site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32831 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 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.

15
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think he meant "quality over quanitity" as bringing up the idea of: why try to increase the TFR of the other colors/less intelligent, causing them to (relatively) outnumber your children? It doesn't obviously benefit your genes.

And "if you disagree with me, it's because you hate yourself and your people, so you should off yourself." isn't charitable, or interesting. Maybe something poetic instead, about not reproducing = casually discarding a project a thousand generations in the making, idk.

No, I was trying to head off the argument that we have to boost (white) TFR to keep the barbarians off the gates. That the West will fall apart without a nice supply of white babies. It assumes a level of race-to-the-bottom racial spoils which I find overblown.

I’d be satisfied if I had one family of descendants alive 1,000 years from now. That’s success! Doing better than that is a bonus, but not one worth handwringing over.

Oh. Even if it's not what most who care about birth rates believe, the non-racial 'steelman' is that fertility rate decline seems to be coming for almost every population worldwide, so we should start trying to stabilize somewhere modern now - any racial immigrants we have assimilate to our culture quickly and have low birthrates, and even birthrates in africa are declining rapidly, especially in urban environments. It's a less urgent argument, but with a TFR of 1.6 the decline-based fertility rate argument in the US isn't urgent either.

There's a separate argument that, independent of a current decline, more people (whether of some quality or people in general) is good morally, so one should raise the TFR anyway.

It assumes a level of race-to-the-bottom racial spoils which I find overblown.

Are there good examples of multi-ethnic democracies where this has resoundingly not occurred?

Mexico and Brazil and the Philippines. Singapore. Turkey was an example when it was still a democracy. Canada up until recently.

Singapore literally only exists as a sovereign nation because catastrophic ethnic conflict happened between that city and the rest of Malaysia, and then it had a dictator impose authoritarian segregation rules which still bind for the exact purpose of keeping ethnic tension under control. It's not a good example of ethnic tension not being a huge deal.

"Up until recently" is also an anti-example; @netstack was claiming the bailey of "it won't happen ever", not the motte of "it won't happen within a few years", and contesting the bailey is valid.

Anti-segregation rules, not segregation rules. HDB allocation enforces ethnic balance at the block level.

I mean, the cases I was thinking of were the illegality of proselytisation (which seems to me an attempt to both reduce interracial annoyance and avoid the rapid demographic shifts which evangelism enables and which can lead to people deciding violence is a good solution), and to the at-least-partial school segregation I observed the one time I was there (I was representing Australia in a maths competition run by Singapore's Chinese High School, and, um, that's actually its name), though admittedly I don't know to what extent the latter is actually a legal thing.

Thanks for the additional info, though.

Does anyone know how to selectively increase tfr for high IQ populations?

There are like a dozen ways. Some of them aren't robust to people faking low IQ, but others (e.g. "$500,000 per year per child for high-IQ woman with high-IQ father") are more so.

The problem is that unless you're really fucking subtle about it, it's political suicide, because advocating eugenics (and this inherently is a eugenics project) gets you called a Nazi.

Providing academically segregated primary schools with extended hours (so mums can work a regular 40hr/wk professional job without paid childcare, even if they can't work a 50+hr meritocratic elite job) would be the simplest option. You can identify the top 20% of the IQ distribution at 4-ish - you need to wait to identify the tip-top, but I don't think you even want to distinguish between the 1% and the 19% if you are doing eugenics.

I don't think this would work. The parents don't know whether the kid will be in the top 20% before having him/her, so it'll only have a very-slightly-different effect on high-IQ parents vs. low-IQ parents.

I was reading my mum's university textbooks at 3, so I think you can have a fair idea about the higher end quite early.

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