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 -
Is wokism fundamentally the same thing as so called "slave morality?"
The way this issue came up for me is that a few threads back I claimed the following:
To which another individual responded as follows:
I was only vaguely familiar with the concept of "slave morality" so I had to look it up. This actually seems like the sort of thing for which AI might give an intelligent answer; here's what I found:
This does seem to ring a bell, but I think there's an important difference. In the drama of "slave morality," there are two players, the masters and the slaves.
By contrast, wokeness follows what Lawrence Auster used to call the "liberal script"
In other words, there is (in my opinion) a third and key set of players in the wokeness movement -- elites (or aspiring elites) who pursue self-aggrandizement by advocating on behalf of Nietzsche's "slaves."
So it might be better to call it "striver morality" as opposed to "slave morality."
Said it before, will say it again. It's not uniquely Western or even Christian. An Indian Army general echoed the same thing nearly verbatim in 1988. Psychology calls it Martyr complex. I don't think wokeness is anything that sophisticated. It only works specifically for the interests of women, blacks, muslims and LGBT over men, straights and whites. The "oppression" bit is just moral cover for that fact. The biggest beneficiaries of DEI are white women, irregardless of income brackets. Western society and IMO human nature tend to be very gynocentric, that is why we care so much about issues that affect women, and causes that they care about generally.
I didn't see anything in that article to support that claim. Closest was this:
However, like most points in the article, it's uncited. Although since she as a BIPOC has Other Ways of Knowing, perhaps I should just be quiet while a Black woman is speaking instead of Noticing her general lack of citations. And in what is basically a codified trope now when it comes to blacks writing about racial matters, she does not clarify whether she is talking about per capita or not, nor is it apparent if she understands the concept of per capita in the first place.
Naturally, upon a Googling there are quite a few NBER papers that discuss women, non-Asian minorities, and affirmative action, so it's unclear what research she has in mind. It’s also possible she doesn’t have any actual research in mind and was just regurgitating a passphrase she read elsewhere. One paper from the search results caught my eye, though.
In the context of federal contractors and subcontractors, the paper suggests the "affirmative action program [] is generally ineffective for women, although it has been effective for minorities." And by ineffective, he means "affirmative action has contributed negligibly to women's progress in the workplace." The author explains:
Note that the paper is from 1989. It's darkly hilarious how long affirmative action has been around, when for some reason many people seem to think it started sometime in the 201Xs. I'm going to tell my children that affirmative action was invented after Saint Floyd was brutally murdered by a MAGA insurgent in 2020.
Especially within education, it doesn't pass the sniff test that white women have been the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, especially on a per capita basis. Women have similar average IQs as men (or exhibit a modest deficit if you're Hanania-pilled), but blacks have substantially lower average IQs than whites. Thus, there's a lot more ground to make-up in the latter case through affirmative action.
Indeed, Table 2 and Table 6 of this paper show that, in the 80s and 90s, the black-white coefficient (expressed as an odds ratio) was 4x larger than that of the female-male coefficient from logistic regressions modeling undergraduate admission chances at elites schools. The authors remark that "[f]emale candidates have 50 percent better odds of being admitted than their statistically equivalent male counterparts" in contrast to the 450% increase for being black instead of white. I didn’t see the analogous figure quoted for female vs. male, but the authors additionally report that being black instead of white was worth +230 points on the SAT; being black instead of Asian was worth +280 points on the SAT.
I imagine the female-male coefficient has further shrunk since then, given undergraduate females now outnumber males (thus presumably less need for pro-female affirmative action). I do believe in ${CurrentDay} there are larger affirmative action preferences given to women at the graduate level for admissions, and in hiring and promotion decisions in academia and industry (especially in sectors like tech and finance), but this would still pale in comparison to the corresponding racial preferences given to blacks.
Now back to the original article complaining that white women have Always Been the Primary beneficiaries of affirmative action. It Just so Happens the proposed next steps involve transferring ever moar money and opportunities from whites towards blacks and latinos, especially black and latina women. She does some ducking and weaving in bouncing between talking about "Black and Latina women," "Black, Latina, and Indigenous women," and "Black, Latino, Indigenous, and Asian individuals." For the aforementioned third category, she has this to say:
Considering racial benefits given to blacks and latinos often come at the expense of Asians, this sounds amusingly like she's threatening Asians. I came away with a similar feeling after reading her article as I did after reading OU Samantha’s Essay—namely, feeling slightly dumber.
Yes. On of my relatives was a career US military officer, and he described to me the methods through which his branch incentivized recruiters to find diverse applicants (this would have been roughly around 1989, a few years in either direction IIRC).
It seems to me like that the opinion that things just went off the rails recently is very common. I suspect there are a few reasons for this, one of them being the ability of the internet to form a coherent counter-consensus against institutional power, and one of them being that the forces of woke or whatever you want to call them really overextended in the 201Xs, using rhetoric that diverged from the more defensible "make society better for the marginalized" and veered into "make society worse for the unmarginalized." And then finally it seems to me that given the above, there is a very strong incentive for many people who see themselves in the middle to say "woah woah woah, [consequences downstream of X] are clearly too far," while glossing question of whether or not X should be removed since it caused the downstream consequences because fundamentally they support X, or something like X.
There are probably some other reasons I am not thinking of, but I find it interesting that, even though affirmative action has always been controversial, it seems like opposition to it has really been consolidating into something that might actually "stick" beyond grumbling about political correctness. It's interesting to me that this turn took about a generation, perhaps 1.5 generations ("affirmative action" dates to 1961) for the wheel to turn this far. A real reminder of both how slow and how fast society can change.
I do, however, suspect this may have happened before – with progressive overreach in the 1960s and 1970s fueling backlash leading to Nixon and Reagan. So I wonder if part of the "reason many people seem to think it started sometime in the 201Xs" is simply because a lot of younger people had grown up in an era where progressives/leftists were more chastened (Clinton) and cautious about letting their most radical members steal the microphone and run away with it. But by the time of Obama, they had grown overconfident again (and people who would have pushed for more moderation were aging and sidelined or dead or retired) so the fringes ran away with the microphone and now we're getting Nixon all over again. As one of the younger people, I'm not sure if it's different this time, but it does seem to me that, however you slice it, the question of wokeness definitely goes far back beyond 201X.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link