site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33095 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 12, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Oh look, another week on the motte, another topic about DAE DAE da joos???. Actually strike that, that's the ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶r̶d̶ seventh in seven days (thanks, fuckduck9000!).

I'd like to formally apologize to the mods for raising a stink about the HBD moratorium back in the old place. This is getting really annoying.

DAE DAE da joos???

'Da joos' is the most open and blatant kind of sarcastic sneering you can imagine. None of the below is acceptable or provides any kind of serious content:

"Yeah, of course, it's the liberals causing all the problems in your life, pal. Sure."

"Oh, it's da rich??? Funny how you seem to have such an obsession with them."

"Trans people live in your head rent free, stop whining about them."

"Oh, you're blaming incentives for the tenth time in a row. Did an incentive machete your family to death?"

Jews act and have political effects, as do liberals or rich people. I don't particularly like the long and interminable discussions on the abstract gender/trans theory here but that's fine, other people do. I minimize that thread and move along because I recognize that this is a politics discussion website and this is an appropriate place to talk about it. It's as easy as clicking a button. I don't provide a backhanded comment smearing people who talk about it as low-class or obsessives.

The problem is that if we allow unknown provocateurs to “make topics annoying” by posting about them in the shittiest way, it gives anyone the power to veto the topic altogether. So, absent knowing the motivations of the shitty poster, it’s a better idea to just delete the posts and write them off completely. You would be amazed the lengths evil people go to ruin discourse. Back on Reddit there were people who would literally pretend to be a sockpuppet account of a different user in order to get that user banned, and other such shenanigans

Actually strike that, that's the ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ third in seven days.

At least seven . This one, 2 , 3 and the deleted 4, 5, 6, 7.

If it’s a day that ends with -y, foreverlurker’s got a question about jews for you.

Are those all related to Jews? Most are, but I don't remember it coming up in the South Africa post. In any case, yeah, that's really not great. (and deleting isn't great either)

Jews are intelligent. As such, HBD provides no reason to be against them.

The Joo-posters are constantly arguing that Jews are essentially a malignant invasive species working for the benefit of their in-group (Jews) to the detriment of non-Jews, and that undermining Western civilization and trying to destroy white society is something they are naturally driven to do. In olden times, they would have just said this is because Jews are inherently wicked because God hates them. Nowadays, that doesn't sound very persuasive, especially to rationalists, so instead they make up HBD theories for why Jews are a uniquely pernicious tribe following biological imperatives.

I know this because it's not exactly a new argument, and you know this because you've been around long enough to have seen it yourself. Why are you pretending that HBD has only ever been about IQ? Even the people whose HBD arguments are primarily focused on blacks are quite open about their belief that HBD says blacks aren't just low IQ, but also impulsive, violent, criminally inclined, etc.

instead they make up HBD theories for why Jews are a uniquely pernicious tribe following biological imperatives.

Isn't that overcomplicating it a bit? When did generic in-group bias become anything to do with HBD? There's simply no need to reach as far as HBD when a perfectly fully formed explanation of nepotism already exists a lot closer to the centre of the Overton Window?

Generic in-group bias would be a fully-formed explanation if the complaints about Jews were limited to their overrepresentation in banking and Hollywood, but the Jew-baiting posts very regularly make much broader assertions, that Jews are responsible for desegregation, affirmative action, increased immigration, laxer criminal justice, pornography, sexual liberation, feminism, and essentially, the entire liberal project, up to and including wokeism. Which is assumed to be a deliberate multigenerational campaign to undermine their neighbors and destroy their host society.

This only makes sense if you believe (a) Jews are just naturally evil for some reason; (b) it's some sort of biological imperative to conduct tribal warfare at a level that goes well beyond any "in-group bias" one sees in other ethnic groups. And some of the Joo-posters have made explicit HBD arguments to the effect that Jews just "evolved that way."

Jews are responsible for desegregation, affirmative action, increased immigration, laxer criminal justice, pornography, sexual liberation, feminism, and essentially, the entire liberal project, up to and including wokeism.

To be fair, you can hear that right from the horse's mouth. She herself relates this behavior directly to Tikkun Olam:

to speedily see Your mighty splendor, to cause detestable (idolatry) to be removed from the land, and the (false) gods will be utterly 'cut off', to takein olam – fix/repair/establish a world – under the Almighty's kingdom

In other words, when all the people of the world abandon false gods and recognize the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, the world will have been perfected.

To be fair, you can hear that right from the horse's mouth. She herself relates this behavior directly to Tikkun Olam:

Whether or not you agree with individual Jews who believe that things that like gay rights and affirmative action are good, there is still a disconnect between "They're doing these things because they believe they're good" and "They're doing these things because they are driven by a Jewish impulse to corrupt and destroy." But I take it that you are, in fact, endorsing the HBD theory of Jewish nefariousness?

In other words, when all the people of the world abandon false gods and recognize the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, the world will have been perfected.

This is essentially what most religious adherents believe.

The Roman Pantheon was highly representative of subjugation and hierarchy, no doubt, but it integrated the idols and symbols of others into its order. The mandate to remove idolatry from the land and "cut off" the false gods points to Yahweh as a singularly jealous god. So a Jewish mandate to drive out the false gods of the Gentiles, or Ōr laGōyyīm, relates the systematic behavior of Jewish influence in Gentile culture. Yes, I do think, as in all religion, there is an HBD-understood influence between the mythos that has formulated the people, the genes of those people, and the behavior of said people. Same is true for Christians, Arabs, Hindus.

If we properly understand Yahweh as a metaphor and synonym for the Jewish people, then the mandate in Tikkun Olam to "utterly cut off" the false gods points towards an inscrutable cultural hostility. A hostility towards the national idols and traditions and even the very ethnic identity of Gentiles is openly professed under the banner of Tikkun Olam today.

Edit: Here's an interesting article from a Jewish group corroborating the importance of Tikkun Olam to the behavior of the Jewish people:

One can say a lot about our infatuation with Tikkun Olam, and I will. But let’s start with what the critics get wrong, which is most of it.

First, the phrase “Tikkun Olam” is at least as old as Rabbinic Judaism itself. It appears already in the Mishnah, where it refers to social policy legislation providing extra protection to those potentially at a disadvantage. The “Aleinu”, one of the oldest Jewish prayers, contains the phrase “repair the world” (letaken olam). Critics love to grouse that liberal Jews “forget” the context—Aleinu envisions that God (not us) will “repair the world in the Kingship of God”—but the more important point is that “Tikkun Olam” wasn’t some phrase invented in the 1970s by Rabbi Michael Lerner and other hippie Jews.

Nor are the concepts of Jewish social justice and universal morality, to which Tikkun Olam has come to refer. Virtually all the prophets talk tirelessly about the need to create a just and ethical society, many of their words sound pretty much like a 21st century Tikkun Olam manifesto. Needless to say, they draw from the Torah, which speaks endlessly about loving the stranger and the poor. The idea that Jews have a universal mission also appears insistently from the Torah onwards. When God blesses our patriarch Abraham, God states that “through you, all the Nations of the Earth will be blessed”. The prophets often focus on Israel, their purview also extends to all Peoples. This includes the prophet Jonah, whose story we read on Yom Kippur and whose mission was exclusively directed at the gentile city (an enemy city, in fact) of Nineveh.

It would take gallons of ink to list all the traditional sources that encourage us to embark on what we call today Tikkun Olam. Considering how many of these sources are traditionally understood to be directly and authoritatively quoting God, whoever has an issue with Tikkun Olam needs to take it up with the Boss Himself. So no, it’s not a marginal idea that evil liberals brought to the forefront of the Jewish agenda; it’s been central to Judaism for millennia. And it’s not a perversion of a Kabbalistic term; if anything, the way in which we understand Tikkun Olam today is more faithful to the original mishnaic meaning of the term (pragmatic legislation to protect the vulnerable and preserve the integrity of society) than to the mystical interpretation of Lurianic Kabbalah, in which the world has lost its original harmony after the “breaking of the vessels”, and fulfilling mitzvot (whether ethical or purely ritual) can “repair the world” from its spiritual wounds.

If we understand Tikkun Olam to relate to a psychometric quality like g then of course HBD would suggest that this idea which has been central to these people for millennia is both a reflection of and influence on their psychology, even atheistic Jews. Even Jews, proudly, relate a long history of radical agitation to the concept.

More comments

In other words, when all the people of the world abandon false gods and recognize the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, the world will have been perfected.

Okay, this is not sinister.

Christians and Muslims believe that as well. If we add up the Abrahamic faiths, over fifty percent of all human beings belong to religious traditions that explicitly believe that everyone should abandon false gods and turn to the only true God - the Lord of Hosts; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God of Israel.

If Jews believe that the world will be perfected when everyone recognises Adonai, then as a Christian I feel entirely unthreatened. I greet that belief with a hearty "Amen!"

If Jews believe that the world will be perfected when everyone recognises Adonai, then as a Christian I feel entirely unthreatened. I greet that belief with a hearty "Amen!"

Amen!

More comments

In-group bias differs by populations. As does, say, intraversion

Why are you pretending that HBD has only ever been about IQ?

HBD as used by rationalists should be about IQ, because IQ can be measured. Claiming that Jews are bad people for some HBD-related reason that you can't measure is incorrectly using HBD.

I will concede that HBD may give you a reason to hate Jews if you use it incorrectly, but I don't think that tells you much about HBD. Anything can give you a reason for anything if you use it incorrectly.

So your belief is that HBD explains IQ differences and only IQ differences (as far as cognitive function goes)?

Exactly what else do you think it can explain that wouldn't be tied to IQ?

(I would think that something like low time preference is tied to IQ.)

Exactly what else do you think it can explain that wouldn't be tied to IQ?

I'm not making any claims. I'm an HBD skeptic who thinks it has some explanatory power but not the power its more enthusiastic advocates claim. Such as all the other qualities I mentioned.

What I am noticing in your case is that it appears you believe that HBD is "correctly" used when it makes negative generalizations about your outgroup, and "incorrectly" used when it makes negative generalizations about your ingroup.

What I am noticing in your case is that it appears you believe that HBD is "correctly" used when it makes negative generalizations about your outgroup, and "incorrectly" used when it makes negative generalizations about your ingroup.

By this reasoning, most people here are well-educated, so generalizing that education is good is self-serving, and should be looked upon very suspiciously. I suspect that most people here are not murderers, either, so it would be self-serving to claim that being a murderer indicates something negative about oneself.

More comments

Why wouldn't it explain anything else? Why is our ability to measure it according to science which has been hostile to these conclusions for decades conclusive evidence of existence or non existence of phenomena? Why would behavior be uniquely free of genetic influence, when in fact we can point to numerous examples of behavior being influenced by genetics on an individual level?

HBDers argue over and over the it's absurd to assume that genetics influences an abundance of physical characteristics but not the brain; why is it intellectually fine that the first ranked NBA player who isn't Black or Balkan is in the 30s, but racism that there aren't enough Blacks at Harvard law? Further HBDer arguments require that American folk racialization categories are accurate, that the world can be divided into White/Black/Asian and produce useful insights, why wouldn't other even more prevalent folk racial theories be correct?

It seems like if you open up to HBD, the burden is heavy to claim that it implicates only part of the brain.

This does not follow. And, in fact, this kind of non sequitur coming from an apparently intelligent person is in itself a major reason. I think Lior Pachter's inane and poisonous hit piece on James Watson, a piece completely misrepresenting Pachter's own field for the sake of essentially propagating anti-white hatred while character-assassinating one of the field's heroes, was a big one. Really showed me how this happens.

It absolutely follows.

It doesn't mean you might not hate Jews for other reasons than HBD, but not because of HBD itself.

HBD – in and of itself – does not provide reason to hate any group or individual, it's not a normative position but a prism for making predictions.

Smarter people, so far as they are unaligned with one's values, are a bigger cause for concern than dumber ones in all important cases.

Their main argument is ‘look at all these jews in politics and media’ –and intelligence is sufficient to explain overrepresentation. Their intellectual output covers the entire spectrum of political opinions. Treating a race as a single unified force is the same mistake the woke make when they explain black underachievement with institutional white supremacy. So I don’t see what one guy criticizing watson is supposed to prove.

It’s the combo of high intelligence and apparent anti-my-group alignment that anti-semites tend to be against. (Tongue in cheek, of course. The Yudkowsky irony amuses me greatly.)

The off-the-cuff words of someone in the DR recently, giving some in-group criticism:

Some things are cliches because they are true. For example: politics lie downstream from culture. Almost no one in the dissident right denies this.

The problem is they don’t understand culture and have no real interest in understanding it (or aptitude for understanding it). When they do bother to approach it, they approach it with the attitude of “these Jews are not smarter than me! I see everything they are doing, it’s soooo obvious!” Wrong moron. They are actually quite sophisticated and there is a lot we can learn from them. They wouldn't have reached the position they have if they weren't.

And any assessment that gives Js their fair due (while nevertheless accepting they are a hostile elite), sends these grugs into a tizzy. They’d rather sit on streams and complain that Js succeed simply by virtue of their “evil” (and not their talent or their particular inscrutable approach). It becomes an ego thing for them.

Of course the most controversial premise here is that they are a hostile elite, which is not a hypothesis that is refuted by their IQ.

If evolution doesn't stop at the neck, why does it stop at intelligence and not touch morality?

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