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 -
I think we need to be careful about how we use this word, and disambiguate it the same way we would "racist". In "Against Murderism", Scott argued that the word "racist" is generally assigned three mutually exclusive definitions:
Of these, the only one that really makes any sense to me is the second one.
Along the same lines, I don't think most chuds actively wish harm on women. I think when these men are accused of being "sexist", it's based on the first definition: the belief that men and women are different. Spoiler alert: they are, and the belief that they aren't (or that they would be, if not for the patriarchy/social conditioning/culture) is one of the silliest beliefs the human race has ever produced. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and most stereotypes about women (and men!) are true far more often than not.
#1 is not how Scott phrased it. He phrased it thusly (as his #2, but that's not important):
"Definition By Belief: A belief that some race has negative qualities or is inferior, especially if this is innate/genetic."
The "inferior" option, with the relevant substitutions, threads between your Scylla and Charybdis; it doesn't require actively wishing harm, and it's not plainly true (it is a moral judgement).
I won't deny that there's equivocation going on, though.
Yeah, that's fair. But Scott was quick to point out that, even if this is the definition you're ostensibly using, it's not applied at all consistently. No one would be accused of racism for asserting that Ethiopians and Kenyans have an innate advantage over white Europeans in long-distance running.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The first definition absolutely makes sense too. You just have to expand it and include a potential conclusion to that line of thinking.
Belief: Black people generally have lower IQ than whites.
Conclusion: I will not waste time interviewing black people as I don't want low IQ people for this job.
The problem is that just because a population of black people have lower IQ's, that doesn't mean an individual black person cannot have a high IQ and pull the average up. If his application otherwise looks good, it would be unfair to judge him merely on the color of his skin.
This kind of discrimination based on belief may not be intended to cause harm, but it is still obviously racist.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the belief.
If you want high-IQ people, give a double-blind IQ proxy test and don't be shocked when the results do not match the general population.
If you want athletic people who can haul a fatassed American out of a burning house, test that and don't be surprised when few or no women pass.
People are brain-broke about this shit. There is no impact of racism here, and probably never was. Companies generally aren't systematically racist, and never were. The bus company coordinated with the NAACP and sponsored Rosa Parks' lawsuit.
For the truly underprivileged, they will never get a better chance in life than an even break. Give them a simple test to see if they qualify, not a decades-long "education" of religious indoctrination and active falsehood geared to the mores of the upper class. THAT is where the "systemic racism" is.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but to what degree can a selfish employer solve that issue? If a black man has a higher than mean IQ for his race, that means that now his time can now be bought, at a bargain price, and so I can get away with paying him less with the same amount of profit, which is what I want. I do better, my competition does worse because they were all "poopoo peepee, it's too much trouble for me" (which is how racism does its damage, and the crime-of-the-heart against which we want to convict). Yes, this doesn't last- because as he gains experience and credibility my ability to maintain the arbitrage decreases- but I can still find them and exploit it because I'm unwilling to listen if and when my moral compass tells me black men are inherently bad. That is itself labor and risk, as the normie sees it; should I not be justly rewarded for my effort [as compared to theirs]?
In this way we see that sufficiently-advanced mercantilism mitigates racism: indeed, these societies tend to converge on being less racist than others for this reason. (They're the least sexist, too, for similar reasons.)
I believe IBM is on the record, verbatim, as explaining that this is why they were willing to hire gay men in the '90s.
You are correct that it fails to solve racism. In your example, the fact that the reason the black man's labor was worth less remains caused by- and not even himself- but by the existence of other people that share his skin color being inherently worse than the median man of another color. One could make the eugenic argument that his success permits him to make more of himself, diluting the pool of 'people who look like him sucks ass' over time, but that doesn't happen for free (he's actually liable to reproduce less, not more, and you still have regression to the mean to worry about- which is an underrated benefit to affirmative action re: society offers, as part of his pension, that his "failsons" won't be left behind).
The difference between gay people and black people is that being gay doesn't correlate positively or negatively with work performance (unless it's fashion or interior design), but that's not what I wanted to talk about.
What both you and @FtttG are missing is that the cost of assessing and interviewing each candidate is non-negligible. If you have just five applicants for your job and one of them is black, skipping him or her because you think blacks have lower intelligence or impulse control is stupid.
But if you have five hundred applicants, and you believe can just throw out a hundred of them and raise the average quality of the remaining applicants for free, why not do so? It's the same as being a hiring manager at a white shoe law firm and discarding every resume that isn't from a recent Harvard or Yale law graduate.
As long as you have enough good applicants, you lose nothing by discarding specific groups. And you are correct that companies lower than you on the totem pole can exploit this by preferentially hiring from these groups.
The obvious other way out of this is making the applicants bear the cost of proving their worth. Have the applicants pay to get tested and get a blue checkmark: "certified not urban youth, more of an Urkel tbh".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The belief that black people on average have lower IQs than white people in no way leads inevitably to the decision not to bother interviewing black people for an intellectually demanding role, any more than the belief that Kenyans and Ethiopians have a massive advantage in long-distance running leads inevitably to the decision to ban Caucasians from competing in marathons.
Sure, but belief + said decision is still racism, even if there was no desire to harm anyone behind it. And that type of decision making is often what people want to spread awareness about and litigate against.
But the "decision" part is doing all the work here: If someone were to categorically refuse hiring black people, that would generally be considered racism no matter the motivation. If anything, the belief would be the closest candidate to a valid justification.
So it's not about the belief, the belief is a red herring. To conclude racism, you need to observe the decision, which as @FtttG pointed out doesn't automatically follow from the belief. If you equivocate between belief and belief + decision, you'll incorrectly conclude racism.
That's fair. My main point is that malice does not factor into racism either. FtttG claimed that the only way something is racist is if the motivation is to bring harm to the other race. I outlined a different motivation that is not about actively harming anyone, but still leads to a racist decision. My point is that racism is simply discrimination based on race. Whether your motivation for this discrimination is neutral or harmful does not change that.
Sure, but then this just makes it so that "racism" describes lots of entirely innocuous and even virtuous and desirable behavior. That's the far more important aspect of that definition of "racism" due to how it takes away what many people would consider perhaps the most salient characteristic of that word, which is that it's automatically bad.
More options
Context Copy link
Fair enough, and I agree this is genuinely not caught by Scotts categorization, which is too narrow in only focusing on hatred.
But I still think categorizing it under "by belief" leads you wrong. Instead I'd suggest amending the definition of "by motivation" such that "didn't hire someone (or treated them different in any other way) because of their race" counts as "by motive": The specific action or rule is motivated by race.
I guess on the object level in this discussion it comes down to "Do the 'sexist' men actually support formally unequal treatment of men and women?"
I can get behind the motivation being the dividing line. And evidently, there does exist sexist men who believe women and men should be treated differently. Just the idea that women should be treated more gently and men more harshly is arguably sexist, although also very accepted as long as you package it right. "Don't hit women!" "You can't say that about a girl!" And so on.
The chuds are doing the more classically sexist thing, where they argue that women are incapable of controlling their emotions and having logical discussions, so they should stay away from careers that require this.
Though to your point, I agree that not every man called sexist is one. There are a good amount of people using the word to discredit people or silence conversations for their own gain, when the accusation is totally unwarranted which in turn waters down the seriousness of the word until it becomes something you can call yourself with little risk.
Aren’t a large segment of women saying hormones mean they can’t make choices rationally l? See Clancy and responses.
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
But there's nothing intrinsically bad about holding the belief that black people have lower IQs, on average, than white people. It's analogous to saying that believing in gravity is bad, because it might lead people to the decision to push someone off a cliff. Factual statements and beliefs are morally inert.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's fair to distinguish the different types. There's definitely an increasing amount of people who are just in category 1: acknowledging real psychological differences between the sexes, but without any particular malice. But... I think there's some guys in category 2, also, who really do have some malice towards women. They usually mask it as jokes, from edgy "shock jock" pundits like Nick Fuentes, but... when they keep making the same sort of joke over and over, I get the feeling they really do believe in it to some extent.
There's nothing surprising about a closeted gay man who hates women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link