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 -
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.
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
Ok, so in your view, societal recognition that blacks are less intelligent and more criminal would necessarily lead to the reinstatement of racial segregation in the South.
Do I understand you correctly?
No. It would not necessarily lead to such; however, defenders of Jim Crow often cited the alleged mental deficits and supposed inherent criminal tendencies of the Black population; thus, it is not as far from possibility as I would prefer.
Ok, I think I understand your position now. I disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, in my view, societal recognition of truth should not depend on the likelihood of harm resulting from that recognition. Either something is true or it isn't and the standard for truth seeking is logically irrelevant to the consequences of such truth.
Moreover, if there is a principle in place that the possibility of harm is ground to reject something which would otherwise be accepted as true, it opens the door to the worst kind of abuses.
Second, even if there were such a principle in place, truths should not be rejected on the mere possibility of harm. Rather, for much the same reason, a compelling case needs to be made of a strong likelihood of harm.
Here, there are plenty of laws and Supreme Court decisions in place guaranteeing equality. Thus, it is pretty unlikely that recognition of the truth about blacks would change this.
Indeed, it is worth drawing a distinction between (1) lower black intelligence and higher criminality; and (2) the genetic cause of the same. There is no serious dispute that on average, blacks have lower IQs than non blacks and are more likely to commit crime. And yet this hasn't resulted in reenactment of Jim Crow laws. Given that, it's difficult to see how recognition of a genetic component in this discrepancy would bring about a return of Jim Crow laws.
It is also worth distinguishing between (1) the level of proof necessary for societal acceptance of some truth; and (2) the level of proof necessary for laws to be enacted on the basis of the same.
We already have laws and policies in place which were enacted on the assumption that black underperformance is the result of past discrimination. I'm perfectly fine with a principle which says that until there is super-duper proof that this assumption is correct, then such laws and policies are unacceptable.
In other words, if -- for purposes of policymaking -- we are going to have a super high standard before concluding that black underperformance is a result of genetics, in whole or in part -- it follows logically we should have a super high standard before concluding that black underperformance is a result of past discrimination.
If the resulting logic is "we just don't know why blacks score lower on intelligence tests and commit more crime, and until that is known definitively, we won't have Jim Crow laws; we wont' have affirmative action; all races will be treated equally; etc." that's fine with me. To put it another way, if the conclusion that black underperformance is in part the result of genetics is possibly harmful to blacks, then we should also consider that the reverse conclusion is harmful to non-blacks.
I will acknowledge that, due to the norms against racial discrimination established during and after the Civil Rights Movement, the danger is less now than it would have been in earlier decades; however, these norms are eroding at an alarming rate.
Explicit discrimination existed, and left Black people poorer than they otherwise would have been.
Jim Crow was far more harmful to Black people than any of the attempts to remedy it have been to others.
I can see the argument for a higher standard of evidence for blaming particular people or institutions for discrimination.
I have considered many potential explanations for the continuing poor outcomes among Black people, both orthodox and heretical; all of them seem to, ultimately, trace back to discrimination against them, although that discrimination is not always done by human beings.
I'm extremely skeptical of this claim. What's your evidence?
Acknowledging the truth about racial differences is unlikely to result in a return of Jim Crow laws. The only evidence you have offered (so far) is a claim that racial differences were used to justify Jim Crow laws.
Meanwhile, harm to non-blacks from affirmative action and such is real and unquestionably happening.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly if one were to apply your standard to the position that black underperformance is primarily the result of past discrimination by non-blacks, there's nowhere near sufficient proof.
In any event, I take it that in your view, it's reasonable for society to refuse to acknowledge truths solely because doing so might possibly result in harm. Is that correct? And this applies universally, not just in connection with policymaking. Correct?
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
More options
Context Copy link