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 -
This feels like more of a dumb question but why did we have any significant amount of affirmative action for Hispanics in the US?
Thought about it on this tweet on DEI at a UC med school
There are a lot of white hispanics. I would have assumed they could have just picked off to fill their classes with University of Michigan quality white hispanics. Basically Rubio, Cruz, Fernando Mendoza types. And they all for demographic purposes qualify as Hispanic. And you could find a bunch of German Brazilians or Mexican Jews if you needed to. Is the needing to take students that will show a legitimate achievement gap primarily cultural?
The article says the school was 4.6 times more likely to admit a Hispanic student than a white student. I would have assumed that ratio would have been a lot smaller. Is the American hispanic population just a lot browner?
You put racists in charge of implementing a racist policy, and are somehow expecting the race they hate to not be underrepresented?
Harvard is famous for not admitting many ADOS and filling their class with foreign Africans. They probably do the same with Hispanics and fill their class with a bunch of rich white guys from S America.
I am mostly interested in the right-tail of our education system. And a 4.6 factor of more likely to be accepted feels high to me. Med schools are fairly right tail. Maybe not fully top 1% but up there.
Jews count as white and represent historically something like 40% of Nobels despite a small population. So that boost the listed white population but not to justify a 4.6 number. The other thing I come up with is most white hispanics are from Spain which is outside of what’s considered the highest quality hbd but not all. To lower the number though Europeans largely do not go to American schools but Latin America many do. So there is a large population to choose from of foreigners that count as Hispanic.
When we were doing the thing where a good school had to have identical percentages of American demographics a 4.6 benefit for Hispanics just feels high to me for right tail IQ education.
This should just be the natural impact of Affirmative Action, though? Cementing the most functional people in the desired boosted population, even if most of the time it's going to be some combination of the absolute aristocracy of that population and 'people who don't really share the disadvantages but technically count'. Tons of jokes in Australia about the output of most 'Aboriginal Programs' being a bunch of blondes with at most 10% Indigenous blood.
Hell it's even funnier when the shape of the people succeeding in these programs is frequently so similar. Australia's been culture warring about Nyadol Nyuon lately, a woman who has experienced every boost possible due to being an African Woman, is a consistent complainer and her father is apparently a UN-sanctioned Warlord. Somehow Australia found their own Ilhan Omar at home. It seems to be impossible to construct some form of 'advancing historically underprivileged African voices' without somehow ending up with the progeny of slave traders and warlords in the program.
I’m not even sure what we are trying to do with Hispanic AA. It’s not a race. It’s not a population we did slavery to no debt owed to them. I guess whenever they did the first census they saw a group slightly different (I’m guessing Chicanos in California) and wanted a way to define them.
The equivalent to America doing affirmative action for Hispanics would be if Mexico did Affirmative Action for Americans. The people benefitting would be basically George Bush types (equivalent of Ted Cruz).
I’m still a little bit stuck on the 4.6x benefit to get equal representation since a large % of how this group is defined is just white people.
You're not classifying it correctly.
Affirmative action is anti-white racism- we're not disputing this fact.
Therefore, any name that sounds white? Straight into the trash can.
What they actually look like is secondary- as the example shows, it's not only completely possible, but normal, to be racist against someone bearing the same skin color as you.
Did you really think racism was merely "skin color bad" and a license to say slurs? No. It's an assertion that all you're ever going to be, because you have [genetic trait], will always be bad. That's the underlying meaning the slur carries, and why they even exist/are deployed in that sneering tone in the first place.
You misunderstand. Fundamentally, you understand that you owe everyone else everything, and are just haggling over the speed at which your obligations increase.
Part of my point here is that affirmative action for Hispanics mostly helps white people for right tail education/jobs. It’s why I initially gave the example that there are a lot of Ted Cruz, Fernando Mendoza, and Marco Rubio Hispanics. The upper class in all of the south of the border countries is heavily white and there is a lot of them.
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