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 -
For those with knowledge/believers of HBD, what does it have to say about Indians (East Asia), Arabs, & Hispanics (IQ wise)? I've been living in my city and I've noticed Indians tend to live in the nicer neighborhoods. Perhaps just selection effects from immigration? Hispanics have similar problems as black people, what does HBD say about them? Arabs?
Neither Indians (caste system) nor Hispanics (white, black, Amerindian) fit into one group. Hispanic is like saying someone is American. It’s not an ethnicity.
Intresting, so what are the actually "races" genetically speaking? Is it just, black people, whites, than asians? How is it classified?
The 19th century scientific racists worked this out, and it has been confirmed by modern DNA testing. There are three major surviving racial groups, separated by the Sahara, the Great Steppe and the Himalayas:
There are then the various groups that didn't develop agriculture and got mostly-genocided when they came into contact with people who did. The pygmies and Khoisan in Africa are genetically distinct races and would be on the list alongside the big three if there were enough of them left. Native Americans (whose ancestors crossed the Bering Strait relatively recently) and Polynesians are subgroups of East Asians. Australian Aborigines have been genetically isolated for long enough that they are de facto a separate race too.
From the point of view of HBD-driven policy, this is complicated by the fact that endogamous sub-populations can be subject to relatively rapid selection for IQ or other pro-social traits (definitely over a timescale of centuries, possibly faster), leading to a hierarchy of desirability that doesn't track the big-picture genetics.
From the point of view of normie ethno-nationalism, none of this is relevant because "white" as an identity group that one can be a nationalist of is a political category and not a genetic one. The ethnogenesis of "whites" happened in America (and South Africa with the need to unite Anglos and Afrikaaners) and largely didn't in other places, and the boundaries of who can assimilate to American political whiteness are roughly "culturally Christian with no visible sub-Saharan African ancestry". The nearest equivalent to political whiteness in the UK is "non-Muslim", with Jews and Hindu Indians being politically whiter-than-white. Vivek winning the Ohio gubernatorial primary suggests something similar could happen in the US, with anyone who is neither Black nor Muslim ending up tarred with political whiteness by the far left and welcome in the politically white coalition on the right.
More options
Context Copy link
You can cluster populations into clearly distinct genetic groups using various unsupervised algorithms (i.e. without prior labels about who belongs to which group). If you did this in the United States, those clusters would be highly predictive of which race we label the individuals in that cluster. Mixed race individuals would typically fall between those clusters. You'd also find a kind of substructure inside them: the Indian cluster would contain subclusters, corresponding to different castes and geographies. It, however, would still be in a distinctly Indian cluster. Hispanics would be the messiest group: black Hispanics would fall nearest the USA black cluster, white Hispanics nearest USA whites, and pure Amerindians would be their own thing, closest to Asians but more distant cousins.
Historically, there were gentler genetic gradients between different populations, along lines of historical migration. If you lined up every human in history, you'd see no sharp breaks at all: everyone is predictably a mix of their parents, with a couple mutations. Many of those lineages have died out, though, as they're outcompeted by other lineages; this creates a sharper gradient between adjacent successful lineages.
More options
Context Copy link
Races are made up tribes based on people who have more similar genetics and skin coloring. It somewhat works for quickly understanding a few broad groups of people but has trouble with categorizing various shades of brown and brown-adjacent people. Unless brown is a race?
In your question about Indians, Arabs, and Hispanics you reveal the problem with a white/black/asian lens of race - it can't categorize most of the world with just a few categories. If you wanna go into HBD you need to read the research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatu_Vanhanen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
2002, IQ and the Wealth of Nations - this can be your starting point. It's old, and there is much newer stuff but you can get to that later.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link