site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   30593 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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.

That just doesn’t seem big enough to filter at the rate we are seeing

It isn't?

I'm honestly asking here: there's very few Ivy League spots. Even if every person in Harvard's 2026 class counted as "black" it hardly seems a huge rate.

Especially if Murray in Facing Reality is right: Harvard can skim off the top of the most academically inclined blacks. Everyone else then does their best with what they have. Even if that means "talented locals" rather than "peak of Nigerian elite".

Versus ADOS for taking a disproportionate share of the spots. Not for overall numbers.

I don't mean to be thick. I'm just not grasping the argument.

Jews, for example, can be disproportionately represented despite making up a small segment of the racial superclass (which is not as poor or badly off). Why doesn't the same logic apply?

I’m sort of going on gut instinct. But I guess I’m assuming.

  1. American blacks on net have higher hbd than African Blacks since we go with the 1 drop makes you black rule here.
  2. Approximately 50 million American blacks. All with access to our education system, public libraries, internet connectivity, etc.
  3. 40 million or so West Indian blacks and 1 billion or so in African (though different age pyramids). A significant portion of which may have ability but no access to libraries or education etc to even enter the American filter.
  4. My instincts tell me atleast around half but maybe more of African elites in the Ivy League or in politics are from category (3) versus category (2).

Obama/Kamela not being American ADOS but Scott, Brown, Thomas are. It just seems those outside of the American environment are more prevalent that I would expect.

Huh. I actually share most of those assumptions (my full opinion on HBD is...up in the air). It's more that I just don't share the sense of statistical implausibility. I was just wondering if I just wasn't getting the math.

I guess, ironically, HBDers who gleefully cite things about how overrepresented Jews or whoever are in this or that place has simply deadened my reaction to the idea that some segments of the populace will just do way too well (based on what a layman thinks is "fair"). If you tell me a highly restricted group of the best off people from a billion-strong pool do well enough to seize a couple of thousand spots a year from one of the worst performing ethnic groups in the US...it's hardly the biggest overepresentation they've claimed.

To me, when you combine the intuitions that:

  1. Black migrants probably have a lower crime rate
  2. Black migrants probably from better educated families.
  3. Black migrants are probably likely to be in two parent families.
  4. If HBDers like Charles Murray are right then there should be a huge shortage of the top-top ADOS students. Of course supplementation would be necessary if you didn't want to drop standards (more).

I find it harder to be shocked.

I would find it more unintuitive if it was across the entire college system.

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