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 exercise has been gaining some traction on Twitter among anti-wokes, with some even calling it “demonic.” That’s a bit much, but it is potentially an interesting exercise, and one I’d like to apply somewhat rational heuristics to “solve.”
My approach requires some assumptions:
The goal is to both survive and reproduce.
They arrive instantly at this new planet.
This new planet is ecologically identical to Earth.
The crux of the exercise, in this view, is to balance survivability with reproductive capacity. Survivability can be the ability to provide calories, medicine, make fire, or a host of other skills. Additionally, one must consider second order effects; one man is sufficient for reproduction, but having one man and seven pregnant women will probably not produce enough calories to survive.
I am going to go through each of the potential participants and provide initial thoughts:
An accountant with a substance abuse problem: no clear sex signal here, as women make up 60% of accountants, but men make up 66% of substance abusers, according to quick Googling. Accountancy is not a relevant skill set, and provides no info as to physical prowess. Relapse means little initial productive capacity.
A militant African American medical student: a real standout pick. Medical student tells me that they have some degree of medical knowledge, above average intelligence (even accounting for AA), and militancy leads me to think male. Almost definitely going.
A 33 year old female Native American manager who speaks no English: a potentially fertile woman, but potential for communications issues, and, despite the stereotype I think is being played with, little signal that she would be “in touch with nature” or anything. No directly applicable skills in management.
The accountants pregnant wife: a must take; guaranteed fertile woman. This also tells us the accountant is almost definitely male and not impotent, and likely both are late 20s/early 30s. No other noted traits or skills.
A famous novelist with a physical disability: this person ranks low on survivability and reproducibility. I don’t want to burden the group with a disabled, and likely old, man or woman.
A 21 year old female Muslim international student: a great pick. International students are selected for intelligence to some extent, and a 21 year old is likely to be both able bodied and fertile. I can’t imagine Islam will impede usefulness or cooperation too much.
A homophobic Spanish clergyman: I would expect old, and potential to take beliefs in chastity to an extraterrestrial grave. No discernible skills either.
Female Movie Star, recent victim of SA: probably attractive and physically fit, probably older, little in the way of useful skills. I don’t see a compelling value-add.
Racist cop: almost definitely a high-T, physically fit male. Maybe the least agreeable of the bunch, but also likely to have one of the highest survivability quotients. Someone needs to provide calories, do physical labor, and ward off predators. This guy may be the best option.
Gay, vegetarian, male pro athlete: the most physically capable, and thenceforth likely to be the most useful. Much will depend on sacrificing beliefs like eating meat to survive or aiding in reproduction with females. Could also help identify certain vegetables, but that seems like a stretch.
Asian, orphaned, 12 year old boy: does not come with immediate usefulness in procreation, and probably diminished capacity for manual labor compared to other male options. I guess likely to have a higher IQ, but would he even make it to adult development if he’s taking up a spot? Maybe. There’s also a potential benefit to staggering age to provide better odds of a potent male for the next generation.
60 year old Jewish university administrator: probably intelligent, but statistically likely to be a post menopausal woman. The downside of lower average physical ability without the fertility upside. Could potentially be an organizing force or, if male, still potent, but that’s a risk.
In sum, I will take participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11.
I did not place significant value on administrative or managerial skills, as I do not expect them to translate well (I am basing this off of watching Survivor!) and I expect other competent members to fill these roles.
From a genuine DEI standpoint, wouldn't the winning move be just to say you refuse to answer this problematic questionnaire? I mean, disregarding everything else, as has been pointed out, the assumption here seems to be that male is the default sex, whiteness the default race/ethnicity and heterosexuality the default sexuality, or at least the way it's written seems to work on the assumption that the ones not described as female are male, the ones not described with some other moniker are white gentiles and the ones not described as gay are heterosexual.
It slays me to see the quote tweets on the original tweet and how they're like 80% "WTF? This is horrible" and 20% "Let's see, the accountant is important to maintain the family, but he does not have appreciable skills on a new planet, unlike the med student, who..."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link