site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32421 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.

What do we do? We marvel at the fact that Emil's up on Twitter and his website is not given the Kiwifarms treatment.

Interracial rape is understandably a great cause for flame war in the US, and also not something I care about. My model is mainly that black people are all-around more impulsive, more criminal, more violent and more tribal; the specific distribution of the impact of those differences is downstream of contingent factors like relative population densities, laws, housing, policing etc.

That said, @Gdanning's analysis (Kirkegaard's sources discuss the question too) reminds me of another politically incorrect and statistically literate author, La Griffe du Lion, whose website is even more of a marvelous fossil. He has developed a model of ghettoization/white flight based on selective victimization of non-blacks by blacks. It seems to comport with anecdotal reports like that man who bought Pine Bluff, Arkansas and with the graph in Emil's piece.

Anyway, Crime in the Hood, November 1999:

… However, as a neighborhood turns black, this factor could increase black-on-white violence at most by a factor of 3, and then only when a neighborhood is virtually all black. The observed level of white victimization is much too high to blame on general tendencies of blacks to be violent. A more important reason is simply that blacks prefer white victims.

The best and most complete evidence comes from the Justice Department. Its annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) canvasses a representative sample of about 80,000 Americans, from roughly 43,000 households. From this survey, a picture of crime is painted by its victims. The last full report of the NCVS was issued in 1994. From it we learn that blacks committed 1,600,951 violent crimes against whites. In the same year, whites committed 165,345 such offenses against blacks. Despite being only 13 percent of the population, blacks committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial crime. Less than 15 percent of these had robbery as a motive. The rest were assaults and rapes.

The asymmetry of interracial crime goes still deeper. More than half the violence committed by blacks is directed against whites, 57 percent in 1994. Less than 3 percent of the violence committed by whites is directed against blacks. Population and NCVS statistics reveal that in 1994 a black was 64 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. In the city, the races live mostly apart from one another, so that the most convenient victims of thugs are others of the same race. Only a hunter's mentality could account for the data. Given a choice, a black thug will select a white victim. Ironically, so will a white thug.

[…]    Equation (4) gives the probability that John will be victimized by a white in a given year. It shows that to a high degree of approximation, the risk John faces from whites is not only independent of neighborhood size, but also neighborhood composition. The probability that John is attacked by whites in a given year is the same no matter where he lives. It is simply equal to the per capita number of violent incidents perpetrated by whites in a year. We tested this approximation, setting N = 1000 and pW = 0.0279, the value obtained from the NCVS. Over most of the range of racial composition, the approximation, Φ_W_ = pW = 0.0279 agrees within 2 figures with the accurate expression (3) as seen in the table below.

[…] We have modeled violent victimization of whites in a racially mixed neighborhood. Our model is based on data collected by the Justice Department and reported in the NCVS. It paints a bleak picture for whites. As a neighborhood turns black, violent victimization of its white residents begins immediately. At first the risk is small, not much different from its previous all-white level. However, by the time the neighborhood reaches the half-black point, every white family of four has better than a one in three chance of being victimized within a year. Two factors account for black-on-white violence. 1) Blacks are 3 times more likely to commit violent crime than whites, and 2) black thugs prefer white victims, selecting them 64 times more than white thugs choose black victims. Most of the risk faced by whites, results from the predilection of black thugs to prey upon whites. As a neighborhood becomes overwhelmingly black, the risk curve for whites rises to ominous heights. In the last stages of transformation, the likelihood of a white being victimized within a year becomes a virtual certainty.

The measure of «systemic» power that progressives like to talk about – systemic racism, patriarchy, etc. – is an ability to make outcomes that hurt your outgroup look like they follow from natural, inevitable processes, long in motion through no living person's fault. Some things are genuinely this way; others are only made to assume this form. For example, by making unwarranted promises of miracle solutions, and suppressing public awareness of and interest in more feasible alternative routes for so long that they become technically obsolete or politically unfeasible.

As you can note, this article is over 23 years old. People not yet born then have formed strong political opinions. We haven't progressed even on talking points. So I don't think there's much to «do» about it all. Like Yevgeny Ponasenkov said 8 years ago: «If you couldn't do it in a 1000 years, what are 20 more to you? Look, Russia can develop normally and it's not about 20 or a 1000 years, a lot can be done in a single year, if there's a honest admission that we were making mistakes here and there, and now will follow another path. Okay? Only – not «our special path», in the ditch, with empty shops and towards 1937. There exists the history of Civilization, everything there has been tried, conclusions proven, we are buying everything from there now – cars, phones, clothing, food… and all mistakes are also on display there, you only have to not replicate them. That's all. So we need to admit: yes, we were mistaken, no, we will no longer search for our special path that doesn't exist, we're going forward, in the correct, Western, so to speak, direction». You know what Western direction we took.

None of this was exactly unanticipated before La Griffe either. Black impulsivity, criminality and tribalism are factors that have been known for centuries; the intuitive solution is: high priors for black proclivity for antisocial behavior, therefore unequal treatment, either by segregation (cheap, only protects whites) or in the manner of policing (medium, somewhat protects blacks) and state-mandated upbringing (very hard, actually helps them).

But after a few generations grow up on a steady diet of mocking the very premise of the problem, it doesn't matter what facts you show them: their thought trajectories cannot exit the basin where this problem can be divorced from white people problems and where solutions which do not amount to doubling down on total society-spanning surveillance exist. «All rape should be investigated and the culprit found», indeed. We have a discount on CCTV systems with integrated gait recognition!

I read this twice. I have pretty good reading comprehension skills. You have tested those skills. Can you summerize your comment in plain and non-flowery language what you feel about about the artical OP posted? I'm sure if you summed it up in a few sentences it would help us all avoid a misunderstanding.

Not to disparage your comprehension skills, but the points he's making are fairly simple:

Even if the research is spot on, what can be done?

This is not new, here's a study from 1994 that has similarly ugly conclusions, but there is no will to do anything about it.

The conclusions of the research were not unanticipated. In fact the motives behind the results have been understood for centuries.

Power is demonstrated by the ability to make outcomes that hurt people you don't like look like they occur naturally.

To solve the problem people need to admit they were wrong. They would rather keep searching for a solution that doesn't exist, rather than admit that the research shows what they think is unfavorable (in this case, black criminals prey on whites, and this has a direct correlation with white flight).

You can come up with all the facts you want, but there is no way around the problem that people understand the will to power.

To wit: they have now responded. If I were to be uncharitable thier more plain language version sounds more like mien kamph than rationalist. Peel back another layer and we might get there. But I am being charitable. They are right that "straw folk" ...i mean "woke folk" ignore statistics and don't seem to have anwers. But the implication that they push, and it's right there, is that some white nationalism is in order. That's what I wanted them to more articulately express so no one can misunderstand.

  • -12

This subthread was a shitshow, and you racked up an impressive number of reports.

You need to speak plainly, and avoid making inflammatory accusations with little evidence.

5 day ban

Thanks for providing an example. Since you have been molded by those efforts I describe, your conclusion is to pattern-match me to Hitler while handwaving away the mendacity of egalitarians like mere good-natured statistical ignorance and chortling about strawmen – rather than pattern-match their conspicuous denial of harm their policies cause to a hostile conspiracy, and dismiss alarms going off at me.

It's funny that you contrast the «white nationalist» reading to a «rationalist» one. Rationalists deal in hypotheses and adjustment of priors. Do you think you are being a better rationalist?

People's beliefs are determined by attractors built over years of indoctrination, so the word vomit they spew is largely post hoc rationalization for what they already can't not believe. Like I say:

But after a few generations grow up on a steady diet of mocking the very premise of the problem, it doesn't matter what facts you show them: their thought trajectories cannot exit the basin where this problem can be divorced from white people problems …

Like you say:

They are right that "straw folk" ...i mean "woke folk" ignore statistics and don't seem to have anwers. But the implication that they push, and it's right there, is that some white nationalism is in order.

Oooh, you caught me. It's right there. We can't have that, can we? I mean, repelling Section 8 or, G-d forbid, legalizing nonviolent race-exclusionary communities that you don't have to be rich or nonwhite to get into would be the worst, right right? Tearing that down in South Africa is a great success story, correct? Some fucking whiteys are still resisting, but it's clearly not acceptable and will be made unsustainable.

Peel back another layer and we might get there.

I appreciate the self-confidence.

But I am being charitable.

That too, but you know, I can take a bit more beating. Be my guest.

Oh this is fun! I've been banned from reddit so many times I finally gave up three years ago. Everytime for calling out the "woke left". Do you even know what they are? I can educate you as a "leftwinger" and we can circle jerk about what cucks they are and that sounds hot. But I am suspecious that you might think I am gay.

My self confidence about your trajectory is confirmed by this very comment. Socratic method works!

I really don't need to say anything. You have said what I wanted you to say.

  • -18

I think you misunderstand the «Socratic method», but you're welcome to keep going. (BTW, is the typo in your flair intentional?)

OP was using obtuse languge to say something they were afraid to say in plain language. In plain language I asked them to clarify.

Your success at this would be logically inconsistent with the premise of my being afraid to speak plainly. Now, how about you speak plainly, without bald assertions in the style of

sounds more like mien kamph than rationalist

But the implication that they push, and it's right there, is that some white nationalism is in order. That's what I wanted them to more articulately express so no one can misunderstand.

and self-congratulatory vague bullshit like

My self confidence about your trajectory is confirmed by this very comment.

I really don't need to say anything. You have said what I wanted you to say.

I was well aware of what they were saying. I wanted them to say it plainly so they couldn't hide what they really felt behind flowery, obtuse pseudo intellectual languge.

You appeal to forum rules and culture. There's a norm here against darkly hinting and insinuating, and also against building consensus. If you believe your conclusions are so self-evident that none could misunderstand, you clearly can afford to spell them out while you're at it. Running victory laps high on your own supply is pretty cringe.

Lol. I'm 8 deep. All I keep saying is that you can keep talking. I encourage you to keep talking. My goal is to hear you talk. I like talking to you. I want to hear you. You are seen and heard. This is me speaking plainly. I want to hear you. But you are not so good at being heard.

What do you think are my motives? Do you believe I have an agenda? By what mechanism are black folk different from white folk such that the only solution is segregation or some such?

You are loved.

  • -14
More comments

You missed the point of my comment. I was well aware of what they were saying. I wanted them to say it plainly so they couldn't hide what they really felt behind flowery, obtuse pseudo intellectual languge.

Then say that?

Not to disparage your reading comprehension but that should have been obvious by the words I used. I was just being diplomatic and charitable as peer the forum's culture and rules.

  • -13

This is hilarious; the entire apparent point of your comment chain was to get someone else to speak plainly. But for you it's okay to be arch and clever and whatever.

My mistake. I assumed you were making a request in good faith. I won't make that mistake again.

One of the rules here is to speak in plain language. OP was using obtuse languge to say something they were afraid to say in plain language. In plain language I asked them to clarify. My motivations for doing that are irrelevant. It is the socratic method. Something promoted on this forum all the time. It is part of civil discourse and completely inline with this forum's culture. You might as well criticize me for asking a question that you have no good answer to...which is exactly what you are doing.

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