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 -
Right-Libertarian anti-racism policy.
I’m sure you’ve all seen a lot of awful anti-racism/diversity/etc policies put in place by leftists; every thread here features at least some examples.
That said, I really don’t like racism. It is one of the most disgusting instances of collectivist thinking: judging an individual for the actions of a group of people that ostensibly contains him; in this case people get lumped together by skin color.
Suppose you are a billionaire and want to decrease the amount of racism in the world; what decent options do you have?
Suppose you are a CEO of a corporation, what policies do you put in place to ensure there is no discrimination based on skin color in hiring, promotion, etc?
I don't know if "billionaire" is enough to have a substantial impact. Let's say you have $999B of wealth at 5% returns. You can therefore direct $50B to zero-return initiatives (whether or not they qualify as "charities") without reducing your nominal wealth.
If you choose to target elementary/secondary education, that's a 6% increase over the current US funding. Similarly, it's a 10% increase in new housing, 2% in welfare, etc. If you have a mere $1B instead of $999B, then all of those numbers drop by three orders of magnitude.
I don't think you can solve racism without solving racial differences in outcomes. I don't think you can affect the outcomes on a national scale with merely billions of dollars of wealth.
There are ways to influence society with greater leverage than that. Instituting policies at your company, and spreading them via professional conferences and such (if they're successful), is one possibility. Another would be to influence politicians, who can certainly be rented for what one company or rich person can afford to spend. A third is to sponsor research.
I don't know how much progress can be made using zero-sum tools like selective hiring/promotions or unspecified political/scientific efforts.
I'm sympathetic to the "war on noticing" framing of the fight against racial discrimination (aside: I wish "anti-racism" wasn't the name of a specific movement, since it would otherwise fit perfectly there). For example, if you ban criminal record checks for employment while keeping the same criminality rates, you'll find that employers start discriminating based on race as a proxy measure.
I think that fighting against noticing racial differences (and acting on them), without having a change is the raw situation is doomed to failure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link