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 -
That list is tiny, and you might have to drop a few if you consider whether they have successfully locked in their gains and had an orderly succession to a still flourishing system.
Nobody has any idea how to make Lee Kuan Yews or General Parks*, or they'd make a dozen of them. Often people act enlightened to fool the West and then do whatever (Obama used to think Erdogan was that guy) Which is why a lot of people default to "get a democracy going".
TBH there is no "Western narrative" - there's many. Even in the same government you'll find people supporting democracy and change until they turn around and support the only strongman on the grounds that they're the ones who can keep the state running or, at least, do what the US wants (basically Obama's relationship with Egypt after the Arab Spring).
(I don't think you're wrong about Western NGO-types framing people like Bukele as autocrats for violating "civil rights" but that just makes me skeptical that he is autocrat, as opposed to proving he's a successful one)
* This being The Motte, someone might also remark on it being a strange coincidence that the examples that immediately come to mind are East Asian...
The monarchies of Jordan and Morocco have not been democratic and have generally done very well by local standards- certainly better than we expect Arab democracies to do. The gulf monarchies have also produced Islamist petrostates that are at least much better than Libya or Iran.
Trujillo seems to have improved his country pretty massively, as well.
There is a massive "being an enemy of America is not good for your health" confounding factor here though right?
This is entirely true, but Arab petrostates which are not gulf monarchies don’t seem to be able to avoid making enemies with the US.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones.”
More options
Context Copy link
Pinochet was close to those god level rulers. Chile is the richest country south of our border.
A dictator who murdered thousands and imprisoned and tortured tens of thousands of people is not benevolent.
Park Chung-Hee and Lee Kwan Yew and Paul Kagame no doubt invite their opposition leaders to give conferences in five star hotels.
Honestly I think a big part of the difference in western attitude towards those three from the Latin generalissimos is that the critics of the latter are more sympathetic to the western literati, rather than actual behavior and results.
Presumably Park, Lee, and Kagame also don't escalate to systematic murder. I would especially hope not in Kagame's case, as the Rwandan Genocide most likely gave his people the moral high ground of subjugating genocidaires, even when they started shit with Zimbabwe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The economic gains from removing communists makes the helicopter fuel pay for itself.
Low effort and just waging culture war.
If you seriously believe murdering communists is a good thing, you need to put a lot more effort into what you want to say.
If you're just trying to be funny, don't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why does that matter? He killed the right people (communists). And put the country on a path to have the highest per capita income in the region.
It’s not like these other dictators didn’t kill and imprison people.
As I told someone else, "Yes, actually, murdering all my political enemies is a good thing" is inflammatory enough to require more than a low effort hot take like this.
And you've been posting a lot of crappy comments like this, and apparently bans and warnings aren't making an impression.
So while this comment itself was only a little bit bad, you're getting another one-week ban because we're tired of you posting one "little bit bad" comment after another.
Expect future bans to escalate.
When communism had a body count well into the tens of millions in the half century prior to the events described, “political enemies” does not do the category justice.
You are allowed to talk about how much you hate communism here, but if you want to say "killing communists is good" - which presumably would include everyone from Marxist revolutionaries to your local Marxist college professor - you need to put a lot more effort into explaining how murdering your political enemies is a good and justifiable thing. Not with low effort comments like the OP's.
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
Does Juan Carlos of Spain count?
I would expect a benevolent dictator to actually rule the country for a while as dictator. Juan Carlos basically immediately had Spain transition to a democratic constitutional monarchy with a figurehead monarch.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, fair point that my sample may be biased towards Third Worlders and developing nations for multiple reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
Salazar of Portugal (1932–1968) is often given as an example of a benevolent dictator. There are a lot more example that aren't East Asian. France-Albert René of Seychelles is another.
I have never seen Salazar described as benevolent. Wikipedia says:
Here's a book on Salazar.
https://www.amazon.com/Salazar-Dictator-Who-Refused-Die/dp/1787383881/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=&tag=reasonmagazinea-20
Contrast Portugal's outcomes to Spain (Civil War) and Italy (Fascism/WWII) and he looks pretty good. But yeah, I doubt you're going to find mainstream hagiographies of any dictator.
Does an obituary of an austere religious scholar focusing on their academic career rather than time spent as dictator of a terrorist state count?
Damn, I'm dying to know. Did the NYT write something nice about the Ayatollah or something? Trudeau's eulogy of Castro also seems to fit the mold. Maybe I should rephrase.
I doubt you're going to find mainstream hagiographies of any right-coded dictator.
That seems accurate. The austere religious scholar meme is a reference to a WaPo obituary for al-Baghdadi of ISIS. That archive link is post edit so unclear how much of the bringing up the ills of ISIS were added after the fact. A screenshot of the original article. You're probably correct on the right-coded dictator modification.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That’s a highly selective quote when Wikipedia with a left bias includes a lot of quotes like this
“According to American scholar J. Wiarda, despite certain problems and continued poverty in many sectors, the consensus among historians and economists is that Salazar in the 1930s brought remarkable improvements in the economic sphere, public works, social services and governmental honesty, efficiency and stability.“
If you read your own Wikipedia source then you would find many paragraphs describing him as benevolent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Very true. We don't have a model for how to bring a country like El Salvador or Rwanda up to 1st world level. This also being the Motte, I think we need to accept that this is likely impossible due to HBD.
So what Bukele is doing in El Salvador is really terrific. Going from murderous shithole to, let's say, Mexico level would be the likely maximum of what's possible. But people will criticize him for anything short of Nordic-level democracy.
Why do you believe that HBD is the limiting factor, and not geopolitics, geography, or just self-reinforcing systems? For that matter, how do you judge the “maximum of what’s possible” for a given country? I am confident that Mexico does not represent the peak of Hispanic achievement.
People will criticize Bukele as long as his policy looks suspiciously beneficial to him, personally. As a distant second, they may criticize the human right violations inherent to his chosen approach. But the important thing is that locking up everyone who might stop you is the oldest trick in the autocrat’s playbook, other than killing the outright. Whether or not it is also effective, that’s the main source of criticism.
People criticize Bukele because they have zero skin in the game and don't have to suffer the consequences of their criticism. What does a Western NGO care if El Salvador collapses into anarchy again? They don't have to live there.
Hanania has written a couple essays about this which I've found rather convincing:
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-invisible-graveyard-of-crime
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-midwit-meme-and-the-denial-of
From the comments of the first article
Yeah, I was actually just reading those (and finding them convincing) but one of the articles he linked about the difference in Western European policing vs American (basically: European cops have more leeway in policing which means they can provide more consistent but lower-level deterrence vs. American cops who are hobbled by rights and respond by oversentencing those they do have dead to rights) was even better for his argument tbh.
Really fits the view that it's just tradeoffs and all of the sacralization doesn't help think about them.
EDIT: David Simon of all people basically came out and said "Hanania an asshole [which he is] but he's not wrong". I wonder how The Wire "fans" will react? They shouldn't be surprised but you know how that goes.
More options
Context Copy link
I very much agree with his assertion in the second article that analysts often try to avoid mentioning (or even thinking about) tradeoffs in political discussions, even that's almost always how the real world works. Being honest about tradeoffs is a good strategy for correctly comprehending the world, but not for "winning" arguments.
Somewhat related to the civil rights violations of prisoners, I remember the arguments about Guantanamo back in the War on Terror days. It was common to hear politicians and pundits - in full seriousness - make the claim that "torture doesn't work anyway." I hated the fact that, post-9/11, it was politically impossible to say "torture is against our values, so we won't do it even though this makes our anti-terror efforts less effective and costs lives." Despite the fact that (I suspect) most people would agree privately with this statement...
The context I always got for "torture doesn't work" was that, while torture works great to get an insurgent to confess that his neighbor is also part of the insurgency, torture is great at eliciting that confession whether it's true or not. If you're lucky you get to parade the neighbor's IED cache out in front of the neighborhood and you have 1 fewer insurgent; if you're unlucky you have to let the suffering neighbor go and you still might have pissed off his further neighbors and cousins and so forth sufficiently to have 5 more insurgents.
Thus everyone had to go to the "ticking time bomb" thought experiment to get a real ethical conundrum: if the tortured suspect is being asked for information where a lie won't hurt any (more) innocents and won't radicalize any more enemies and will be quickly and reliably discovered, then we have to determine whether our values are really enough to say "no".
I think your hypothetical scenarios are a little mixed up. You mention confessions in your first case, because (yes, of course) confessions gained under torture aren't legitimate. Which has nothing to do with the War on Terror argument, or the second part where you mention finding an IED cache. That's information gathering, and that's the general case.
Note that:
All information you get from a suspect, voluntary, coerced, or via torture, is potentially a lie. Pretending that torture is different in this way is special pleading.
You invented a highly contrived scenario to show the worst-case consequences of believing a lie. There are dozens of ways of checking and acting on information that are less vivid.
The main difference that torture has is there are some suspects for which it is the only way of getting useful information. It sucks, but this is the Universe we live in.
As for the "ticking time bomb" thought experiment, that's not highlighting one special example where torture works. That's just showing where the torture-vs-not distinction (the ethical conundrum, like you said) becomes sharpest. Most people have some threshold X at which saving X lives is worth torturing one person. It arguably shouldn't make a difference whether those lives are direct (a bomb in a city) or indirect (stopping a huge attack 2 years down the line), but we're human, so it does.
Flawed reasoning - the point being made is that using torture leads to a much greater rate of false positives, because when you torture people until they tell you what you want to hear they will frequently tell you what you want to hear in order to make the torture stop, even if they have to make up what you want to hear.
Are you going to really claim that a confession from someone who rats out their conspirators in order to secure a favourable plea deal is equally as reliable as the fruits of a torture chamber?
I'll just point out that you - not me - used the phrase "what you want to hear". Note that "what you want to hear" most is useful information. Please, you're on The Motte, just try to think logically about this rather than believing what you really hope to be true.
Just off the top of my head, suppose you have 5 suspects and you need the address of their base, and they're not talking. You torture them and they give you some addresses. Do you say "welp, a lot of these are false positives, shucks, into the garbage with you"? No, of course not. You can surveil all the addresses, you can correlate their stories, you can torture them more if it doesn't match up, etc. I'm making up an armchair scenario which doesn't come close to capturing the complexity of real-world intelligence work, but that's ok, because I'm not the one trying to make a sweeping claim. All it takes is one situation where torture works for your motivated reasoning to fall apart.
I'm sorry, but torture is a horrible practice that we shouldn't do, but it also works. It just does. If I had info I didn't want to reveal, it would work on me. It would work on you. This isn't a political question. It's a simple fact, and it's one that the average person just knows, because they haven't heard the "clever" contrarian arguments that let you talk yourself out of common sense.
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
‘Hispanic’ is a broad and extremely diverse category. It’s entirely consistent to think that Mexico-level prosperity is towards the top of what’s possible for El Salvador(Mexicans seem to think this is well out of reach) while acknowledging that, say, Costa Rica can be much richer.
Obviously you can also think that El Salvador can achieve much higher than Mexico currently does. But El Salvador, Mexico, and Costa Rica are three very different countries that happen to speak (different dialects of)the same language. It’s not unreasonable to expect them to have different futures.
That’s pretty much exactly why I objected to the OP. Saying that El Salvador can’t do better than Mexico does right now is…bizarre. Since he led with “because HBD,” I assumed he was painting them with the same brush.
It’s worth noting that Mexico has a much, much better hbd situation than El Salvador from the perspective of ‘what percentage of the population is above 95 IQ’, because in large parts of Mexico the average person is phenotypically Spanish and that presumably extends to IQ.
Why should we assume the indigenes are genetically low-IQ, though? For a point against, writing was invented at least four times, and one of those times was in Mesoamerica. Are there measurements more reliable than Lynn's?
Everything we know about the question indicates the indigenous peoples of Latin America have genetically lower IQ than Europeans. Lynn may not be the best data that could ever be, but it is the only data available, and it more or less corresponds with other studies of IQ by ethnic group, such as Murray's.
As for the Maya inventing writing, so did the Egyptians and ancient Iraqis, and they're definitely not intellectual heavyweights.
It's fairly reasonably well supported to hold that fraction of European ancestry correlates quite well with IQ on a population level.
So just Lynn then? Yes, it may be the only data available, but if all you've got is shit, it's still shit.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link