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 -
Is Icelandic culture not the expression of the Icelandic people? Is it all in the moss? Did they decide to not commit crime against each other by chance when they started to prosper post WW2?
Didn't we just go over this? Giving low quality people more avenues to express themselves leads to more low quality expression. AA's have more avenues to express themselves in the 1990's compared to then. Not to mention that the way crime is reported now is different.
To make a long story short, putting a population in different environments will lead to different results. I'm not sure why you think that's a point against anything I'm saying. It doesn't change the fact that if that population has a lot of low quality people it will express more problematic behaviors than a population with less low quality people and more high quality. The point I was making is that the trend of high crime rate and violence is a universal fact nigh everywhere blacks are subject to western style policing. And sometimes even when they're not. There are outliers, but they generally come with big caveats, like Rwanda. I'm sure we could lower the crime rate if we police AA's similarly. But I would not want to be subject to such militarized scrutiny myself.
Environmentalist explanations can't originate a cause for culture to begin with. Which is why you have a host of half baked attempts by the likes of Jarred Diamond that try to create magical history narratives strung together by a-ha! moments that feel coherent and plausible. HBD adds the cause. The good, the bad and the ugly. It's all genes expressed in an environment. The more control our genes have over the environment, the more they amplify their own expression and open avenues for otherwise suppressed tendencies. The more the environment constricts the genes, that much less can we observe expression. When two different gene expressions exist in the same environment the result might be similar, or it might not be.
Sure, we are ultimately a product of environmental selection pressures through natural selection, but those things happen over a broader timeframe.
We can live with AA's, but not in an open and free western style culture. So much is obvious as things stand. The point of contention here relates to how these groups behave within our specific western environment. If you want to argue in favor of a more radical solution that reshapes our environment in a different direction, go ahead! But as you stated, such things are not politically palatable to the two majorities, conservatives and lib/left/progressives. Hence my dissatisfaction with both.
Conservatives love desegregation and Civil Rights. Posting MLK quotes to own the libs whilst Civil Rights legislature redefines their sacred constitution to work against everything they otherwise hold dear. It's a giant blindspot that is generally only called out by dissident right figures. Maybe those voices have started to reach into the mainstream and I missed it. But I doubt it.
Haha, yeah. Just don't call it slavery.
I don't have anything one could campaign on. At best it would be a soft eugenics program shadow operation. Start by eliminating murderers, violent criminals and repeat offenders from the gene pool. Then map their family history and observe if the trends of violence continue/go back within families. Restrict those families reproductive rights.
I think the biggest potential propagating cause of AA's violence are strains of violence passed down by the mother.
Now, is that viable? No. And it's closer to science fiction than anything else. But there was a time in American history not too long ago where similar ideas were passed along by more serious men. If we could get over the post war consensus and get back on track with social technology that actually advances humanity in a dignified manner then we can mend this absurd state of affairs that has gone on for far too long, which has been causing suffering and harm to innocents to the benefit of feeble minded losers that are indifferent or unaware of the destruction they cause or sadistic animals that revel in their own violent expressions and the suffering they inflict on others.
More options
Context Copy link