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 -
How many neurotic Hermione types are there in South Africa vs East Anglia or Massachussets? Different types and ratios.
Yeah, they can think about consequences. In the same way as the crazy guy who throws women off the subway or stabs them on camera on the train goes for weak looking women, not enormous footballer types. He's capable of understanding consequences when it would directly affect his interests, sometimes. But not other times when its more indirect and especially if its not his interests that are immediately affected.
Ratios, ratios... Could you find me 150 million such white guys? 27.6% of south african men have admitted to raping a woman in an anonymous survey, per a study. No wonder they're not in prison if it's such a large chunk of the population.
https://www.documentwomen.com/27-6-of-south-african-men-aged-18-49-have-raped-a-woman-study-shows
Furthermore, how many gang-rapists just casually talk about it with some random guy they don't know well, on camera? They brought up the topic in the conversation, you can see at the start of the video. They were talking about something else (perhaps other crimes they commit) and then he's explaining and starts mentioning that he does some rape and then the white guy pivots the conversation. Not merely is the rapist unwilling to think about the consequences of raping a girl in regards to her interests he barely even considers any risks in talking to this stranger about it!
That's very unusual behaviour and proof of a dissimilar mindset. Why would he lie about his state of mind when he's so eager to give details on incredibly incriminating crimes?
I'm not actually making the argument here that populations don't differ, and I'm certainly not making the argument that South African men are identical in temperament and disposition to British men. We don't even need to talk about those things to conclude that your comment was, at best, very, very silly. 100% of South Africans could be in a constant state of raping and your comment would still not make sense.
I'm actually making a much more narrow argument: you presented a clip as evidence that the South African men shown do not naturally think about consequences, when in fact the clip is saturated with thinking about forward-looking and non-immediate consequences, like possible punishment or an STD infection.
What it also has, and the part from which you extracted the "not naturally thinking about consequences" idea, is a statement, under repeated pressure to relate to the position of a victim from an obviously-angry foreign journalist, that when you rape someone you don't think about the consequences. I mean, yeah? "I wasn't thinking" is the thing that people the world over say when they get caught with their hand bloodied in the cookie jar; that certainly doesn't make it true.
You claim that he has no reason to lie, because of course he's already spilling the beans on his gang rape, but you've conveniently forgotten the most obvious and immediate person a violent criminal would want to mislead as to his motivations and capacity for choosing another way: himself. I can't read his mind, but neither can you, and since you made the claim that this reveals something fundamental about his cognitive architecture, you're the one for whom mind reading makes the least sense.
We could talk about the consequences of gabbing about gang rape to a foreign journalist all day, but anyone who's ever thought about their own misdeeds can well understand that the consequences of admitting to yourself that you've done something wrong in a way that directly harmed another human being are more frightful than a hundred lashings. Something, anything, to stop from believing oneself to be the antagonist in someone else's life story. You're accusing him of being a different model of human, but self-protective cognitive biases and self-deception are part of the basic trim package across the whole model lineup.
And his willingness to talk about his gang rape to a foreign journalist has an immediately-accessible and quite evident sociocultural explanation that comes before any need to discuss race at all. In fact you name it, yourself! You wrote:
But what's funny to me about this is that you've put the cart before the proverbial horse here, and you've assumed the causation flows from "South African men rape a lot" to "South African men aren't in prison." Is it possible that, you know, they're doing all this raping because South Africa doesn't prosecute them for it? And, moreover, is it possible that both the high rate of rape and the lack of effective prosecution of rape could be downstream from predominant sociocultural attitudes in which rape victims don't matter -- unless of course one is related to her -- and men can take what they can grab?
That's a parsimonious argument, and to me the null hypothesis. You haven't substantiated any reason why someone should view things the other way around, certainly not with your argument about (lack of) consequentialist thinking. In fact, more statistics from the Jewkes study which you reference demonstrate my point: the study claims that only one out of every 25 rapes are reported to police. No wonder they're not in prison if none of them are prosecuted!
This argument also is very well-behaved, in that it doesn't flatter either side of the debate over third world immigration: it's just as bad if an immigrant rapes you because of some deeply-ingrained sociocultural disregard for rape victims as for some deformation of breed. You don't need to make the essentialist claim to make the political claim you're aiming to make, which means you're forcing your argument to become radioactive without improving its function. Unless, of course, the function is to create a hierarchy of status based on inherent characteristics that places oneself at the top, in which case it seems suited to the purpose. It's only a pity your core claim makes no logical sense regardless.
And that's my central point: none of this touches on the actual point I was highlighting, because those aren't claims you initially presented. You added those as a part of your retreat to the motte, and even when presenting your motte you've ignored some obvious alternative (and quite parsimonious!) explanations of the phenomenon. You're not reasoning from evidence to a conclusion, you're reasoning from a conclusion to what the evidence must therefore say. Gesturing wildly in a direction is not civilization-tier reasoning.
And in that connection, you decided that a rapist's defensive claim intended to deflect from naming his impact on his victims -- an almost textbook self-protective act of ego defense for whom the target is the self and the journalist is just witnessing it -- was somehow a revelation of cognitive architecture concerning consequences, in direct contradiction to the actual cognitive architecture he was displaying, in which consequences to him and his buddies are very, very important.
And moreover you turned an argument about antisociality into an argument about cognition, somehow, like the problem with the Zodiac was that his puzzles weren't clever enough. Your point wasn't even "Africans are antisocial" or "African men don't think about the consequences of their actions towards women." You could have said those things, and we could discuss them. But you didn't. You wrote:
I especially note the "they can but they don't" part -- which is where I think you realized what you shared didn't support what you were saying, and tried to hedge it, as you're doing now. You're retreating to a different argument, which is a claim about population rape statistics, while hemming and hawing about consequentialist thinking because it's very, very clear that your initial comment's claims about cognition don't hold water.
We're not even talking about the political dispute at this point, or even about race, really, I'm just standing in a kind of stilted awe at how you got from A to B. "Does not want to think about consequences of his actions to victims" simply does not equal "does not naturally think about consequences." It certainly doesn't inherently equal "habitual pattern-followers," for God's sake!
If you're going to make an argument that some population of people are different models of human who don't think about consequences, you damn well need to make sure that your bat cracks like thunder when you hit the ball. Your claim doesn't meet that standard, not by a long shot. Whatever kind of thinking this is, I would not describe it as "high performance."
On that note -- if you hadn't had breakfast this morning, how would you feel?
He's not deceiving himself, he doesn't have the IQ for that. You're reading way too far into psychology here. They are not torturing themselves with guilt or deliberately keeping themselves ignorant, they're not lying to seem like good people to themselves seconds after they were just boasting to about all the horrible rape they've been doing!
This is not the words of a man who is trying to defend his own ego, his self-image of being a good person!
Furthermore, it is obvious that these people don't think about longer-term consequences of their actions (or to be more precise, think much less about consequences), even when it is to their benefit. That's almost the definition of intelligence, having a long time-horizon, planning and predicting the future. At the very least it's incredibly close to intelligence or a byproduct of intelligence. You already said you agree on this about group differences. What do you think the group differences are exactly? How do you think they got this rapey culture if it wasn't derived from their nature? The Dutch or the English taught them to rape women?
The guy who murdered Iryna Zarutska, Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr - would you say he demonstrated understanding of the consequences of his actions? He obviously could've attacked strong men with a knife but he picked a weaker target instead. Presumably he knew, even in his state of retardation, that attacking a big guy was a lot more dangerous than a small girl. But that standard of 'consequence understanding' is so pathetically low it's laughable. He gained absolutely nothing from killing this girl, it cost him a great deal to do so in public under cameras. It was a really stupid decision even if we assume it was easing his racial hatred.
Would you give these guys a prize for their deception antics in pretending to be a nice guy before 'jackrolling' the girl and 'going one by one'? They've executed some basic calumny, hurrah for their faculties! No, they've risked getting HIV, they know about that risk but they rape anyway for a momentary thrill. They're retarded.
You should reread and comprehend my comment where I said 'it doesn't come naturally to them'. Calculus doesn't come naturally to me, I struggle with it. They can reason but at a low level and often not at all, especially if it's something more abstract. They didn't understand the first couple of times when the white guy is like 'oh how did the woman feel about you raping them'. They weren't evading, it went over their heads! it takes them a few seconds to crank up the underdeveloped consequences-understanding engine, especially if it's abstract moral thinking rather than just crude violent plots. Note also this is the absolute most barebones moral reasoning possible.
I really don't think you watched the video, how they laugh about threatening to kill and rape these girls, the jackrolling, how they bring up their rapist antics impromptu and then have them deciding to lie about how they feel to protect their self-image. I don't see how you can have watched it and thought 'oh these guys have a normal mental process and would lie to themselves'. At most they pattern-match, comically switching to 'oh yeah rape is wrong' when prompted... seconds after talking about how sometimes she enjoyed them raping her, seconds after talking about how they do it forcibly at knifepoint.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link