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 -
Michael Lind, Eugenicons and the Motte.
Recently, Michael Lind, a notable political commentator and anti-immigration activist, took a stab at what he termed the "eugenicons". The most prominent of which being men like Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, Bo Winegard and guys like Richard Hanania, whose face is prominently plastered over the article.
Linds piece paints these "eugenicons" as being not just factually wrong and out of their element with regards to the science, but also politically ineffective. As Lind sees 'race realism' and the libertarian ethos it allegedly expresses itself through these men to be "utterly incompatible" with broadening the appeal of the modern Republican party to working class Americans of all races. Lind, being a bit of a ‘soft’ materialist in the old Marxist sense, has a preferred view of the public as being in a bit of an economic class struggle. Though his view is far more principled and sophisticated than what you generally find among big L Americans Leftists.
Lind’s article is worth a read, and so are the various responses. The two better ones being from Steve Sailer and Brian Chau
Charles Murray did not respond in length, but remarked after reading Linds article that
Sailer, like Murray, voiced his disappointment that the article by Lind was not composed of anti HBD arguments of higher quality. And took issue with the view Lind expresses with regards to the state of the scientific literature at this time. Maintaining that Lind is far behind the curve on just how heavily the evidence has been falling on the side of HBD in recent years and that he also mischaracterizes some of the HBD positions as strict determinism. Pointing out that social causes have a very clear effect, as he cites his new favorite chart of various fatalities rising in line with the 'happening' of George Floyd.
These are all familiar notes for HBD folks, but they focus on facts and details over the broad stroke narrative. Something Brian Chau points out and extrapolates on. And it’s a worthwhile endeavor, given that someone whose been in the game for as long as Lind is probably not going to have his broader political viewpoint or his fondness for the American working class dissuaded by, as he put it:
It’s a fair position to hold, I suppose, so where does Lind get his ideas from?
As Chau sees it, Lind is working from a presupposition of political representation. That is, Lind sees himself representing the American working class. To that end it is no surprise he dislikes the HBD creed, given it is inherently divisive to the multiracial America. Something modern day classical Marxists have been pointing at for a long while, to little effect as they continue to support mass immigration, unlike Lind.
On that note Lind ties Libertarianism and HBD together, showing just how these two ideas are compatible. As Lind puts it:
This is certainly an observation. I think it would be easy, like Chau does, to point out that of the 4 big “eugenicons” only Hanania is ostensibly libertarian and otherwise poke holes in it. But I think that draws us away from the truth value of the statement as it relates to Lind and his position as a representative of the working class American. In a broad class interest narrative, there is an obvious pathway where the notion of free market success correlates with ‘superiority’. At the very least, if we value success in modern society, and we place some stock in the notion of heritability of traits, we end up with an undeniable truth. The lower classes are inferior to the superior upper classes. But as it relates to the "eugenicons", again, it’s not necessarily a truth anyone of the 4 mentioned, Sailer, Murray, Winegard and Hanania, are guided by politically.
Lind goes too far then, or does he? You don’t have to to go full send Capitalist Darwinism or whatever. Most people have the self reflection to look at themselves as a less than perfect part of a greater whole. Or that would be my view. Except that is the minority view of a National Socialist. So I think, to the extent American politics exist as is represented in media, Lind might be more correct than not here. And if “eugenicons” are not viscerally racist in their soul, I’d argue they do have to contend with the old ghost of “Social Darwinism”. Merely pointing at The Bell Curve and HBD as a truth can’t qualify as just another feather of truth in the cap of HBD folks. In the words of Eric Turkheimer, this truth could rival the atom bomb.
Chau's criticism of Lind is that Lind is not seeking truth but instead seeking to represent a class of people. To that end, if there is a truth that can harm them it’s not his duty to have that truth guide him but to shield the people from it. They are stronger together, class solidarity and all that. And through that lens Chau contextualizes some of Lind’s more extravagant misrepresentations of HBD ‘truths’. It’s simply not Lind's job to represent this truth. Lind is representing a class of people. Protecting both its class interest as well as its dignity, at the very least.
Beyond this you will have to read Chau’s article as he takes broader issue with the worldview Lind expresses.
On the whole I find Lind’s position to be stronger than I had suspected after seeing the "eugenicons" pile on him for the various errors and factual misrepresentations made. So long as Lind is accurately representing the people he feels with, his position will remain strong. Particularly since it is dealing with immediate problems that are likely to result from the HBD 'atom bomb' being released on the public. I had always assumed that biological truths would lead people towards something like ethno-nationalist 'democratic' socialism. But I’m now more willing to believe that America could surprise me if the bomb was dropped on them.
On that note it is not clear to me if Lind’s representing of the multiracial American working class is for its protection or ours.
I would argue that HBD, properly understood, is the least divisive explanation for racial achievement gaps. There are a few competing mainstream explanations:
HBD allows for the possibility that it's nobody's fault. White people aren't keeping black people down. Rich people aren't keeping poor people down (and neither are Jews). And black people don't just need to try harder (obviously this would help any individual on the margin, but it's not the main reason for group disparities).
Some of the more insightful leftists actually understand this, and hate HBD precisely because it offers an alternative to their libelous villain-and-victim narratives. Over the past week or so, I've seen several people "accuse" HBD advocates of being defenders of the "status quo," as if rejecting the idea that society is a conspiracy by whites/rich people/Jews to screw over everyone else were indisputable evidence of bad faith.
HBD also gives us a clear path to a biological fix to a problem that has stubbornly resisted all sociological approaches to remediation. We need to invest much more into understanding the genetics of human intelligence and developing technology for polygenic gene therapy. HBD is a red pill, not a black pill, and it offers a way forward out of this madness.
Edit: Wacky but also kind of serious idea to tide us over until STEMlords save the day: Offer low-SES women free access to semen from high-IQ men, explaining to them that this will give their children a much better chance at succeeding in life and greatly reduce the odds that they'll end up in prison.
Maybe there's a universe where that's true, but it's nowhere close to the one we live in. Even taking it as given that HBD is correct in a descriptive sense, that doesn't come with any set of policy prescriptions. Considering the historical track record a lot of people would be reasonably concerned that HBD conclusions would be used to justify oppression.
Could you give a couple of example? This reeks of "our enemies hate us because they know we're right", which is basically never correct. Every leftist I've ever encountered or read who addresses HBD dislikes it because they see it as reheated 19th century pseudo-science employed by closeted white supremacists.
I've seen about a hundred people express concern over what other people would do if HBD became public knowledge, and about zero people express the idea that we should enshrine racial discrimination in law because of HBD. There's some selection bias here, of course—I don't really hang out in racist forums—but I do think that the idea of equality before the law is deeply enshrined in the modern American consciousness. Pushes for racial discrimination come almost exclusively from the environmentalist left. We do not, in general, endorse restrictions on the rights of people with low intelligence. There's a very strong knee-jerk reaction against the idea of, e.g., gating voting behind a test of civic literacy, or sterilizing institutionalized women with severe mental disabilities, who are at elevated risk of sexual abuse and clearly incapable of raising children.
Given that there's extremely strong resistance to any kind of limitations on the rights of individuals with even severe intellectual disabilities, the idea that the public would suddenly decide to restrict the rights of even highly intelligent individuals on the basis of membership in ethnic groups with low average intelligence strikes me as wildly implausible. Meanwhile, the insane overreaction to racial achievement gaps by heredity denialists is a very real problem that we're dealing with right now.
Off the top of my head, I can give you one. The other two recent examples that come to mind would require self-doxxing. Here's Jamelle Bouie on Richard Hanania:
I'm not saying that Bouie has done a deep dive into the evidence, concluded that there is in fact a strong genetic basis for racial achievement gaps, and decided that he has to help cover it up. I'm not saying he hates us because he knows we're right. Frankly, I don't respect him enough to give him that much credit. What I'm saying is that I don't think he cares that much about the science, and that his true objection is that hereditarian explanations for achievement gaps undermine the idea that these gaps are the product of a deliberately rigged economy, and let those bastards off the hook. He's pretty explicit about this.
Well, the internet ate my homework, so now you're getting the abbreviated version.
Long story short, I think he is doing the same thing as you, just in reverse: explaining the traction of HBD by what it does for its adherents. Namely, rationalize their elevated position in society and absolve them of any social duty to people at the bottom. As for why he opposes HBD, I think I nailed it:
-
I've seen about zero people suggest the idea that the communist revolution should involve killing millions and yet for some reason it keeps happening. The eugenicists and race realists have a really, really bad track record. It's not much of a jump from "we should discourage low IQ people from reproducing" to "we should prevent low IQ people from reproducing".
But we don't want to discourage low IQ people from reproducing. We just don't want legally mandated racial discrimination via the disparate impact doctrine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If we assume any will take you up on the offer(as far as I know getting pregnant from a sperm donor is mostly for wealthy infertile couples and lesbians, and low IQ women who want a baby will just get pregnant from whoever their boyfriend is at the time), you still have to deal with 1) low-IQ genes from the mom and 2) the terrible underclass culture and shitty parenting from poor people. I suspect any kids thus conceived would wind up keeping books for a drug dealer or something, not productive members of society.
More options
Context Copy link
I was totally with you until this paragraph. No we don't. "Fixing" the IQs and abilities of the races flies in the face of nature and history and humanity. Let Asians be smarter. Let black people be better at running. Let everyone be the way nature/God intended them. I don't imagine creepy futurist scientific interventions will be any better than today's misguided progressive interventions, for example distribution of genetic intervention is unlikely to be evenly distributed in the near future.
More options
Context Copy link
There are several environmental factors that can and will probably derail those children from leading a successful life.
More options
Context Copy link
In a vacuum? Not really. It'd almost certainly be preferable if it was just racism or rap music as opposed to the US being saddled with legitimately lower-IQ groups in a time when it matters more than ever.
The problem is that those other explanations and the policies put forward based on them by their supporters haven't closed the gap . Which leads to desperate attempts to save the theory (e.g. now with "model minority myth" and "multiracial white supremacy") and ever greater derangement in general.
This is what a HBDer expects, because they think the gap can't be closed. So we're not operating in a vacuum in this hypothetical - HBD less divisive in a world where HBD actually is true and we won't eventually close the gap.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the problem is HBD sounds fatalistic. There is no “solution.” Some might say “welfare” but that doesn’t really work and has a lot of corrosive side effects. Some say “bad roll of the dice kid” which while true seems heartless. Eugenics has a bad name.
Honestly, I think it goes beyond that. If you admit HBD you're saying a whole bunch of racist assholes were right. A whole bunch of careers and identities and entire movements are pinned on opposing that. And many have burnt their ships in a variety of ways (including doing serious damage to others).
If there was an obvious cure available right now then maybe people would be forced to bite the bullet, but if it's "accept HBD and accept Jefferson was right when he explained the difference between ancient Roman and Negro slaves to justify the situation and...at some point we'll get fiddle with your kids' genes, maybe"...not a good sales tactic.
Yes, yes. I've heard all of the platitudes about "treating people like individuals" or "it doesn't justify what happened", "more variation within groups" (I loved half-Jew, full-elite Sam Harris writing the issue off as irrational cause he's not worried about being less smart than von Neumann, like...fuck off). I don't think it matters.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's not "wacky", that's "eugenics" (or "positive eugenics").
It's "reproductive choice." Lefties talk a big game about reproductive choice, but they only want to allow women to choose whether to have children. I want to allow women to choose what kind of children to have. That's real reproductive choice.
More options
Context Copy link
Sadly, the conclusion that 95% draw from historical eugenics movements is not that murder and forced sterilization are bad, but that any attempt to make future generations healthier is bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The systemic part of that doesn't really imply the latter; at least not regarding present day white people. It may be some white people's fault, say slaveowners or Jim Crow politicians, but that isn't especially divisive because no-one defends either of those today. Individual/unconscious bias is a bit divisive, but I don't see why the historical explanations really are.
That's the motte, but people pushing the systemic racism narrative routinely go out of their way to interpret it in ways that make modern white people the villains. The standard response to "I never owned slaves" is "But you benefit from the perpetuation of a system of racial privilege and oppression†." Maybe it's not technically your fault, but it's totally your fault. Also, modern white people are actively perpetuating systemic racism with microaggressions, cultural appropriation, voting to imprison criminals, not voting for reparations, reading to their kids, demanding that high schools teach calculus, etc.
There is some hypothetical systemic racism narrative that scrupulously avoids blaming modern white people just minding their own business, but it's not the one we get in the real world.
†Not actually true; white people would actually be better off if black people started performing at par. Less crime, less welfare dependency, no longer needing to pick up the slack on taxes, etc. We'd still have to deal with opioid addicts, but many of the US's problems would diminish greatly.
Again though, whether you agree with this or not, it still doesn't really imply fault. As an analogous case, I could say that those from richer backgrounds benefit from the perpetuation of entrenched class inequalities, but that doesn't mean I'm suggesting any individual rich person is somehow responsible, as these are systemic problems.
It may be the one you get from a minority of activists etc., but in the mainstream I don't think the 'every white person is complicit' line is that prominent - I don't think you'd ever see it from the vast majority of Democrats.
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