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
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