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.
So, you’ve now regressed to the “people who disagree with me are lame weirdos who get no bitches” stage of normie-tier arguments?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link