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 -
Revisiting Vivek Ramaswamy's Christmas Rant: One Year Later
The tome in question, in case you need to refresh your memory. One hundred and twenty five million views. This single tweet tore open a gash in the Republican coalition that has yet to heal (though I don't want to overstate the counterfactual impact here, this particular fault-line was inevitable).
Looking back, it is clear now that the controversy was never just racist shit-flinging. There is a real philosophical conflict underlying the backlash. It is perhaps most elegantly stated as a variant of the Euthyphro dilemma; is our culture good because it is American, or is it American because it is good? Vivek is a functionalist. If an aspect of American culture is non-functional, then it should be replaced. His opponents in the comments are overwhelmingly essentialists. Americanness is an ontological property that is good because of it's essential nature as American. In this context, the idea that someone might choose to discard prom queens or jock sports fandom is a threat to America itself. Of course, this begs the question, who counts as American? And we end up with the "Heritage American" discourse that has been popping up lately.
The problem with meritocracy is that it’s pointless.
If you want meritocracy, just administer a single IQ test to every child at 10 years old and distribute every accolade and job based upon that and whatever protected characteristics you want to prioritize (‘Other Backward Castes’, ‘Pardo’, ‘gender diversity’, ‘URM’, ‘BAME’, whatever) and you will be more efficient than the entire wretched body of meritocracy - not just in America - but in even more degenerate systems like those of South Korea, India and elsewhere.
The whole making kids study for 7 hours after school to pass bullshit tests isn’t meritocracy, it isn’t education, it doesn’t make for a successful society. It’s pure ideology. It doesn’t serve the objective of allocating power, resources or status in any way, since along whatever lines you want, you can do it more efficiently in another way.
Well, except one line.
Imagine your children are second or third generation immigrants. You are wealthy. Pure meritocracy will see your children (due to IQ reversion to mean) likely outcompeted by others - either immigrants or natives. Pure status hierarchy, legacy, families with centuries of history and deep social ties to those who run the august intellectual bodies that are the leading universities will outcompete you. Looks and charisma will also largely favor the beautiful, tall, etc, which probably isn’t your kids.
So what is one to do?
Build a ridiculous status system that specifically prioritizes an absurd and unreasonable level of parental investment. Monetarily yes, but also in terms of time, your children’s and yours. Make the kids suffer, so that parents from nicer cultures that care more about kids choose not to push them through the ridiculous pantomime. Poor families won’t have the knowledge, time or money to compete with you. Very rich ones won’t care to. And the future is yours.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link