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 -
New epstein files stash released - search here: https://www.justice.gov/epstein
Trump is mentioned lots of times though some of the more lurid accusations (I was gangbanged by Trump and a bunch of other rich dudes) seem to be non credible. Epstein emailed himself about how he was annoyed that Bill Gates needed medicine from banging underage russian girls - probably fake blackmail. He also got banned from Xbox Live, shared coomer FNAF 4chan threads, talked with Chomsky about racial intelligence differences, getting advice on silencing a girl trying to expose his friends. For our global-intelligence-conspiracy friends, there are some connections to intelligence agencies.
Mods, remove this if it's a crappy post. It's hard to come up with a through line for this, other than "WOW he knew a lot of people".
Now this is slightly interesting. "at least some of them know what they're doing and are just lying" is a thought that doesn't normally cross my mind not because it's not true, but because it's pointless to speculate about. I just provisionally assume that any given 'anti-racist' is a true believer in universal humanity. But of course they aren't. The "lore" after all, is fairly accessible for someone reasonably intelligent and curious.
I wonder how this looks from inside their own heads. Brave holders of esoteric truths vigilantly guarding the demos from dangerous knowledge?
As a True Believer in Universal Humanity, I hold the following Views on race/genetics/intelligence:
The null hypothesis is that racial intelligence differences do not exist.
There is not, currently, sufficient evidence to refute the null hypothesis.
It is possible that sufficient evidence could exist in the future; however, the existence of such differences, even if proven, would not justify the conclusions drawn by the far right.
If such differences exist, they do not make members of the less-intelligent groups less deserving of human dignity, any more than someone born to a more-intelligent group would become less deserving of human dignity upon suffering a head injury.
The existence of a racial intelligence gap would mean that Nature herself is a racist, and those born with greater intelligence thus bear a disproportionate duty first to alleviate the immediate condition of those thus victimised by Nature, and second to develop and deploy some method of repairing the damage don by nature to those individuals.
This duty is not penance for having been born a member of a privileged group; it is the principle that If You Have The Means At Hand, You Have The Responsibility To Help.
This hypothesis is equivalent to what could be called the "Egalitarian Hypothesis"
The Egalitarian Hypothesis is that genes (technically alleles) which influence intelligence are distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups.
From this perspective, it is more easy to see that you are unfairly privileging the hypothesis you like. The default hypothesis should be that intelligence is no different from any other measurable human attribute, such as height, eye color, and so on. Given that other human attributes are clearly NOT distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups, the null hypothesis should be that it's the same for intelligence.
More options
Context Copy link
There's an interesting contrasting series one could draw.
I know this sounds sarcastic and dumb but if you take the premises and run with them under utilitarian human-dignity logic, that's where you end up. If white genocide raises world happiness by destroying the racism field and thus raising more black and brown bodies to high standards of living and achievement, isn't that then good? Revolutionaries in the 1960s debated this, some proposed the necessity of killing white babies to stop them growing up to continue the oppressive racist-capitalist system.
On the other hand, it would be much easier for the people with all the H-bombs and MIRV'd ICBMs to do the genociding... Or a transhumanist fix nowadays, I suppose. What does it even mean to make someone smarter and more capable with a transhumanist fix, is this ego-death, overwriting a personality, overwriting a whole racial group?
The exact mechanics of the racism field deserve much more study. This is an extremely important effect, if it's a real thing. Spooky action at a distance, across vast spans of time, very potent effect! And it seems to only 'work' when white people do it - Ottoman and Algerian slave-raiding and Japanese conquest/genocide doesn't seem to have the same effect white racism has on black and brown communities.
If the ambient racism field is just made up, then those who've been promoting and proposing the theory should be treated very seriously. After all, they would have overseen and promoted the waste of tens trillions of dollars, the misallocation and the miseducation of hundreds of millions based on a lie.
More options
Context Copy link
How does the null hypothesis have a place here and why do you get to decide what it is? We aren’t approving drugs here, we’re just trying to weigh two theories, it’s completely unfair to arbitrarily privilege the one you like more.
It's been a while since I took a science class, but IIRC every scientific investigation has to have a null hypothesis. Wikipedia says that the definition of "null hypothesis" is the hypothesis that no relationship exists—i. e., intelligence has no correlation with race.
You can set the threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis at any significance level you want. You have to set it quite high (by social science standards) to not reject it in this case, but if you're starting with the conclusion you want, that's what you do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When it comes to people in general who hold this position, you know, fine, it's not my business what they believe. But I absolutely do not want to hear from them their own (inevitably far more tenuous) theories regarding racial achievement gaps and the like. They can just sit back and be baffled, and if anyone asks them what to do about it, throw their hands up in the air because they have no idea.
I think that's an excellent point. If, as another poster stated, the "null hypothesis" is "the hypothesis that no relationship exists," and we are going to apply this kind of analysis, then there is zero basis to look at achievement gaps and blame white racism, "patriarchy" "colonialism," "the legacy of slavery" etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You've certainly got your soldiers lined up in an impressive defense in depth. But reality does not care.
Rejected. The able are not the proper slaves of the needy.
Yeah, I didn't get that either. The moral claim that the strong must help the weak is just that...a claim.
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