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 -
The problem for the dissident right types is that the dissident right only really exists as a subset of the woke. In my experience the average HBD is even more of an ardent true believer in the correctness of progressive talking points than the average democrat. For all the talk of combatting wokeness it's clear at a glance that these people don't want to see wokeness defeated, they just want to reorder the intersectional stack so that thier favored groups are on top. This is why HBDers are always framing their policies in terms of race instead of the problem they claim to be fighting. Some HBDer will make some comment about how we could reduce criminality if we deported all the blacks, and I'll comeback with "What if we just deported all the convicted felons instead" only for them to stammer something about group differences in IQ, the 14 words, etc...
Simply put so long as identity politics and internal vs. external loci of control remain the core points of disagreement between the mainstream right and left, the only place the dissident right has any hope of gaining any traction is amongst their fellow leftists.
Edited to be less inflammatory
Okay great thanks
More options
Context Copy link
This is a real uncharitable interpretation. I have never seen an HBD person ever advocate such a thing, not counting white nationalist subs or 4chan.
Only because you don't pay attention. We had a user do it in this very thread. As @atokenliberal6D_4 points out, if concerns about dysgenics and the national average IQ were the real motivation opposition to skilled immigration wouldn't be as high as it seemingly is.
You can call it "uncharitable" all you like, I still think my interpretation cleaves reality at the joints.
More options
Context Copy link
On the other hand, opposition to skilled immigration seems super common amongst HBD people here. While not as egregious, that's pretty close, especially because the definition of "skilled" can easily include things like English ability or other markers of ability to assimilate.
This is the main reason I don't really trust the stated motivations of the average HBD person. Race is at the very best only a super loose proxy for the things that actually matter and you can always easily measure and filter on much better proxies instead. Not noticing this and asking to filter on race is super suspicious.
It is a wage suppression scheme aimed at the middle and upper middle class in America. Boring material concerns are probably the real reason for opposition rather than HBD informed racism.
More options
Context Copy link
Aren't you that South Asian rationalist guy who audaciously implied that ethnocentrism is an entirely alien notion to you since you're not white, and that it is impossible to have «reasoned debate» with people who don't want you to immigrate to their countries, because they have «blue-and-orange morality», so the only way to deal with them is censorship?
You sure are good at assimilating: you can learn English and slatestarcodex lingo and whatever else is needed to «pass». I'm sure you pride yourself on this ability to mimic superficial markers of a cooperating agent. But what matters is not how much you look the part: such «assimilation» is not worth more than changing skin color. What matters is actually, you know, cooperating, including respect for host's values, even irrational ones.
I've already said all I had to say about you years ago.
Perhaps this «opposition to skilled immigration» is not about skill, nor even primarily about race, but is specifically opposition to sociopathic, uncompromising immigration that immediately sides with one's political enemies and gloats about disempowering legacy population.
If anyone reads this, you may explain to them how such an opposition is illegitimate or founded on alien moral precepts.
(On another note, it's really funny how @HlynkaCG has corncobbed himself with his philosophical notion of woke Neo-Nazis and other clever inversions. Will we see him arguing that DEI values follow from literalist interpretation of the Constitution and are more American than apple pie, if another moderately suave progressive happens to aid him in his dunking on woke HBDers?)
Between this post and this one, you seem to be getting overly belligerent and personal.
The fact that you write eloquently, verbosely, and opaquely now seems to be something you're trying to take advantage of (namely, by throwing as many personal digs into your rebuttals as you can). Stop it.
Is this just a cutesy way to imply that my post is a loquacious personal attack without merit?
Verbose I'll give you, but nothing is opaque in my writing on the subject. On the other hand, this guy is being opaque, circumspect and passive-aggressive with his doctrine of moral aliens, and so I plainly accuse him of being disingenuous and manipulative.
It is fair to point out both the general absurdity of framing nativism as an «alien moral intuition» and the specific issue that his background ought to have contained plenty exposure to nativism as a mainstream policy preference; his rhetoric about it amounts to gaslighting. It is even fairer to keep hammering at the fact that he gradually adapts the framing to make it more palatable, but never responds to this line of critique and falls back on the administrative resource. Between this and his previously expressed tribal antagonism towards Western right wingers couched in opaque lesswrong-style jargon, I think it's perfectly clear where I'm coming from and what I'm saying.
You personally do not give @SecureSignals much leeway with equivocations about trips of DeSantis and minutiae of Holocaust. Why do I have to tolerate this clever talk to the effect that we should all get along, by means of both sides dehumanizing people who don't share his (allegedly universal) values?
Ironically, I'm irritated on behalf of both white nativists and other South Asians, chiefly @BurdensomeCount, whom you sometimes whack for the same gloating attitude of a successful immigrant elite – only revealed in more honest, direct and masculine language. And to think he's accused of being coy!
I am aware you're moderating for tone, not content. But several rules allow to interpret his kind of cleverness as violation, and it makes at least as much sense as what you levy against me here.
I'm not judging how much merit there was to it. But it was a loquacious personal attack.
No, but I don't think I've ever modded him for it, and I definitely don't unload with my unfiltered sentiments about what I think of him personally, even cloaked in eloquent, loquacious verbosity.
Yes, you could interpret anything anyone else says that you don't like as a violation of the rules. Many people try to do this, especially when they get modded themselves. But I don't do that.
Making arguments you don't like, even arguments you personally (and maybe even justifiably) feel are crappy and bad, is not against the rules.
Making arguments personal, and more about what you think of the poster than the post, is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, I never really participated in /r/CultureWarRoundup nor am I Asian. Not that I see it mattering all that much if I were.
As myself and others keep pointing out, intersectionality/identity politics is basically just a re-rebranding of Marxism with a bunch race and sex stuff in the place of economic class. Maybe you don't notice because you grew up in the Soviet Union surrounded by literal Marxist so to you it's just the default, but to someone like me who grew up in a very "we stand for the flag and kneel for the cross" sort of space where irony was almost a dirty word, it's practically impossible to ignore. There is just something deeply alien and (for lack of better terms) "eastern" and "unchristian" about it.
Guys like you and @fuckduck9000 keep accusing me being delusional and "tying myself in knots" but where have I contradicted myself? If you can point to specific statements of mine that you believe are objectively and demonstrably false, I will do my best to show my work/defend them. The way I see it, the thing that you don't seem to grasp is that our disagreement is not on points of fact, it is on the nature and validity of your entire reference frame.
Well, using this mode of analysis, everything is Marxism. When Ugg in they year 2,000,000 BC called his tribe to club heads of the other tribe on the other bank of the river, he was the first Marxist ever.
Other people keep pointing out that words mean something, including people like this lifelong Christian fundamentalist anti communist fighter Gary Kilgore North.
Cultural Marxism Is an Oxymoron
Ignore Anyone Who Says Marxism Is a Threat
But the postmodernist caravan goes on.
Unless @DaseindustriesLtd is really ancient, he grew in totally disilusioned society where it was easier to meet abominable snowman than "literal Marxist". If he remembers anything at all, he remembers indifferent teacher droning something about Lenin to indifferent class.
The teacher knew it was BS, the pupils knew it was BS, the teacher knew the pupils know it is BS (plus all possible permutations).
I get how somone who filters everything through a post modernist lense of "all words are made up" and various things thier leftist poli-sci teacher told them might arrive at that conclusion but thats also the sort of thing i'm talking about when i say that im not just disagreeing with Ilforte on points of fact, i am questioning the validity of the entire underlying framework.
Edit: likewise i feel pretty confident saying that the weird finge guy urging you to lower your defenses is not doing it out of your interest.
If "Seize the means of production to free yourself" is Marxism and "Chop off your dick to free yourself" is also Marxism, what is not Marxism?
Why cannot be "Go to church to free yourself" also Marxism?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hlynka you're drunk, go home.
Joke's on you, I'm already home.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you mind explaining what the point of your comment is then? Are you expecting this to lead to some sort of productive conversation?
Did your English fail you? Or is this some subtler issue with failing to assimilate into the society and morality of Earthlings after your alt-historical non-tribalist India?
This is unnecessary antagonistic. If you find yourself at an impasse, just walk away.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
big difference between "X should not come in" vs. "kick X out"
If HBD/average human capital concerns are that important for you, there isn't really that much difference. Furthermore, shouldn't it be a much lower bar to let people in vs. kicking them out? Unless you're some kind of extreme Malthusian, there are far fewer bad moral side effects to increasing skilled immigration than to forced deportations---like this big difference makes opposition to skilled immigration even more bizarre.
Anyway, I hope you noticed the convenient demonstration of the extreme vitriol bringing up this argument always seems to produce in this community---it's like a pattern match to the storybook reaction to cognitive dissonance. It's also the one topic where the moderation team is ok with constant personal attacks being made instead of arguments.
Interactions here have made it quite hard not to conclude that a very large fraction of HBD-talk here is really motivated by exactly what @HlynkaCG was pointing out in his comment---it's simply a convenient argument for an ultimate goal of a world where people are judged by what they were assigned at birth instead of what they control.
You know, this really is something of a blue-and-orange universe. Are you sure you can comprehend Western morality enough to imitate its outward expressions?
Are you sure you can?
The dark irony is that the Nazi-types are directionally correct about Jewish thought-leaders undermining and corrupting the West. Most of the leading figures in early socialism including Marx himself where secular jews after all. Where they're wrong is about who the actual carriers of the disease are because it's not society that's succumbed to corruption but themselves. It is their belief in collective guilt and collective virtue. It is their desire to judge based on nebulous groupings rather than individual worthiness or behavior that marks the true departure from "western morality".
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
/r/theMotte
More options
Context Copy link
I got into a top of the thread argument with someone on this very forums previous reddit incarnation on this very topic.
It's not all HBD'rs, but they are there.
They might not have quoted them but I've had someone respond by asking if I ams familiar with them wich I consider "close enough"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You keep making this argument and it keeps making no sense because you conflate HBD types with the white-identity types. The white identity types obviously want to reorder the stack the way you say. I'm pretty sure the majority of the HBD believers would be fine to let the chips fall where they may, and believe that doing so will likely result in black people being worse off and Asian people being better off (statistically) and that's acceptable. An ordinary HBD type might be happy to deport all the convicted felons rather than all the blacks, but get pissed off if you insist that the racial distribution of deportees must match the racial distribution of the population.
What if it's not a conflation? What if you and @aqouta are two out of the three principled libertarians in a coven of a zillion witches and my reply is "Find me 10 righteous men in Sodom".
That you might have been caught in the blast radius doesn't mean that HBDers on theMotte don't deserve to be bombed.
Non-identitarian HBDers on the Motte used to talk about this stuff all the time. Several things happened. One, the moderators in the previous place (and you were one at the time) became hostile to it. Two, some of the people who used to talk about it left, partially as a result of the moderators being hostile. Three, there really isn't much left to talk about. The numbers are what they are (especially in the US), they stubbornly remain despite all interventions based on !HBD, and no amount of moral suasion or coercion is going to actually change the facts. You and Amadanb want to call me a monster because I follow the facts where they go and don't try to soften them with leftist platitudes or use them to support some sort of transfer system, fine. Eppur si muove. Kenyans are tops at marathons and Asians are tops at the SAT, and that's not going to change because of your smears. So the only people who even bother nowadays are the identitarians -- and usually identitarian trolls, at that. Doesn't mean the rest don't exist.
I wonder sometimes if your recollection is really this faulty or if you just aren't capable of framing things in a way that fits actual events and not your internal narrative.
I wasn't a mod at the time, yet I still remember this. What happened was that HBD was sucking up all the oxygen and the mods got sick of HBD dominating every single thread all the time, and the heat and lack of light it generated, so they put a temporary moratorium on it. To this day, you and a few others have carped "The mods banned HBD discussions because they were afraid of The Truth!" to death.
Partially. But mostly because they were pure heat culture warriors who did nothing but post their pet theories about untermenschen and were insulting and condescending to anyone who disagreed with them. They could not follow the rules (unlike our still sizeable retinue of HBD enthusiasts and Holocaust deniers who are still around despite this supposed hostility from the mods) and didn't want to follow the rules because they thought the place was a soapbox for them to proselytize their racial obsessions and not to challenge and be challenged.
Your take is as accurate as saying "marxbro left because the mods were hostile to communism." Which is his take to this day. But anyone familiar with actual events knows that is not an accurate description of what happened at all.
I've never called you a monster or implied you are a monster. I don't think you're a monster or anything like a monster.
I don't think you're even capable of honestly and accurately describing what I believe about any given topic, let alone what HlynkaCg believes.
@The_Nybbler too, for good measure.
When you say "sucking up all the oxygen", I think people who were not there might be left with the impression that non-stop debates about whether or not Blacks had lower average IQ at the population level were cluttering up the thread. This would lend credence to the idea that The Truth Was Being Suppressed. The problem for me is that I was there as well, and my memory is that this would be a false impression.
What I recall is that HBD was increasingly being used as a fully-general explanation to any question pertaining to differing outcomes of any sort. The initial arguments over whether Blacks had lower IQ were left far, far behind in a spiral of increasingly absurd extrapolations. The picture that emerged, for me, was a belief that higher IQ was the determining variable in all outcomes, period, end of story. A lot of people appeared to believe IQ was the only variable that could ever conceivably matter, in any situation, ever. It became routine to see completely unsupported just-so stories about how some phenomenon obviously was caused by HBD, complete with speculations about the mechanism involved, without a shred of supporting evidence and to a level of granularity that was frankly absurd. Then there'd be a big debate, often between different "HBD" enthusiasts arguing different but equally ungrounded theories for the purported mechanism, without a shred of actual evidence or even logical rigor visible. And when people grumbled about how absurd this all was, the response was "you're suppressing the science!"
A concrete example from this thread might help: take this comment as an example of the form. The chain of logic seems to be that people who get enslaved have lower IQ, slaves who get sold abroad have lower IQ than slaves retained locally, and that any genetic contributions to ADOS from whites can be safely ignored. The first claim is plausible but unproven, with Greek slaves in Rome being an obvious counterexample. The second claim appears completely unsupported, and the third claim is implicit in the logic but likewise unsupported. None of this meshes at all with the frequently-cited statistics about native africans having sub-70(?) average IQs, to point out only one obvious complication.
Comments like that are neither rigorous, nor evidence based. The fact that American Blacks have lower IQ than American whites is, I think, well-established. The fact that Africans generally have lower IQ is a whole lot less well-established, since Africa hasn't had the thorough population-level scrutiny the US has, but I'd grant it as a reasonable hypothesis based on what evidence has been gathered, and partly on the continent's general dysfunction. "Slaves can be safely assumed to have lower IQ because they got enslaved" is not supported at all, and counter-examples spring readily to mind: the many Greek slaves taken by Rome, for example. "Slaves sold overseas can be safely assumed to have lower IQ" is likewise not supported at all. These are just-so stories.
My memory is that just-so stories like this used to be absolutely rampant, and that this rampancy was what the topic ban aimed to suppress. I think it worked reasonably well, though not without considerable cost. Maybe it have been better to just spot the pattern, trace its outlines, and then point it out whenever it showed; that's the pattern that eventually worked on a number of other emergent or engineered problems in the forum. I contend simply that it was a serious problem, and it deserved to be addressed because it was notably degrading the perceived quality of the forum for a lot of users.
Maybe my memory is wrong, and I'd be open to contrary evidence. I waffled on turning this into a top-level post next week, but eh.
No, I think that's a fair summary, but I'd add that I do recall that there were a lot of posters who just seemed to want to turn every thread into yet another polemic about how all problems in the American culture war go back to blacks and their low IQs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To this day, it remains the only topic that happened to. After an outside article generated that flurry of interest, no less.
Uh:
What other topic has been harped on in such a singular fashion, aside from election year rounds?
What is your point? What part of what I said do you think was inaccurate?
Uh what? Shall we break that one down? Where am I calling you (or anyone else) a monster? Is that how you feel about any kind of criticism of your views?
Not directly related, but in support of your point about HBD (descriptively!) - what happens when we search HBD on twitter? this (you have to be logged in to use search now on twitter, which I'm seething about)
the first result invokes the term "TND", which means "total nigger death".
This doesn't apply to most themotte HBD believers though, who are mostly either non-alt-right rightwingers or libertarian/center, as far as i can tell.
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
What if you're just typing letters in a sequence that make recognizable patterns but have no real meaning?
This is a 'touch grass' moment, you are setting up and knocking down nightmares of your own creation. There is (virtually, effectively, pick whatever term you like) no one on 'your team' who would not say 'sounds great!' to deporting all the violent felons. The problem is that 'violent felons' are wildly disproportionately black so everyone else screams 'racism!' whenever one of us attempts to be colorblind
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
HBD believers aren't a homogenous constituency, much like those who believe that earth is not flat there are all sorts of reasons to recognize the truth.
My last comment before reading this one was responding to someone making quite a similar appeal and I agreed that there was no reason for it to be racial and yet I believe in HBD. I resent being shoved into a misfitting box by your theories.
If true, what do you think the political implications should be? What policies should follow, in your view? I think it more likely than not that HBD is true also, but I routinely find myself on the opposite side of discussions about what we should do about it.
We should do nothing about it. Well, we should stop doing some things as well probably, but primarily we should treat it the same as if we found out that blondes really are dumber on average and just collectively not care. Anything but constantly trying to make sure every board rooms has a blonde in it and hounding organizations that happen to hire too few blondes as discriminatory. I'm so tired of hearing about race. I never wanted to know these things and I'd gladly forget them if it wasn't constantly needed as an alternate explanation for blood libel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
HBDers are ideological descendants of the Eugenics movement, which was as progressive as it gets. The Jim Crow South did not invent racism against Africans, and it did not have a monopoly on it in its own time. That being said, I am pretty sure the Jim Crow South did have a fair amount of ideological cross-pollination with the racialist end of the Progressive movement.
I don't think this is true.
The "scientific" theories behind HBD are certainly descended from the eugenics movement. But early eugenicists were, as you say, progressive and thought their ideas would improve the human race. They thought this would be good for everyone, including blacks. They weren't trying to breed black people out of existence or marginalize them or just consign them to their miserable plight as hopeless inferiors.
Modern HBDers, by contrast, are at best indifferent and at worst hostile to the plight of non-whites. Their approach is not one of trying to improve race relations or the human race. They're tribalists, and HBD offers a convenient narrative why Our Tribe is superior and Their Tribe is awful.
Please explain how this is not textbook uncharitable boo outgrouping
Modern BLMers, by contrast, are at best indifferent and at worst hostile to the plight of whites. Their approach is not one of trying to improve race relations or the human race. They're tribalists, and BLM offers a convenient narrative why Our Tribe is superior and Their Tribe is awful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your interpretation of past progressives' motives is far more rose-colored than mine.
More options
Context Copy link
"Modern HBDers" are anything but white supremacists, modern HBDers are IQ supremacists and their "tribe", if any, are all people who can pass the IQ tests.
You will not see a shred of sympathy for poor whites of Appalachia, Latin America, Balkans, post-Soviet countries etc. in this sphere. It is similar attitude that eugenicists 100 years ago had, only even more crass.
See, for example, Anatoly Karlin's attitude to ordinary "sovok" Russians, remember how he cheered when they died of COVID or alcohol poisoning, remember his open boasts he is not going to serve in Russian army, because heroic death for the motherland is for dumb cannon meat only.
edit: spelling mistakes fixed, so I can continue to pretend to be part of high IQ elite and avoid the fate that awaits the losers ;-)
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you put ‚scientific‘ in quotes if you (gun to the head) believe in HBD yourself? The idea that psychometry/HBD is ‚pseudo-science‘ is a giant gift to white supremacists. Center-left elites who reject HBD on ‚moral grounds‘ have aligned themselves with falsehood, and from then on the Truth shall be their enemy.
Entire discussion‘s bulverism. I shouldn‘t have to prove that I love everyone, my motives are pure, my ideological predecessors‘ moral status is beyond reproach, and my future policies will be beneficial to all, before society deigns to proclaim HBD true or false.
Sorry but I don't buy it. While there may be a hand-full of principled libertarians amongst all the witches, the vast majority modern HBDers including the users who post about HBD here are race-essentialist identitarians who are trying to wrap their preexisting biases in a veneer of "i fucking love science".
This is plainly true on twitter (for every libertarian HBDer there are a thousand pro-white activists), but afaict it's not true here? Posts explicitly about how blacks or asians or jews should be kicked out aren't well received here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because I think there is a certain amount of "I Fucking Love Science"-level understanding in the HBD crowd, where they say they are just being race realists, but while the science might support "black IQ scores are lower on average," it does not support Dread Jim-style racial hot takes.
If I started talking about ‚The so-called 'scientific' theory of evolution‘, what does that imply about the truth of the theory?
‚I just mean some kooks misuse it.‘
Charitably, I could buy that.
However, you, @FCfromSSC and the ‚don‘t tell‘ crowd are so uncomfortable with the truth that you defend white lies/lies by omission on this subject. You do not want the truth known, you have aligned yourself with liars, so when you repeat their lies, I find the charitable explanation lacking. When people tell you they might lie, believe them.
Let me rephrase: you reluctantly believe that HBD is true, but you really want to say/justify saying that HBD is false. So when you say something that looks a lot like ‚HBD is false‘ , I suspect a gap between your words and your beliefs. That is not unreasonably uncharitable on my part. Whoever excuses lies, voids their right to charity.
Whether HBD is true or not(although I believe it is obviously true), whatever Jim said, what if anything is to be done about HBD, those things don‘t concern me nearly as much as lies.
You are projecting many sentiments onto me that I have not expressed or defended. I do not want "the truth" hidden, I have not aligned myself with liars, and I do not (knowingly) repeat lies. Apparently you have assumed that I support the "Noble Lie" ("we all know HBD is true but we should pretend it isn't because it would be bad for society"), and that is not what I advocate.
Incorrect. At most, you could say that I wish HBD were false, but have reluctantly concluded that it is true (but the extent to which it is true is still unknown).
No, it's flatly false.
I hope getting that rant off your chest felt righteous and vindicating, but it was completely misdirected.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Whats a "Dread Jim-style" racial hot take? I've familiar with Dreaded Jim's takes on women, but not so much his racial stuff. I doubt he's gone so far as
“Nature has color-coded groups of individuals so that statistically reliable predictions of their adaptability to intellectual rewarding and effective lives can easily be made and profitably used by the pragmatic man-in-the street.”
but maybe. He makes weird claims like blacks not being fully interfertile with whites, and calls blacks inferior, but I don't find much about HBD per se. Anyway, Dreaded Jim is a weak man. He's called Dreaded Jim by those who are outside the mainstream on the same side he is, because he's so far out there.
I don't follow his blog - not my thing - and I can't find the links (in fact, unsurprisingly, Google won't even find his new blog for me), but I'm pretty sure I've read a few posts by him along the lines of why "Why we should ship them all back to Africa and exterminate the ones who won't go willingly."
Anyway, regardless of whether that's actually Jim's position, we have seen a few folks here who are both unabashed HBD enthusiasts and at least low-key race war enthusiasts and/or segregationists, arguing that blacks are literally incapable of higher-level civilizational functions and the only peaceful solution is to put them in Bantustans.
(Most "HBD" talk is really about blacks, of course, but this does extend to folks with hot takes about Jews and Hispanics, or the most recent iteration of our old friend with his manifestos about how Chinese people are Zergs. None of which I find persuasively "scientific.")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Indifference is not tribalism. And there are modern HBDers who take the tack of wanting to improve the plight of blacks (because it ain't "non-whites" in general, nobody's worried about Asians. Probably American Indians and Australian Aborigines where appropriate. Maybe Hispanics, maybe not); it tends to be tinged with paternalism/condescension because how could it not be under the circumstances?
As for improving race relations, an argument I often hear is that it's not reasonable for blacks to be willing to accept that they'll do worse, therefore HBD is wrong. That's trying to move from an "ought" to an "is" and I'm afraid biology is just not going to co-operate.
No, but "racism isn't real, all bad outcomes are attributable to genetics, therefore fuck you and stop trying to improve their lot" is.
Okay, but even if HBD is true, in the "biology says blacks are going to be at a disadvantage no matter what we do" sense, what should we do about it? The answers vary from "Some bad outcomes are still the result of racism and historical inequities and we should redress those" to "Fuck 'em, nature's a bitch, shouldn't be our problem." Naturally, the latter position leads more easily to even more repugnant conclusions. If you're blackpilling that hard, you don't really care about facts, you're just grasping for justifications for tribal animosity.
No, it really isn't. Responding to the proposition "Let's take from white people to give to black people" (which is tribalism) with "how about no?" is not tribalism.
"Fuck 'em, nature's a bitch, shouldn't be our problem" is not tribal animosity. Not taking on the burden of saving or uplifting the world is not tribal animosity.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you appreciate that at the very least it says what we SHOULDN'T do about it? Namely, we shouldn't do that which is mainstream now – gaslight white people with the assumption of their collective, systemic complicity in underperformance of black people; their unmerited privilege; their bumbling idiocy that precludes them noticing literally brain-damaging harms incurred on blacks by the very phenomenon of their white living.
This is not a trivial proposition, for it drastically changes the moral arithmetic of any possible positive action to close performance gaps: from "redressing past wrongs at last" to "voluntarily helping the less fortunate", say; and it changes the whole landscape of authority to have opinions on the subject, which matters arguably even more. It makes your condescension even for more radical HBDers less morally impressive, too.
Derogatory rhetorical flourishes aside, where do you get the idea that I am in favor of this?
I don't care about impressing people, but I will continue to condescend to racists (in the old school, literal sense) because I think racism is morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt. Yes, that includes the "new" racism of hating on white people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you define exactly what you believe the term "HBDer" includes and excludes?
There has been some discussion already about the different between "fact-based" HBD and "political" HBD. I would generally fall into the former category: I believe there probably are evolutionary differences in behavior and intelligence among human population groups. I am mostly referring to the "political" HBDers who use this as justification for arguing that we should "recognize" these differences (the degree and manner to which they want to "recognize" them varies) in our social and political policies.
This is just ceding yet another rung on the euphemism treadmill. The group you're describing as "political" HBD will latch onto any phrase that describes the observation. We can't just always give them the control over it or the only two stable positions anyone will be able to refer to will be occupied by people who are wrong.
Well, HBD is a euphemism too, though it's probably more accurate and less charged than "race realist."
Anyway, I am basically disagreeing with @FCfromSSC and @HlynkaCG that HBDers are direct descendants of old-school progressive eugenicists.
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
HBD is more descriptive than prescriptive, but it has applications for education reform. It does not fall along predictable ideological lines. It spans the spectrum. Andrew Sullivan for example believes in HBD and praised The Bell Curve...the same guy who pioneered gay marriage.
More options
Context Copy link
Are we talking about the same Steve Sailer? Him and Richard Spencer are pretty much the central example of what I'm talking about. Dudes from extremely progressive backgrounds who basically went "what if identity politics but with the order pof the stack reversed"
Dude is a secular Jewish movie critic from Los Angeles who identified was a self-described marxist before he switched to identifying as "right wing" after he started working at Takismag. Likewise the whole time he's done so his schtick could be described as "the right wing needs to embrace left wing tactics/narratives if it wants to win"
It's the claim that he isn’t heavily influenced by progressives that is absurd on its face.
Sounds like someone who understands what Marxism is, someone who understands why it is not a going concern at this time and place, someone who understands that yelling "THIS IS MARXISM!" at anything you do not like is not a winning strategy.
What is your plan? Continue with tactics and narratives that always lose?
More options
Context Copy link
You're probably conflating him with David Cole or something.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can argue the label if you like, but "person who believes in meaningful racial differences in intelligence, and thinks it's a good idea to implement racial discrimination on this basis" is a notable cluster here, and a lot of the ones furthest out on the "fan of racial discrimination" axis are in fact former deep-blues and still retain many of their blue values, or else current deep blues with a different set of preferred races.
Meanwhile, one of the best distinguishers both of Redness and of opposition to this sort of racial politics here is "do you regularly go to Church?"
D3R is a meme because it's ineffective against blues in most contexts, due to double-standards. There's no rule against racism here, though, and there's little likelihood there will be. We point it out simply because it's true and needs to be said. If you disagree with racism as a value, you should cultivate an understanding of where it comes from, and a big part of where it comes from is Progressive social engineering ideas mixing badly with scientific fact.
I don't think that describes the ordinary HBD type, though it does describe some of the louder ones. The ordinary HBD type believes in meaningful racial differences in intelligence and thinks it's a bad idea to implement racial discrimination to correct for this.
It's probably worth making a distinction between "political HBDers" and "factual HBDers", but as you say, the political ones are the loudest here, by far. I don't think this says anything about the factual HBDers, other than that they're relatively invisible in most conversations where HBD comes up, so they aren't the central example of an HBDer that comes immediately to mind.
I used to use the label "alt-right"; it was a snappy, effective label, and there was a time when one could reasonably argue that the 1488 types really were a small minority within it. But the media and the 1488 types worked together to grant the latter de-facto control of the label, so I stopped using it. I could make a strong argument that the 1488 types have no claim to the label, but at some point other fights take priority.
I'm in Nybbler's "ordinary" category, and I've just mostly stopped engaging when like clockwork you make yet another one of those "actually people who purport to believe in HBD are Stormfronters" subthreads. It is tiresome to have to repeat the same arguments (against the backdrop of the affect-loading "actually they are eugenicists which is progressive" "Hitler was vegan" etc chorus that tends to come out of the woodwork) when it seemingly generates no correction or even acknowledgment from you.
More options
Context Copy link
Didn't used to be, then there was that HBD moratorium back in the old place and a bunch of bans, so...
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