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 -
My nonsense detector goes off every time blacks are used as an example for why X is bad. It's the typical Boasian anthropology 'cart before the horse' thinking that permeates every single mainstream explanatory theory relating to the gaps between blacks and whites. So when a person who subscribes to Boasian anthropology presents a new battleground where they can potentially excuse the drastic differences between people with innate cognitive differences with some half baked social theory my brain just shuts off. I mean, honestly, do people never tire of this ridiculous rigamarole that is repeated again and again? Do they never start questioning or doubting the hope they feel in their hearts when this sort of theory gets peddled? The differences are there. They will always(within lifetime) be there. Just like there are dumb white kids who can't into reading properly there are dumb brown kids who can't either. And the distribution of these dumb kids between the different population groups is not the same.
It's important to be able to help dumb kids function in modern society but you can't couch that concern as a universal worry for all children. Kids have been learning how to read for centuries. With time, methods and materials that are so lacking by today's standards that it's not even comparable. By the same token I've seen kids take special classes for years with specially trained teachers that ultimately amounted to very little comparatively. I am sure the extra time helped compared to not having it, but you would never blame the problem those kids were having on the method. Those were obvious cases where the kids had issues.
So whilst there might be an interesting discussion relating to the efficacy of various teaching methods on 'normal' children there simply isn't any space for it in mainstream society. We have retarded ourselves to the point of being unable to accurately categorize reality and have methodologically reduced ourselves to rely on hopeful fiction. That is leaving aside the larger problems with 'teaching' kids in a classroom regardless of their affinity or ability.
But on the actual topic, I only have anecdotal experience as a student.
As a kid I remember not liking 'phonics' since I had a much easier time reading text than doing specific exercises. Especially if I had some way to contextualize the text I was going to be reading. I would not read letters but instead look at the words as symbols. So I lagged behind in reading through first and second grade since most of the 'reading' was just exercises. But through third grade and onward I had great scores for reading since the exercises were more narrative based. Which, I found, was much more entertaining than the boring exercises that centered around individual letters or words disconnected from context. Reading a text I could contextualize two or three times with someone next to me that could tell me what a word I didn't know was helped me learn quickly comparatively.
On the whole, if you can't teach normal kids how to read when they are locked in a room with you for hours, 5 days a week for years then you have issues beyond state mandated methodology and are probably just a bad and incapable person. I remember hearing stories of my relative's teacher from their years in elementary school in the early 80's. The teacher had no qualification other than his own literacy. They had only a few 'books' and of those the only ones designed for children were handwritten by the teacher himself. Yet somehow learning how to read was not an issue in that class despite the kids spending much less time there than they would today.
I feel that illustrates just how low the bar is when we are talking about teaching normal kids how to read. And how inconsequential teaching methodologies, textbooks and all the other crap that gets brought up might be when it comes to teaching something basic like reading. That's not to say all methods or environments are equal. But after a certain point, that is set very very low, you quickly start seeing diminishing returns. So when folks start looking that way for solutions to obviously giant problems I think it's more pertinent to ask why people are looking in such an obviously wrong direction.
Amusingly, similar experiences seem to have resulted in my development of the same reflex only in the opposite direction.
I watch the advocates of "innate cognitive differences" stack epicycles upon epicycles trying to explain why teaching methods don't matter, why classroom discipline does not matter, why nutrition, poverty, a tradition, literacy, a stable home-life/two-parent household, and any number of other things don't matter while arbitrarily dismissing any arguments, claims, and evidence to the contrary as "blank-slatism" and can't help but find it just as (if not even more) ridiculous.
Especially when the most aggressive and ardent advocates always seem to be coming from the same space. This might sound uncharitable but perhaps if you redirected some of that energy from rationalizing the world into being a little less neurotic and asking that cute barista out on a date maybe the problem of dysgenics would start to seem a little more tractable.
Considering I made appeals to the opposite this is just bizarre. I guess it makes more sense to equivocate fiction with reality than look at multiple population groups deriving drastically different outcomes from similar environments.
Opposite of what exactly?
I to have learned to hate misleading statistics being quoted by political operators who clearly do not understand statistics. I to find myself feeling frustrated when forced to countenance arguments that go against my directly observed reality. I to have become wary of if not outright hostile towards anything resembling strategic equivocation. I to am sick of the "ridiculous rigmaroles" and "half baked social theories"
The only difference between us is that you think your side is free of these sins.
I made appeals to the opposite of what you call 'the advocates of innate cognitive differences'. More specifically when I said that not all teaching methodologies or environments need be equal. On top of that I mentioned that there are other issues with schooling that are outside of the scope of specific teaching methodologies.
It's not that the difference between us is that I don't recognize the pathologies that naturally come about when people have grouped up, regardless of the topic. It's that I don't assume I'm better than you. So I don't base my arguments around that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So, you’ve now regressed to the “people who disagree with me are lame weirdos who get no bitches” stage of normie-tier arguments?
No more so than anyone else here I would argue.
More options
Context Copy link
The standard form of the argument in question is that the lame wierdoes can't get "bitches". HlynkaCG is claiming they choose not to, which rather puts a different spin on the "lame wierdoes" part. I can say candidly that similar advice was of great personal benefit to me.
Sure, I think that’s a reasonable distinction to draw, although in the context of Hlynka’s entire post - and his oeuvre more broadly - it’s difficult not to default to a less charitable read.
It’s also not clear how Hlynka believes that asking “the cute barista” out on a date will significantly help the dysgenics issue; one of the reasons why many HBD advocates struggle to find partners (I’m well aware that the reasons are numerous, but this is one of them) is that the majority of the single women they are likely to interact with on a daily casual basis are not selected for intelligence, let alone for sensible beliefs about the nature of humanity, which means that it’s not worth investing significant effort into dating them only to have the relationship implode after the first deep discussion about race. Or, even worse, for the relationship to result in marriage and children, only for the woman to fill the children’s heads full of egalitarian nonsense.
I’m not saying this is the primary reason why so many of us far-right “weirdos” are single, but I can say that this has been one of the serious obstacles in my personal life. In any case, if the shot across the bow being fired at my side of this particular battle is “maybe if you stopped autistically sorting people into theoretical categories like they’re data points on a spreadsheet, and spent that mental energy getting laid, you’d have better personal life outcomes”, that argument is both correct and also missing the point on, at least, an intellectual level.
Is finding a mate a priority or not? If it's not a priority, it probably won't happen. If it is a priority, obstacles can be overcome. It seems to me that a lot of single men approach this from the perspective of "it'd be nice if I found the perfect woman, otherwise no thanks". But in the first place there are no perfect women (or men either), and in the second place, being in a healthy, committed relationship is incredibly beneficial, in a way that I think a lot of men don't realize until they've had it. Certainly the modern world does not often grant single men the experience of being cared for and valued as a person.
Assuming that finding a mate is a priority, the two questions that follow are first how to be a worthwhile mate yourself, and then how to find a worthwhile mate. Ideally, one wants a selection mechanism better than "someone I'm willing to have sex with/is willing to have sex with me, at least once." What is more desirable is a good person to share one's life with, and of course the possession of enough goodness oneself that a good person would be interested in sharing a life together. Since it is lives at stake, you want something that penetrates through the surface detail and into the core of identity, worldview, lifestyle. You want people who make thinking long-term and being responsible part of their core identity. Such places exist, so if you're dissatisfied with the quality of the women in your social circles, why are those your social circles in the first place?
If one is an outspoken racial ideologue, that's probably going to be a hard pass for most women. But why is being an outspoken racial ideologue necessary? Sticking rigidly to the evidence and disdaining theorizing, maintaining a humble admission that one can be wrong, appealing to evidence on the defense and refraining from actively pushing the issue is likely plenty, and all of these are good practice in any case, because HBD is not a terribly actionable worldview.
If your intellectual pursuits interfere with the process of gaining and keeping a family, they're probably not worth it. A family of one's own is immensely valuable, far beyond what theory can provide. Almost all theories will be irrelevant in a decade at the most. Family will shape and enrich your life till the day you die, and then continue shaping the world on and on long after you have returned to the dust.
More options
Context Copy link
It's quite simple really. If you believe that dysgenics is a serious concern, and If you believe that you are intelligent enough to be worth reproducing with, the obvious solution is not to whinge on reddit about it. the solution is to have more kids.
The thing that rationalists always seem to miss about the opening Idiocracy is that the "smart" couple chose their fate. They chose decline, They chose to be replaced. The future belongs to those who show up.
Then you are one of the ones that @FCfromSSC was just talking about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It depends on what you want to do with your life.
Do you want to be normal normie, normally living in normal society like everyone else, or do you want to be rebel and revolutionary, destroying the normal society root and branch?
If the former, behave and think like every other normie, no other advice is necessary.
If the latter...
https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm
...
...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We know what the root cause is for classroom indiscipline, poor nutrition, bad (cultural?) traditions, bad (parental?) literacy, unstable home life and one-parent households.
If people are smart and capable, they won't find themselves in situations where they're having more children they can support with unhelpful partners, won't have a culture glorifying crime, won't be illiterate, won't disrupt classrooms, won't create or maintain food desserts or fail to provide nutritious food.
With great respect, if you preface an insult by implying 'this only sounds like an insult', it does not become less offensive. Quite the opposite.
and there you are
Which comes first? Genetics or 'parents loving their children enough to take a serious interest in their education'? You could be saying that love is a metaphysical force, beyond the power of science - I have no response to that.
Does it matter?
Well it's only the basis of what you're trying to imply, that genetics is unrelated to whether parents care about their kids education - or is that comment just sneering 'aKsHuAlY' at the thought that people might object to whatever you're saying?
No it's not, what you're doing is affirming the consequent
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
I don't have to imagine it, I've seen it.
That the predicted outcomes of abandoning of strict discipline and race-blind grading predicted by American trad-cons came true came true is not a condemnation of their thesis it is a vindication of it.
More options
Context Copy link
This is literally nothing but a long winded insult. Which I suppose should reinforce one to the essentialist position if that's all one can say in opposition.
As someone who doesn't think that's all the story, please actually make arguments instead of just...this. We both know there is more to it than that, that you're actually capable of it and that the venue demands it.
You can say that but I would reply that is no more insulting than a lot of stuff that gets posted here every day without comment including, I would argue, the post i was directly replying to. The only difference is who's sacred cows are getting gored. As for accusing me of being "long winded" do you know what forum you're posting to?
Simply put, If had intended for my post to be insulting, it would have more closely mirrored that of
FacelessCraven@FCfromSSC only I would not have displayed the admirable charity and restraint that they have thus far.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From just upthread:
Teachers: "We totally figured out how to teach poor black kids! we just didn't like doing it, so we decided to not teach them instead, figuring that ought to work just as well!"
HBD: "As this example clearly shows, teaching poor black kids just isn't possible."
You dumb fuckers it's right fucking there youHNNNNNNNNNGGGGGG!
But it's fine. It's fine! We can just go back to discussing how valuable our existing institutions are, and how we should centralize more of our lives under their direct control.
I know right? Welcome to my world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then how on earth would the example of 80% illiteracy for black students be relevant to anything? If you are suggesting that the current methodology is uniquely bad for blacks then I made the point in my post to point out that such examples are not necessarily relevant for all students. If you have a methodology that is better for all students then why not lead with that? Why squeal for sympathy by winding on the blacks?
You have no idea one way or another what the literacy rate for black students should be nor do you know what the reason for the comparatively low literacy rates for blacks is. I'm sure you could raise it. But I seriously doubt you could do so to any meaningful extent by telling the teacher to focus on 'phonics' instead of something else. On top of that you don't considering turning your example around. Is the high literacy rate among Asians not an example that the method works? This rubric you employ is obviously faulty.
Again, I'm not saying 'phonics' is worse, I'm inclined to believe you could teach kids to read using 'phonics' quite quickly. At least it seemed to work for me though I have little to compare against it. What I am saying, however, is that the implication of the examples you gave is that you can produce meaningful change in the literacy of blacks by changing the methodology. I don't see that belief being warranted. I do instead recognize it as part of an endless line of argumentation that proposes that we can meaningfully impact the gaps between blacks and whites using 'this one weird trick'. I see no reason to acknowledge that line of argumentation as anything other than what it is. And hopefully dismissing it so we can talk about something that actually matters.
It would only be evidence of bad teaching for blacks though, since other groups have much better literacy rates with similar teaching methods. To that point I asserted that you have no baseline for what the literacy rates for blacks should be.
Again, if the point was not about blacks, why specifically mention blacks? If a method is bad since it can't teach blacks then would it be, by the same token, good since it can teach Asians? This rubric is obviously faulty. I don't buy the sincere proposition that we are specifically mentioning blacks because that's the best way to illustrate the problem.
I don't disagree. I just can't manage to fit all those pieces together. I mention the black white gap because of the implications that has to any methodology that assumes that you can in one way or another uniquely affect the literacy of blacks whilst assuming that blacks and whites are of equal cognitive ability. I assumed the people doing the podcast were not race realist HBD types. That was a complete guess on my part though. But for anyone that is not, I don't know how you piece that narrative together. It's not as if most kids that aren't black are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
The reason I said you didn't lead with that is because you didn't. The point made by you was not a study controlling for relevant factors concluding that kids learned to read better using phonics and that this would greatly benefit all children. It's was: "The results, the podcast claims, are dismal. As evidence, it includes some agonizing statistics, like that 80+% of African American 8th graders do not test as proficient readers."
You're right. Those adjectives all apply. But by the same token the constant reliance on black tears to garner sympathy sickens me on a fundamental level. I mean, are the illiteracy rates of poor white kids not good enough? Do we really need to weave a narrative including the white kids that have vs the black kids that have not when talking about what methodology works best to teach kids how to read? Like, really?
In any case I explicitly responded to vitriol I felt was implied but that might not have been warranted when directed at you. My bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is English your mother tongue?
It isn't mine, and I don't know how to spell English words. I'm somehow capable of it, but I don't remember how I learned (it must've been at school but I don't remember anything about the method other than that they had us copy words a lot), and I could not describe the rules.
Dutch spelling is regular. The method of teaching kids to read essentially hasn't changed in over a century. It involves learning the sounds that letters make and then sounding them out, but that's a lot easier when it's pretty much always the same except for loanwords.
I'm confident I could teach a kid to read without any pre-made teaching materials at all, even though I have no training other than my own literacy - in Dutch. Not in English though, even though I'm personally just as literate in English. I couldn't teach a cooperative English-speaking adult to read. I have no conscious idea what I'm doing when I write in English.
For me primary form of English is written, and I know spelling much better than pronunciation
More options
Context Copy link
I remember learning about four types of English vowel sounds: open, closed, vower-r, vowel-r-e. Alternatively, there's something like the 56 easy rules of English spelling, which cover ~83% of words.
And I remember being forced to memorize the rules and write out which ones applied to common words in catholic elementary schools. I hated it at the time but it was probably the best way to learn.
In French, which I learned via whole-word, I cannot read without a pronunciation guide, although I can speak well enough to converse with a native speaker.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
English is my second language. But when I went through elementary school there was a big push to teach kids English. So there was a kind of parallel thing going on where kids who weren't even alphabetically literate in their first language were doing the ABC's in English.
I'm pretty sure you could teach an English speaker how to read English by just slightly modifying the way you learned to read Dutch and you wouldn't have many problems. Learning to read might be very important but it's ultimately not hard. Literally, kids can do it. It just takes a little time.
Something similar goes on in Ireland where Irish class material will be so much more advanced than foreign language classes despite the fact that most people don't have it as a first or second language. Spanish class will have you learning verb conjugations while in Irish class you'll be studying poetry and reading plays. It's common to hear complaints from people saying they retained more French than Irish after leaving school.
As an American, I learned a few interesting English grammar rules (most memorably, proper use of the subjunctive) from my AP foreign language class because high-school English instruction is almost entirely literature and writing.
This sounds somewhat similar to what you are saying about Irish, with the caveat that English is nigh-inescapable to Americans, even those who speak other languages at home.
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