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 -
Privilege discourse always seemed exactly backwards to me. If you have two people with the same exact nature, one white and one black, who is privileged in post-1970s America? Black. Socially, they get the enormous privilege of “having overcome”, of “having been the victim”, of being a kind of token of justice, which are very advantageous social myths. Because expectations are lower for them in an unconscious way, they get the privilege of having their work more socially reinforced and teachers will be more lenient. There is also the stereotype of their being more mirthful and cool, and even the stereotype of aggression is beneficial in most social scenarios of note. Education would boost the black person, while in the justice system black jurors discriminate against white offenders and white jurors do not discriminate against black offenders.
And if privilege discourse relies on the assumption that a person is victimized when others of their race are victimized, then surely it’s also the case that people should be lauded when others of their race do something great, like end world slavery, and a person is at fault when others of their race do something bad, like be very murderous. In any case this is a very old topic, but it’s still remarkable how baseless it was; in my mind, not merely untrue, but exactly opposite of the truth. Whites reduced the sum total oppression of blacks to an infinite degree!
It’s probably correct to see the whole phenomenon as based more on conditioning, eg “if I associate X with bad stories, over time people will hate X, and the phenomenon will continue on its own”. Just an op.
Imagine explaining to a visiting alien species:
Ok but we all know group A is privileged over group B and the debate is over why. The Aliens being smart enough to space travel would clearly realize group A is the privileged group.
There is obviously a…..dark matter….that gives group A a huge advantage over group B.
Which is just discovering disparate impact or hbd from first principles.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why would you assume the same exact nature and circumstances for what is clearly a judgment on a group's standing?
So you would rather be the retarded kid who gets points for the touchdown because of all he's overcome rather than just being the good football player? A beneficiary of other people's charity so they can feel good about themselves and look down on their fellows?
You don't see how this is humiliating?
I don’t know why but i read retarded kid as retard king. Couldn’t stop laughing
More options
Context Copy link
Privilege isn't a judgment on a group's standing, though. It's about the standing of an individual relative to another individual when, all else being equal, the only differences between the 2 are some particular characteristic in the approved list such as race, sex, sexual orientation, sexual identity, immigration status, etc. We know this, because policies that are meant to counteract the differences in privilege of people who are different in, e.g. sex, discriminate against individuals on the basis of that individual's sex, not on the basis of the specific privileges/lack-thereof that that individual actually, truly did encounter, that are downstream of that individual's sex.
If privileges truly were judgments on groups rather than on individuals, the people who are the strongest proponents of policies to counter the differences in privilege would be the strongest opponents of any policies that discriminate individuals on the basis of the privilege-level of the group they belong into, because that would be a gross perversion of their ideology that also makes their ideology look uglier to others. But that doesn't really happen.
More options
Context Copy link
The underlying moral claim of the racial progressive is not merely that a group average is worse and that this worse result is a travesty (this would be justice, it would be a group getting what they deserve). The racial progressive believes that there are blacks with the same nature as whites, and that if you tracked a white and black with the same “skill points” (simplifying) that the black would have a worse outcome. This is opposite of the reality. And they additionally believe that the low skill points blacks currently possess are an artifact of past moral transgressions by whites, transgressions which need reparation, while they ignore the past moral benevolence of whites to blacks, like lifting them out of a maximally oppressive environment in Africa and teaching them to read and so forth.
But the black is not seen as the retarded kid. There is a very important distinction to be made here. The black is seen as a secret genius who has been thwarted by evil school officials, a Will type character from Good Will Hunting (I imagine this is not really the protagonist’s name, I won’t google it). That an average IQ Black can perform averagely is seen as proof of their superiority, because their oppressive history would make any man perform worse. This is what they believe. A retarded kid is retarded, they are innately dumb and thus of low value. The black is actually valuable but has been unjustly attacked; he is all the more worthy of our admiration because of this; any low performance is simply the relic of white ppls’ original sin, for which we must be the constant penitent (in the extreme manifestations).
Praise and compassion feel good to receive. The black gets more praise and more compassion from, say, a boss who is very progressive. They also get more respect because of the ambient stereotypes (strong), and are seen as more cool because of the stereotype (eg dancing). These are all good social dynamics to be on the receiving end of; the praise socially-reinforces your good behacior, and the compassion increases a sense of belonging. These are advantages. The studies show that blacks are more narcissistic so it’s possible they do not, on average, recognize their myriad “unjust” blessings due to the ignorance of progressives (imo).
We can consider a parallel. If I never had a piano teacher because of evil oppressive monsters who hate me, and when I go to my first lesson my teacher is amazed at how well I can play, how would I feel? Quite great, actually. I will be a lot more confident and happy in my playing. I would be very reinforced. The other students would look upon my state when some envy, that I am the Harry Potter of the Pianoverse.
More options
Context Copy link
Professional beggars and scroungers do not feel their way of life as humiliating, they see themselves as smart and clever and see dumb mugs who believe their sob stories with the deepest contempt. Ofc, the professionals are in the game for more concrete gains than some football game points.
And evidently even professionals who are proud to perform well aren't ashamed to do very fake and gay shit such as diving to scrounge up some extra points, if the game allows it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The retarded kid won't be humiliated, because he's too retarded to get it. He gets his points, it makes him happy, and the actually good players go find something else to do. Further, in real life, those points tend to be quite valuable, which can cover up for a lot of humiliation. Yeah, maybe the kid who made it into Harvard on his skin color instead of his ability is a little embarrassed... but at the end of the day he's at Harvard and whitey Poindexter isn't.
More options
Context Copy link
If I have to pick between being two equally good or retarded kids, but one gets charity while the other gets shut down and diminished for being a part of the group who "has it good enough as is", I'd rather be in the former group.
It's not as simple as charity, though: if it were just a matter of material goods, yeah, it's a no brainer.
But the trade is much more pernicious. It means you grow up in a community that has had all sense of real agency ripped from it. It means that your (real) successes will be judged negatively. It means your children will be told from every angle that they are a victim and must view themselves that way.
Concretely, would you like to quintuple your chances of getting into Harvard, at the expense of having everyone in your family and friend group pick up the pathologies of black culture?
Would I rather be told that I'm worse off than I can feel I am, or told than I'm better off? The former.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Things aren't equal and they're not going to be equal. The kids who get affirmative action, for example, are not equally skilled as the kids who don't or they wouldn't need it. Nor are their group outcomes the same.
I do not believe you can't imagine two kids who are equally good yet are of different races. I'm not talking about groups.
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