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 -
Jane Austen's novels primarily concern themselves with moral education. Is it possible to ruin good breeding with poor moral education? This was actually a somewhat scandalous take back then.
The primary application of Pride and Prejudice today is to present young women with caution about their selection of mates. Which is a very worthy task, even if half the class is male and might not see the point (though the truly wise will understand what make's Austin's heroes the hero and not the villain, and maybe learn from that.)
It's arguably a pretty scandalous take here and now.
I think we struggle right now with the opposite question: are there some people whose poor breeding cannot be improved with a good moral education?
It's not "the opposite question" it is the same question.
That question is which has the greater effect, education or breeding?
It's perfectly possible that bad education can ruin good breeding, but bad breeding can't be improved by good education. In short, the relationship may be asymmetrical.
Anyone can make a tall man short by cutting off his legs, but good luck making a short man tall.
Bullshit, either education has a sufficiently large effect size to overcome breeding or it does not.
Why should the world be so convenient? Give Albert Einstein enough alcohol and you can make him a slurring, slumped vagrant. But there is nothing you can drink that will turn you into Albert Einstein.
Why shouldn't it?
The idea that big problems can't have simple and straight-forward solutions is a lie that the expert class tells us to justify funneling more power and prestige to the expert class.
If a disproportionate percentage of violent crime is perpetrated by repeated offenders, why can't we solve (or at least significantly reduce) violent crime by removing repeat offenders from the general populace? The answer is that we can but the experts don't want us to. The experts don't want safe streets. They want to have their bigotry validated.
This is why they will allow a violent schizophrenic like DeCarlos Brown to walk free after his 17th arrest while demanding that a random normie with no criminal record do life in prison for taking a selfie on the senate floor.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but you were asking whether education has a greater effect than breeding and I was making the obvious point that the effect is asymmetric.
Your examples follow the same pattern. You can certainly reduce crime by putting people in prison or shooting them in the head, but it is very hard to educate somebody into not being a schizophrenic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link