the most productive and most moral. Working hard (sanctity of work) reflects good moral character, and the primary observable metric of hard work is economic productivity.
If IQ is real, heritable and puts a ceiling on an individual's productivity, then the whole moral framework stops working. Corporate America stops working. It's impossible to motivate hustlers, aspiring grinders and temporarily embarrassed millionaires if IQ is the primary contributor to outcomes.
If the smarter kid will always do better, then why work harder ? Why put in effort ? If you'll never be able to intellectually compete with the nerds, then why play their game at all ? Why be a peaceful participant of a system that guarantees your loss ? Better to bring it down instead. The natural conclusion is to use populism & violence to reclaim power and set up a tribal society instead.
Liberals need the lower class to believe that they can make it if they try hard enough. So, they set aside a few visible roles for all races, so that everyone keeps believing in protestant morals. They know that in the absence of a 'DEI', the elite will look so different from the base population, that a revolution is inevitable. Liberals want to set up socialist safety nets, because they understand that low-IQ people can't lift themselves up by their bootstraps.
Liberal policy is an uncomfortable compromise of believing in both HBD and protestant values. The resulting cognitive dissonance is why even the smartest liberal suddenly loses 50 IQ points when talking about certain issues.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salaryidentity depends on his not understanding it."I think the traditional counterargument is "regression to the mean". If you randomly import smart Africans that pass your IQ test, there's no guarantee that their children will maintain the same level of IQ. You need to look at multigenerational IQ, ideally looking for specific groups that are identified as unusually smart in their host countries. Not every smart Israeli, but Ashkenazim, not every smart Indian, but Tamil Brahmins, not every smart Nigerian, but Igbo.
Is there an ELI5 on regression to the mean? How do a 150 IQ person's genes know whether to regress to 120 or to 90?
It's not an ELI5, but Emil Kirkegaard has a neat "contra unbounded regression towards the mean" article. https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/selective-migration-and-regression
More options
Context Copy link
I'll take a wild guess and say it's random chance, and the mean of the population has the highest chance of manifesting in the individual.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's a fed.
More options
Context Copy link
"Success" is generally a function of both effort and talent. Anecdotally, I'm aware of lots of cases and situations where "smarter" isn't enough alone, and often loses to someone willing to work harder. The folks at the very top have both, and outcomes generally scale with effort at all levels of talent, although there are levels where "have you considered trying something else?" becomes a reasonable question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link