site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32388 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Same thing “we” have always done.

Rape is still awful. I don’t really care who’s doing it to whom. Kirke does, because he’s running off a very different sort of tribalism.

What’re the actual rates he comes up with? In a perfectly race-blind America, I’d expect 8-9x difference purely due to population sizes. But the error bars are going to be enormous.

Edit: as @benmmurphy observes, naive population numbers aren’t the right figures. In the race-blind, perfectly random hypothetical, we’d expect any category to match the demographics. White people would be 58% of victims and perpetrators alike. Then

12% Bp 58% Wp
12% Bv 1.4% 7.0%
58% Wv 7.0% 34%

In reality, we see something more like

10% Bp <1% Wp
18% Bv 1.8% 4.2%
82% Wv 13% <1%

(Both tables are missing columns, so the percentages are going to be weird.)

The ratio of black-on-white vs. white-on-black rapes is still a poor way to investigate this, though.

i guess it depends on what you mean by rates. if you compare the ratio ([W rapes W] / [W rapes B]) against ([B rapes B] / [B rapes W]) then you would expect the ratios to be out of whack. but if you compare (W rapes B) against (B rapes W) then these should be the same numerically because it takes 2 to tango so the ratios in the final equations are the same but just ordered differently. but i guess if you doing something like dividing (W rapes B) and (B rapes W) by population numbers of the offender (or victim) then you are going to get ratios that are out of whack because the numerators should be the same but will have different denominators. but i'm not sure what the justification for doing this division would be...

A worked example:

Using this population ratio:

A: 3/4

B: 1/4

Where the population is made of of 50% rapists who rape from the population randomly:

A_r: 3/8

B_r: 1/8




A_r_A: 3/8 * 3/4 = 9/32

A_r_B: 3/8 * 1/4 = 3/32


B_r_A: 1/8 * 3/4 = 3/32

B_r_B: 1/8 * 1/4 = 1/32

BrA is 3x more likely than BrB

whereas

ArB is 3x less likely than ArA

but A_r_B == B_r_A

Doesn’t that estimate totals instead of rates?

Take a random victim, ignoring race. Selecting a perpetrator at random, there’s 12% for a black rapist or 58% for white. If the OP is suggesting black men are unusually likely to rape white women, then that’s the figure he’d be comparing against.

God help me, I’ll check the article.

P(BrW) = 23.5/181 = 13%

P(WrB) = 1.65/39 = 4.2%

So the first number is right around what I’d expect from the hypothetical, and the second is really low. This gives his mismatched ratio.

I think you’re right that my 8-9x number was the wrong stat.

yeah. obv there is something not normal between the rate of rapes between the two races but i think a lot of articles from the 'pro-white' perspective exaggerate the discrepancy because if you have a model of perpetrators selecting random victims then blacks are going to naturally commit more rapes against whites per population. however, in the article emil does make the case that victim selection is not random and perpetrators tend to target victims that they have access to and there is a lot of racial segregation so its a lot more complicated. this 'random' model might not be appropriate.

there seems to be two things

  1. blacks are committing more rapes than whites per population and this seems to be undeniable

  2. blacks are targeting whites more than some kind of 'normal' model of rape would predict. this seems much harder to prove mostly because wtf is this normal model of rape. it seems like some random model of rape is inappropriate due to neighbourhood distribution. so how do you come up with some 'normal' model of rape.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats