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 -
Yeah, that's generally how those narratives go. A string of just so stories and a-ha! moments that don't hold water when we have to explain the same pattern existing elsewhere.
Paleo-cons got kicked out of the mainstream a long time ago. Peter Brimelow did a nice interview on the topic on Tucker Carlson's show recently. Which was a nice, albeit a bit late, surprise.
Why indeed. Are either of these things relevant or related? Out of wedlock births in Iceland are the norm and happen at almost the exact same rate as out of wedlock births for AA's. Yet they have none of their problems. You are going to have to clarify what the point is here.
Lots of people who probably don't know what a paleo-con is still vote R and can express similar sentiment.
Yes, out of wedlock births are an anti-social behavior that correlates with bad childhood outcomes (at least in the US of A).
In Iceland, though, this only translates to about a quarter of children being raised in single-parent homes - quite possibly, the parents being married in all-but-name, you're right that it doesn't cause significant problems. It's something like twice the rate among African-Americans - which, relevantly to my point, has risen since the 1960s. Why has this negative behavior among African Americans risen with their IQ score?
And we can ask the same question about violent crime: what's the HBD explanation for why African-American crime rose massively in the 1960s even as they grew more prosperous (in the 1940s, when African-Americans were poorer, crime was much lower)?
Random people who vote R don't make the conservative narrative. It's made and expressed in mainstream conservative media.
Yet the mechanism does not hold the same effect when looking at a different population. So it's not a cause but a consequence.
There are plenty of single mothers who successfully raise their children alone. So single parent homes are not a cause but a consequence. There are different reasons for why some people find themselves in the circumstance that correlates with negative outcomes. It's those reasons that matter, not the circumstance. A low intelligence low impulse control person was always going to have problems when given the freedom to express themselves, and their offspring would always face similar challenges if they carry those same traits.
The notion that civility and success needs to be drilled and beaten into every child through a mother and father isn't true. It's true for some of them, and I do personally believe two parents households are better. But the high quality children generally just make success and civility happen because it's not that much effort for them. Sitting still, figuring out the solution to the problem and getting a reward for their good behavior comes naturally and effortlessly. You can sabotage them, sure. And some otherwise high quality kids might have specific peculiar needs that will hamper them if not met, but the point is that there's a difference between what a sufficient environment is for a 'high quality' kid populations and 'low quality' ones.
As for AA's IQ gains, they seem largely driven by test score inflation. Or are, at the least, not indicative of an improvement in intelligence. Look for the 'Hollow Gains' chapter.
Why would more freedom and prosperity being handed to a population that has a lot of low impulse control low IQ people make them less criminal?
A more constrictive environment prevented the expression of bad behaviors. A more permissive environment allowed for it.
To contrast this with the point made earlier, a more permissive environment in Iceland allowed for more expressions of good behaviors. Because the population there had more good behaviors to express. The controlling factor is the population.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link