site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   30978 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 2023

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When I discuss Critical Race Theory with leftists, I often make the point that, while I'd rather public schools not encourage students to speculate on the causes of racial disparities, I'd be amenable to a compromise where systemic racism is taught as one possibility, alongside cultural and biological explanations.

The response to this (when it's not an accusation of racism on my part) is that I'm just like the creationists who wanted their psuedoscience taught alongside evolution. This is kind of true, in that I am asking that ideas I like be taught alongside ones favored by the academic establishment. However, when you take social desirability out of the equation, HBD is more similar to evolution because it literally IS just applied evolution, and systemic racism/CRT/disparate impact/wokeness/social justice/anti-racism/whatever label we're using this week is analogous to creationism in that we have little direct evidence it exists, but we assume it must exist because the current state of affairs would make sense as its outcome, even though it would also make sense as the outcome of other processes.

I doubt that I'm the first person around these parts to say that the Pastafarian explanation for gravity (an invisible, non-corporeal Flying Spaghetti Monster physically pushes us onto the ground) has no less evidence supporting it than the woke explanation for half-Asian, half-white children having a mean IQ between that of Asians and that of whites (stereotype threat impacts them half as much).

I also doubt that I'm the first person around these parts to draw a comparison between creationists who acknowledge microevolution while denying Darwinism to leftists who acknowledge within-group heritability while denying between-group heritability.

However, a thought occurred to me today that frightened me, and my hope is that when I voice it, you will unanimously dismiss it as ridiculous, because if it's in any way true, then I'm going to be devastated.

What if the truth value of Darwinism had little, if anything, to do with its acceptance by the academic establishment, and the falsehood of intelligent design had little, if anything, to do with its rejection by the academic establishment? If truth was that important, we'd expect CRT to be seen as equivalent to creationism, but it's not.

You know the Schmitt meme about how all disputes can be reduced to friend vs. enemy? Well.. maybe that's what happened with the debate over evolution in public schools. Maybe evolution was pushed specifically because the religious right objected to it, and not because it was real. That evolution actually WAS real was incidental at best.

Promote evolution and CRT because they hurt the right. Eliminate intelligent design and HBD because they hurt the left. This is how a Schmittposter would describe what happened, and maybe that literally is what happened.

Please tell me I'm just mindkilled. I'm not being rhetorical here. I would find that reassuring.

I find myself going back and forth between "you've been mind-killed" and "IQ doesn't actually measure the thing that IQ fetishists like to pretend it does". I won't go so far as to say "IQ doesn't exist" but I do believe that an inclination towards academics is not the same thing as being smart or competent. I've had way too much first-hand experience with "switched on" boys from the hood and retards with advanced degrees from prestigious schools to buy either background as a reasonable proxy for intelligence.

Meanwhile the cynical bastard in my wants to believe that Id Pol is what people resort to when they are not secure in their own identity, which is why it's loudest advocates always seem to be some sort of sexual deviant (IE Gay, Trans, Furry, Pedo, Antinatalist, Etc...).

You seem to think that HBD is silly, but also that the claim that differences in outcome between groups are primarily caused by oppression is silly. And that's fine! My point is that the strong preference in polite society for one over the other is hard to reconcile with evolution being similarly preferred over intelligent design unless one takes the Schmittpill.

("Preferred" is putting it mildly, since we're talking bans and blacklisting, but I'm too tired to think of a better word.)

I do and I do, because I believe that the primary driver of differences in outcome between groups is cultural. "My daddy taught me X" (or failed to teach me X) may be hereditary, but it is not genetic. Accordingly, the HBD-Tards stated preference for politeness is a trap, there trying to convince honest actors to play nice while they play dirty.

  • -16

It seems to me like most things a single variable explanation is incomplete but also that one explanation can in fact enforce another.

For example, why do some cultures promote X and not Y? Some of it is explained by historical events which was influenced by geography and resources. But culture was also surely influenced by the people themselves which includes hereditary genes. But at the same time, culture influences which genes are passed on (because culture influences which males successfully reproduce) therefore strengthening the relationship between culture and genes.

This is very difficult to believe for those of us who taught ourselves out of being in one cultural domain and into another, and we're able to do so for reasons of either intrinsic capabilities or pure random chance.

Define what you mean by "cultural domain" in this context

Cultural environment that encompasses a class. Underclass, working class, middle class, educated middle class, professionals, upper middle class all have vastly differing cultural environments and changing between them is possible - while changing your class fundamentally is not, due to the impossibility of changing the past, but you can pass and learn things that you aren't taught by your parents or those ein your environment, things you learn by yourself due to your intrinsic ability and inclination.

but you can pass and learn things that you aren't taught by your parents or those ein your environment, things you learn by yourself due to your intrinsic ability and inclination.

You realize that this implies an internal locus of control and thus falsifies a good chunk of the bio-determinists so called evidence do you not?

Internal locus of control doesn't refute biological influences on distributions of likely and possible outcomes over a population in aggregate.

the primary driver of differences in outcome between groups is cultural

I also suspect that this is true, but it doesn't require scepticism about IQ or even not thinking that hereditary IQ is a major determinant of academic or commercial success at an individual level. A large part of group differences is not statistically explained, and many explanatory factors (like agreeableness and conscientiousness) have a cultural aspect to them.

Of course, a HBD theorist might say that cultural differences are themselves largely genetic in origin, but I would want to look at twin studies, adoptee studies, and similar evidence before believing that.

That would be an argument against genetic determinism rather than in favor. Thus undermining the wider HBD position.

Yes, my point is that scepticism about HBD doesn't require scepticism about IQ, scepticism about IQ being largely (or even mostly) genetically determined, or scepticism about IQ being an important factor in life outcomes.

And my point is that my skepticism of HBD largely stems from my skepticism of IQ. Like I said above, I've had too much first-hand experience with both ends of the bell curve to buy that IQ is anything more than a very loose proxy for actual intelligence.

Accordingly, the HBD-Tards stated preference for politeness is a trap, there trying to convince honest actors to play nice while they play dirty.

Knock it off with "HBD-Tards."

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats