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 -
That politician from Australia notwithstanding, I don't actually think that Multiculturalism requires suppression of speech to function, it just requires some amount of cultural assimilation and little-L liberalization. It's really easy to go back and read something like H.P. Lovecraft's He, where he wrote:
And see it as a bit silly and overblown. New York city isn't dead just because it isn't Dutch or Anglo American. (Also, surely London has had some shift in ethnicity from its Roman founding to the time of Lovecraft? Like, what about the anglo-saxons and the vikings?) And it just seems obvious that many of the ethnic groups that H.P. Lovecraft was worried about, like Southern and Eastern Europeans, the Irish, and Asians just aren't that scary in the modern day. Surely, even critics of multiculturalism would find a passage about the scary Asians like this one:
To be utterly laughable. Seriously, I've been to Chinese New Year celebrations within my city, and it is a fun time. They do have drum performances, and dress in strange clothes, but I don't feel like a group celebrating their heritage once or twice a year is some death knell for Western civilization and culture.
The good, still mostly functional Western countries that matter like the United States, still remember what it means to be an empire (even if they don't call it that), and we've successfully anglified basically every white ethnic group that has come here, we anglified the Native Americans, and sufficiently assimilated Asians and Hispanics so that they're no great threat to our society. People look at the statistics of Europe's failed immigration policies, and assume that they also apply to the US, but they just don't. Regardless of whatever foolish policies Europe and the wider anglosphere adopt, the United States is doing fine and will continue to be a torchbearer for Western values even after those cultures have become just like the New York of Lovecraft's imagination.
I kind of don't understand people who look at the facts of succesful past assimilation, and who just assume that there is no soft or hard pressure to assimilate anymore in spite of political correctness and what the progressive left say. People who come here learn English. People who come here, learn a baseline of American culture and values. Just as the Chinese Empire of old hanified many of the disparate ethnic groups within its borders and failed to hanify others, so too America has and will succesfully anglify (or if you prefer, americanize) many ethnic groups and will fail to anglify others. But as long as we have the state capacity to stop the non-anglified groups from being too much of a problem (and we definitely do), it is a total non-issue for our civilization and way of life.
The Chinese are famous for self-seggregating into a ghetto, and having a ghetto is one of the traditional solutions to prevent a non-integrating ethnic group from being a threat to the ethnic cohesion of the majority of society. Secondly, the Chinese are one of the least aggressive groups when it comes to demanding accommodations. They are also one of the least criminal groups around. As a result, frictions with other ethnic groups in various places tends to revolve around their economic success, not so much a negative impact on other civilizations and cultures, but you can't just assume that different groups have the same traits.
In fact, the very essence of ethnicity/culture is that peoples with a different ethnicity have different behaviors, so pointing to one group and claiming that these experiences generalize, suggest that you don't actually understand what ethnicity/culture is.
That 'basically' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, with there being quite a large population of 'white trash' in extreme poverty, high crime and otherwise poorly assimilated people. Native Americans have the highest poverty rate of any group, many of them live in ghetto's, and the only real success of that community is by being given an unfair advantage (being allowed to run casino's in places where other ethnic groups are not allowed to do that).
And you completely ignore black people in your comment, for seemingly obvious reasons.
Perhaps that is because progressives have now gained a huge amount of informal power in the US and are using that to push the exact same failed immigration policies.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean there are Western cultures that are common to our shared cultural heritage. Things like the Enlightenment ideals of thought (rationalism and empiricism) liberal democracy as ideal ways of making decisions. If you don’t agree, just imagine someone choosing to do things the opposite way. Perhaps they are a monarchist like Curtis Yarvin, or they decide to make major decisions by use of a set of Norse Runes, or they think liberalism and civil liberties and human rights are suspect. Would such a person be able to do those things openly in polite society without triggering a huge backlash against themselves. You wouldn’t want to see the CEO of your company using Tarot cards to decide on major strategic planning. Yarvin is mostly an object of derision in those same polite society.
At some point, I think you reach critical mass where the groups who reject Western consensus end up being strong enough to make the assumptions of our culture no longer the consensus that you can assume most people around are on board with. One Yarvin is a curiosity, 3 million Yarvinites in a state can affect the zeitgeist.
Doesn’t Zuck pine for imperial Pax Romana era Rome ( specifically Augustus)?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Like what? White supremacy or multiculturalism? Fascism or Marxism-Leninism? Scientific racism and social darwinism? Monarchism and the divine right of kings? Catholic integralism? These are all Western ideas.
I guess you mean liberal democracy. But how liberal should democracy be? Should voters be allowed to get what they want, or is that populism? What should be censored? Communists? Nazis? Porn? Anti-feminists? Islam? What should be taught in state education, what is the correct kind of history? Who should be debanked and suppressed? Who controls who is let into the country and in what numbers? Are there such controls? Or are they racist? Who can be murdered with impunity? Who can say certain words? Who runs the administration?
'Western values' as we mean them are a recent idea. They aren't even Anglo. The Anglos of old did not really believe all the things we believe today. The Americans of old believed in white supremacy, homophobia, all kinds of things that are unfashionable today.
There is indeed a Western culture, language group, philosophy, worldview to a certain extent. But it's such a vast tree with so many branches. It's like how 'America' in a certain sense includes Peruvians, Alaskan natives, Montreal latte-sippers, Texas cowboys, Venezuelan lowlifes. But that meaning of America is so broad as to be all but useless. It's ever changing and whole groups disappear in time, changing beyond recognition. The cowboys are mostly gone. The Aztecs are all gone. The Puritans are gone.
The issue is not just in 'not anglifying' others but in others changing what it means to be 'anglified.' The danger is deeper and more insidious than just seeing the Somali Learing Centre and thinking 'oh it's not so hard to get rid of these jokers' - it has to actually be done and not just talked about. Values have to actually be preserved, not just defended. Culture wars must be won rather than merely fought.
When talking about large groups of people over time, the only constant is change.
Dante might have been a Christian, but he also saw himself as an inheritor of Roman culture, and so his Divine Comedy ends up with a strange mix of references to Classical Mythology and the Aeneid, in a book about the Christian Afterlife. And before Rome "Hellenized" and adopted Greek philosophy and Homeric myth as its own, it saw the Greeks as foreign and other. We know that Cato the Elder considered Greek philosophy "un-Roman" and he probably would have hated to learn that his great grandson, Cato the Younger would be remembered as a sort of Stoic martyr and sage. It only took four generations for a resistant Rome to Hellenize in this way.
Just as there is no "truer" Rome, there is no "truer" West. All of those version of Rome are the real Rome, whether pro-Hellenistic or anti-Hellenistic, whether Pagan or Christian, all of them were Roman. So too, the West has been a lot of different things. The West is Greece and Rome, and Geneva, and London and Paris. It encompasses secular enlightenment ideals from the Encyclopedists of France, to the Marxists of Russia, and the Christians of the Crusades, and the Pagan Romans.
CertainlyWorse was expressing concern for the fate of "the West", and I was addressing him in those terms. But the simple fact is that the only thing we can say for sure is that "the West" is going to change in ways we can hardly predict, and would have no matter what happened. That's the weird thing about concerning yourself about a civilization instead of a nation or an ethnos or a tribe. Civilizations contain multitudes and are ever-changing. At least if you zoom in to the tribe level, you can say that there is a continuity of genetics, even if there is cultural drift and change over time.
This is completely incoherent, unless what you mean by the 'real Rome' is merely that these different cultures all existed in the same place. But then the 'real' is not doing any work. You can't just adopt a phrase while rejecting the premise behind it, which is that true forms exist in contrast to non-true forms.
Yes, but this is not really relevant. If people interpret 'Western culture' as one involving things like individualism, democracy, capitalism, etc; then pointing out that parts of the history of Western Europe didn't have those things is at most a criticism of a sloppy choice of words, but it doesn't invalidate that people can have a preference for a certain culture and put a label on it. That the label is sloppy, does not mean that the things the label refers to is not something real, or that it is invalid to have a subjective preference for things that the label covers.
Note that by adopting the 'real' adjective, people are in fact making it clear that they reject your belief that just because things happen in a place, things all fall under that label of 'real X'.
And historians recognize the distinction between the early 'Romanitas' and the later Greco-Roman culture, so a change happened, that destroyed the thing that Cato the Elder loved and considered to be true Roman. His belief was based on a true fact (a cultural distinction), plus a subjective preference. You seem to agree with the fact, but only disagree with the subjective element, but there is no right or wrong when it comes to subjective preference. There is a wrong when it comes to denying others their subjective preference, by claiming that this preference is objectively wrong.
Your own argument can also be used to argue that it is weird to have a concern for a nation or an ethnos or a tribe, which are of course all ever-changing. Even the human race is changing or if you abstract away even further, the animal population of earth (with mankind being just one of the animals). So does your reasoning not require total apathy, even to the survival of humankind, or the quality of humankind (see Idiocracy)?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s only dangerous!
What level of intellect is required to see the violence and murder difference between races?
It’s not dead - but it COULD have been the capital of the free world.
Thank god we got Biggie Smalls and tacos instead.
Do you hate humanity so much that NYC should've had more influence?
More options
Context Copy link
Irish Americans had high rates of criminality until the around the 20th century. And the Irish in Ireland had low IQ's until their country became a banking hub. Lovecraft wasn't wrong to hate and fear the Irish in one sense, but after they were anglicized, the Irish Americans are just another "spicy white" ethnic group.
Certainly, I don't assume unkind things about someone when I hear they have some Irish heritage today.
I think the basic intuition is, sure, there might be genuine cultural or genetic differences that are leading some races to have higher rates of criminality in the United States today, but we don't actually know whether those groups are more like the Irish (where under the right set of societal conditions they might be made to assimilate) or whether it would literally take gene therapy to fix it. Also, the genetic factors for say, criminality, might not be precisely what we think. Just as the Native Americans seem to genuinely have higher genetic risk for alcoholism, I could easily imagine that ADOS black people might be more susceptible to certain kinds of drug addiction and that might end up explaining a large part of the difference in criminality between them and other ethnic groups.
Sure, instead it got the consolation prize of being the wealthiest city in the world, and one of two megacities that makes a major imprint on all of American culture and entertainment.
Specifically targeting the MAOA 2-repeat allele.
More options
Context Copy link
It's debatable whether or not this is an honest presentation of facts, but just assuming it as true for the sake of argument: liberals have been promising to do the same for other populations since time immemorial. American blacks are still not integrated, and Africa is still a basket case. How much longer until you accept you were wrong, ans who will be held accountable for it?
American culture and entertainment are on life support.
In a certain sense, I don't think we can be 100 percent sure until we have computers that can simulate the physics of our biological processes to a high degree of accuracy, because until that point all we will be able to do is genome-wide association studies and find genetic correlations with life outcomes but not explanations for why those correlations exist or whether they are causal. (Though I grant that we could in principle get a physical explanation earlier than that, the same way we figured out that the genetic disorder Phenylketonuria leads to low IQ if one eats a high protein diet due to their body not producing phenylalanine hydroxylase, and thus discovering that with a strict diet people with PKU can have normal IQ's. Genetics is weird sometimes, and interacts with the environment in odd ways.)
I'm perfectly open to the idea that black people might genetically be predisposed to low IQ and personality traits that lead to higher criminality, but I think this is far from proven. It would actually be great news if it was all genetic, because that means we could probably do voluntary eugenics or gene therapies with the right framing and marketing, and be rid of the problem without much issue. If it's cultural, that's much harder to deal with.
I think we're highly biased by our novelty-focused culture, but I would wager that America is producing excellent cultural and entertainment products at least as consistently as Ancient Greece or Rome did.
How often did the ancient world produce a Virgil or a Homer? How often did they coast for a few centuries on the insights of a Galen or an Aristotle?
If you want to enjoy human artistic excellence in the United States, you can find it in virtually every large American city. You like opera? We've got opera. Ballet? Classical music? You could disengage from American pop culture, and probably fly to a different city every week and enjoy great Western art and performances that are probably at least as good as the average of what you could have experienced 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago. Maybe we can't compare to the Gaussian tail artists of those eras, the virtuosos like Beethoven or Chopin, but you probably wouldn't have to look hard to find artists and performers in the top 20% of all of human history all over the United States today, which I think is nothing to sneeze at.
And if you're not rich, there's always the wealth of recordings we have, which give even the common man access to the great performances of the past. For a mere pittance, you could buy the Harvard Classics and immerse yourself in the greatest thoughts of Western thinkers of the last 2500 years.
Maybe it is true that many Americans choose to engage with the new and the now, and ignore the mountain of gold they're born into. But I'm grateful that I've had access to the public domain books on Project Gutenburg since I was in middle school, and got to enjoy works from 1001 Arabian Nights to Plato's Republic for free. I think it is possible, even with brain rot and the nightmare of the algorithm that more people today are engaging with the thought stream of Western civilization than ever before. And let's be honest, most of the servants of Ancient Greece and Rome probably weren't deeply immersing themselves in the art and literature of the era (even if there are notable exceptions like Epictetus and Cleanthes.)
To be fair, Rome was also known for entertaining the masses with blood sports and the like, but Hollywood went from intelligent, well-written movies to Superhero-slop. Now that the audience has grown tired of it, they have apparently become incapable of producing new epics, and are mostly recycling old movies or existing IPs, usually poorly.
All stagnating, mostly simply replaying the same old classics to dwindling audiences.
Yes, the US is very technically proficient. But that is not culture.
Traditional cultures are known for roaming troupes of artists, entertaining the masses, so I actually would expect people of that time (including farmers, not sure why you chose servants, unless you see the past through the lens of the rich, and have a blindness to the lives of commoners), to have access to art as well, but obviously more in line with the wealth levels and population density of the time.
More options
Context Copy link
The evidence is so overwhelming that a scientific study is not even necessary. It's like observing that men are genetically predisposed to being taller than women.
This strikes me as an isolated demand for rigor. Would you apply the same standards to the claim that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer?
No, because the consequences of getting it wrong are very different.
If a society believes that smoking causes cancer, and they are wrong, some people don't get to enjoy setting fire to foul-smelling leaves and covering their walls and furniture with discusting gunk.
If a society believes that Black people are less intelligent and more criminal, and they are wrong, millions of innocent people go through their lives with a boot stamping on their faces.
Only if you subscribe to modern liberalism. Its perfectly fine to accept race differences without being compelled to subjugate people under classical liberalism. Lincoln, an abolitionist, fiercely believed in black inferiority. He had some creative solutions, such as deportation of many back to Africa, which probably would have worked decently for mainland America.
But there need not be drastic measures. American blacks could merely be treated equally, with the same expectations as everyone else, and it would dramatically improve things here. Of course, the backlash would be immense, as blacks treat equal treatment as oppression.
More options
Context Copy link
So I have made an argument similar to this (but notably, not the same) and gotten heat for it, so allow me to say that I agree with those who are pointing out that truth should not depend on the social consequences. If something is true, even if that truth is hard, uncomfortable, and leads to unfortunate implications, that doesn't make it not true and you cannot demand people pretend that it is.
What you can demand is that we be very sure of it, and that we exercise extreme caution when deciding what to do about it. Which would be the steelman of what what you seem to be saying. What I was accused of was defending the "Noble Lie" (i.e., "We all collectively understand this is true but we must pretend we don't know it"). Which is not something I defend.
Where I differ from you is that you seem pretty set on "It would be so bad if this was true, that we must demand absolute 100% certainty, on the level of knowing that gravity exists, before we acknowledge it."
I don't agree that recognizing that there are racial differences in IQ and behavior would inevitably lead to racial oppression. I do agree that would be a risk. What I think it would lead to is some really hard choices and a lot of people unable to accept public policy that stops trying to "correct" a situation that is essentially not correctable. I don't know that we as a society could come to some sort of stable equilibrium where everyone is treated with dignity (and as an individual, not a demographic median!).
Nonetheless, I think we do still kind of need to know and face the truth.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is that if society believes the opposite of that, and they are wrong, then also millions of innocent people go through their lives with a boot stamping on their faces. There's no safe "false positives are clearly better/worse than false negatives" situation here that makes it easy to just err on one side. This is one of those legitimate Hard Problems that we need to actually do real scientific research to get right.
More options
Context Copy link
Are you able to be a little more specific about how public policy would necessarily look if society believed that "[b]lack people are less intelligent and more criminal"?
To put it another way, what exactly do you mean by "millions of innocent people go through their lives with a boot stamping on their faces"? What exactly would happen to these people which is equivalent to having a boot [stomping] on their faces"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So that's what society is doing to the downies!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Or would you apply the same rigor to the other question? That is, neither position is proven but which has more evidence. Why are privileging the blank slate hypothesis when it has for less evidence.
I don't privilege the blank slate hypothesis personally. My prior is somewhere in the spectrum between the suggested heredity from twin studies, and the suggested heredity from GWAS and GCTA for IQ and criminality.
I just think the HBD people here have a weirdly rigid view of biology. Like, sure, we would expect that as white and black environments become more similar, genetics becomes more important not less. I think there's a fair argument that black and white environment have become more similar in a lot ways, and so we should expect that we are starting to see more of the underlying genetic differences between the two groups, just as if we fed everyone the same 2000 calorie nutricube every day, we would expect the differences in height that result to be primarily due to genetics.
But I think a lot of "weird" stuff can hide in the remaining environmental differences between black and white people. Just as it would be slightly premature to say we have a handle on the genetic differences between rose cultivar A and rose cultivar B when we give them soil, sun and water conditions that are 80% similar, if the 20% of difference is a haphazard combination of pollutants, or uniformly more extreme weather conditions for one of the two cultivars.
Personally, I'm hoping it is genetic, because that would make the problem much more tractable. But I want to see the genes, and a proposed mechanism for how the genes work before I fully accept it. Of course, I will make Bayesian updates as we gather more data, but I think a lot of people update in inappropriately intense ways compared to the rigor of the evidence they are packing.
Could you be more specific? Are there any 'environmental' differences between Euro-Americans and Afro-Americans that aren't just a manifestation of the different IQ scores that blank slaters are trying to explain away?
What evidence are you waiting for? We already have polygenic risk scores for intelligence. We know that intelligence is mostly heritable, and that this doesn't differ by race.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If the only thing that could convince you is literal sci-fi technology, why are you doing the "it worked for the Irish" bit, then? That argument certainly doesn't meet the standard that you put upon people who disagree with you, so it should be rejected on similar grounds.
The bad news would have been that we've spent an inordinate amount of time and resources victim-blaming, and excluding people out of public life, for not enthusiastically hopping on the current race-equality bandwagon. This is why I asked who will be held accountable for it, it's not something we can gloss over with "teehee, I guess it doesn't matter now".
By that metric, there's nothing special about New York. I'm not buying a ticket to watch any of the stuff they make there, there's more than enough local artists I can enjoy. Even in the US a trip to the city scarcely seems worth the bother, and the city's impact on the rest of the culture is dwindling.
The metric of IQ was invented in 1905. Around the 1970's we measured Irish IQ, and it seemed low. In the late 1980's Ireland became a banking hub and in the decades that followed we measured their IQ's and they weren't low. Those are the facts as I roughly understand them, without causal links added.
I do agree that the banking hub explanation is only one possible explanation for the observed changes in IQ. It's not as certain as the conservation of momentum, to be sure. It is just a balance of probabilities.
We have seen Irish IQ go up to around the White European average. We have also seen black IQ go up, but it does not match White IQ (today it averages around 85 in the US.) I don't think we have definitive evidence that this is as high as it will ever go. I guess my question would be, would it surprise you if in 100 years, people with similar genetics to today's African Americans ended up having average IQ's that were equivalent to a 90 or a 95 today and no medical interventions were responsible for the measured rise in IQ? Would it surprise you if in 100 years the black murder rate fell 10%-20%? What about if the rise in IQ was larger, or the fall in the murder rate even greater? What do you consider unrealistic for us to observe in the future?
Sure. I was just defending American culture as a whole there. You were the one who said it was on life support.
My issue right now is that debating these facts seems a bit futile, because you explicitly said you wouldn't change your mind until we came up with an atomic-level simulation of society. Why shouldn't I hold you to the same standard?
I think you misinterpreted my statement, so I will try to make my position more clear.
I believe I have a decent layman's understanding of the study of genetics and life outcomes. I believe that IQ is genetic (though with some influence from environment), and I believe that groups could have different average IQ's due to a different prevalence of genes being common within those groups. All of that I am perfectly on board with.
However, I think we are still in a pretty primitive place when it comes to the relationship between DNA and life outcomes. We have a better understanding than the behaviorists (who were true blank slatists), or the era of single gene studies (which produced a lot of good insights, and also a lot of junk science with low-N studies that didn't have enough power to show anything statistically significant), but right now what we're doing is just genome-wide association studies with various life outcomes. And that is a powerful tool, because it means that we can narrow our search space tremendously when we are looking for causal explanations.
But even if we find candidate genes, they might not produce low IQ in so straightforward a way as, "the blueprint of your brain down to the DNA is just dumber." The most trivial example of this might be a causal story along the lines of:
Now, to be clear, I don't think that that causal story is true. But hopefully it helps illustrates that it kind of matters what a gene actually does, not just whether it correlates with life outcomes. If we do GWAS, and find that the genes related to black external physical features are correlated with less success in life or lower educational attainment, then that doesn't really tell us anything new (unless there are unexpected double effects, similar to the findings that people with red hair supposedly have less pain tolerance than people with other hair colors due to the red hair genes having other downstream effects.)
If I grant that low black IQ in the modern day is primarily explained by genetics, there's still a lot of hypotheses that need to be investigated for the how and why. For example, could any of the following be an explanation:
Hopefully with those illustrations it becomes clear why I was saying we would definitively know when we can fully simulate the environment. I am not resistant to a simple explanation like, "black people's brains are just structurally dumber across the board", but I don't think that's the "null hypothesis" even if we do rigorous, high-N GWAS studies and find some good candidate genes for black life outcomes in America. Once we find the genes, we have to explain how they are affecting IQ, and there is no law of the universe requiring it to be something as simple as Mendelian inheritance in peas.
It is possible we'll know with a high degree of confidence much sooner than that. I can be convinced without a full biological simulation that low black IQ is best explained by genes, and we know approximately what those genes are and what they are doing to cause lower IQ. But I don't think anyone has such an explanation yet. I would be happy to be pointed at the rigorously conducted studies that say otherwise, though. I'd rather believe what is true, than suspend my judgement awaiting a better explanation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
‘ it’s ok you’re dead now, in the future these people will be 30% less likely to murder, still bout 40% more likely than everyone else ‘ is worse than anything I can imagine.
I was asking to get a sense of how people were thinking about the genetic proclivities of African Americans for IQ and criminality. Like, I'm willing to entertain that the difference is genetic, but just as I think that differences in genetics probably explain differences in sporting ability (say, height in basketball to name just one factor), and yet I also believe that a clone of Lebron James who was half-starved his whole life and kept in a dark cave with no human contact would not be a good basketball player, I also think it is reasonable to speculate that there might be environmental factors exacerbating whatever genetic differences are there.
For example, a quick search shows that the following vitamin deficiencies are common in African Americans: vitamin D (likely due to their darker skin), iron, vitamin B12, magnesium, and vitamin B2. Now, I don't have a causal story for how any of those interact with IQ or criminality, but if we imagine the US making an intervention similar to iodine in salt or vitamins A and D in milk, would it be totally crazy if that led to some positive outcomes for criminality?
I also think the focus on relative rates is a little silly. It would be one thing if every black person was a genetic monstrosity with a 50/50 chance of turning on you and killing you dead in the streets every time you encountered them, but because America has a relatively low murder rate (high for a rich developed country, but still lower than most of the developing world), the practical effect of a statement like "black people are around eight times more likely to commit murder than the rest of the US population on a per-capita basis" is that in a year like 2023 around 6,405 black Americans committed murder out of a population of 48.3 million black people (and most of their victims were other black people, so it's not like they're mostly making it everyone else's problem.)
That is, even if black criminality is 100% genetic, it cashes out to a level where we should still treat the remaining 99.99+% of blacks with a strong presumption that they are not murderers, if we want to be well-calibrated to the statistics. It would almost be hysterical to do otherwise. Certainly it is statistically illiterate to make a big deal out of such a tiny number of bad apples, even if it is relatively higher than other groups.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not convinced that multiculturalism doesn’t need some speech suppression, it can sort of coast in periods of prosperity without it, but when you create a situation where it’s obvious that there’s not enough goodies to give the majority of people the good life, it falls apart quickly, and even with speech controls in place it’s hard to keep tribalism at bay.
Maybe don't do that then? (This is why I find the leftist embrace of Gaianist degrowtherism to be less than logically coherent with their stated commitments to "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité", and lean more toward Leigh Phillips Thought as a more effective route to the realisation of those principles.)
EDIT: I have realised that there is a grammatical ambiguity in my response. The 'that' which you ought not to do refers to 'create a situation where...', not to 'give the majority of people...'.
We apologise for the inconvenience.
So you deliberately destroy the economy so that nobody gets anything above bare survival? The issue is that competition for resources in a situation where the people involved have enough differences to matter means that they become much more tribal than they would otherwise. And as such it’s inevitable unless you find a way to always either have absolutely nothing available to fight over, or so many resources that everyone can have everything they want and still have enough left. If you’re not in either of those conditions, you’re going to have tribalism.
Integration sort of worked in the 1960s because it was part of the American golden age in which everyone could reasonably expect that a modicum of effort would allow them to own a house and a car and their kids could go to an affordable college and land a white collar job. In 2026, that’s no longer the case, homes are out of reach for most people, secure jobs are hard to get even as college becomes virtually unaffordable for most people. In that Situation, it’s easy to fall into tribalism and work to make sure that whatever resources available go to people like you, rather than some other tribe.
No. I said that I am against degrowth.
I am aiming for the latter. I apologise if that wasn't clear.
That's the problem we need to solve.
The thesis of the linked monograph is, roughly paraphrased, is "Don't smash the machine, take it over!"; the machine being large-scale industrial production, which Mr Phillips desires be managed via the ballot box.
You can aim for it, but the planet is finite, so im not convinced you can just make large amounts of everything available. Take housing. If you’re going to ensure everyone has access to a nice home of 3-4 bedrooms and maybe 1/8 an acre of land you are limited to the inhabitable land in the USA and even then you need to be near places with jobs. You basically cannot do this. You can maybe give everyone a car, or maybe cheap consumer goods.
Planet?
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
American exceptionalism aside, in the non-American Western nations there is definitely a lack of will and state capacity to assimilate foreign cultures. It is cheaper in terms of political capital to double down on indoctrinating the host heritage populations to accept the 'eccentricities' of immigrant groups over mandating assimilation. There's also perverse incentives where host politicians (and parties more broadly) can benefit themselves by championing immigrant groups over heritage citizens. The US isn't immune to this in pockets, but broader American culture may be more resilient against cultural infringement.
Noticing the 'two tier' celebration of immigrant cultures over the denigration of the host cultures is building resentment. The UK seems to be the first of the Anglo nations to reach a crisis about this with free speech infringements used to keep a lid on things.
The fertility decline/rapid aging of the citizen population doesn't help either imo. The younger cohorts are much more diverse.
It also means that you can't ever stop and assimilate people. People always bring up the Ellis Islanders or whoever but that stopped and the intake slowed for a generation after. Nobody who cites that as a success story even pretends that's going to happen because they want workers and to show population/economic growth.
Nobody can ever make the argument to ease off for a decade or two, even for specific groups.
There's some pretense that they're gonna fix the plane when it's in flight but no one actually knows how to do it.
It's the only group with revolutionary potential so it's very dangerous to embolden their critiques of multiculturalism or show it may be worse than they think. I think, in the eyes of the leaders, it runs the risk of becoming a runaway train where they take it too far.
Of course, this is partly what helped the very offenses that make it even harder to fess up and further discredit the system.
I might sound like a broken record, but I think TFR is the root cause of all this. Western governments see population decline (and consequent tax base erosion) as a sovereign risk and will do whatever they can to forestall it. Immigration is the only tool they think is feasible to 'fix' this, so we continue to see uniparty policies of mass immigration despite it being grossly unpopular.
Everything else is downstream of this. I've heard speculation that AI based productivity gains might obviate the need for immigration, but I'm not holding my breath.
We know this is not the reason, because the governments have data that show immigrants are a massive money sink. Some of them even decided to share it with the public!
This didn't actually prevent some government orgs from assuming otherwise, e.g. in the British OBR projections that assumed migrants would be as productive as locals.
That and lobbying from business (and fears of a dying healthcare system) explains the massive post-COVID migration spike.
Incredibly short sighted (basically low wages for business that didn't like how COVID shifted the labour market + pretty projections of growth so you can borrow at the expense of taxpayers for decades) but governments can be shortsighted. It also doesn't help when discussions on human capital are basically taboo so it's hard to coordinate criticism without being called racist.
Of course, that's another structural problem caused by aging: there aren't really many high IQ populations to squeeze since most of their countries are both wealthy now and aging (and, in the case of Britain, they left the EU). If you think migration is your solution it's gonna be Third World migration and we've seen how even selective immigration systems that try to get the cream of the crop from places like India got corrupted by the incentive to import cheap labour.
More options
Context Copy link
Refugees are definitely a money sink. Young educated tradespeople or professionals going through a strict points based system are normally positive in lifetime contribution.
Its difficult to do direct comparisons on net lifetime contributions across the anglo countries because a lot of the studies seem to be gamed to create the strongest arguments for immigration.
Regardless, as soon as you look at non-economic impacts, multiculturalism has so many downsides over homogeneity.
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