site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35173 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

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.

33
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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?

Suppose you are a billionaire and want to decrease the amount of racism in the world; what decent options do you have?

I dedicate my wealth to the advancement of Whites, who have shown themselves now and historically to be the group with the smallest outgroup bias; I myself probably can't solve racism, but I know that if White people run the world eventually it'll happen, even if they destroy themselves in the process. Help Whites network, support White entrepreneurs, donate and campaign for pro-White Republicans, etc.

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?

In the short term, I embrace a racist outlook to correct for past mistakes -- I prioritize the hiring and advancement of Whites, who on average demonstrate significantly less racial bias than non-Whites, and I trust that in a few decades these White saviors will have significantly decreased the racial bias on display.

Okay, this is a very well done parody, but you are failing to make your point clearly and speak plainly. Do not test Poe's Law because you think it's clever.

My point is very clear when you realize I am being sincere, this is not parody. I am a genuine White supremacist, but I also unironically believe the evidence points strongly toward Whites on the whole being the least racist. While reducing racism isn't a goal of mine, nevertheless I honestly assert Whites in charge will produce a less racist society.

Wait, you prioritize the hiring and advancement of whites because whites have decreased racial bias? Is this itself not racial bias in its clearest form?

I live in Japan, and am more or less white, and regularly experience what is usually called racism but is more probably often a mix of cultural biases and in-group preference based on language and shared values (but undeniably too has a factor based on shaky, pseudoscientific views of race). I'm also from the deep South of the US. So it's always interesting to me to read/hear people expressing what are baldly racist views and rationalizing them.

Do...do you have a source for that, or are you just trolling?

A source for what, racial outgroup sentiments? Whites being less racist than non-Whites? PEW and your eyes are good sources for those; alone among nations have white-led ones embraced immigration policies that will lead to them becoming minorities in their own homelands, Whites show less race-consciousness than other races, and the infamous polling indicating Whites, both liberal and conservative, have less in-group preference than non-Whites

All evidence points toward the White race being a sort of enlightened species, and one best suited to elevating the rest. If we are to solve racism, it can only be through White supremacy.

Wait, you prioritize the hiring and advancement of whites because whites have decreased racial bias? Is this itself not racial bias in its clearest form?

I contribute a small amount of racism to have a disproportionately anti-racist impact down the line. This is the same thinking as affirmative action, a widely recognized and popular form of correcting racial imbalances. I, however, support affirmative action for Whites, because when Whites are in power they are demonstrably less racist than everyone else, even to their own detriment.

Edit: I meant this for @netstack whoops

Edit2: I somehow combined two replies into one. Uh, the second part is for @george_e_hale. weird.

They're poking fun at the study showing that white liberals have negative in-group bias which on average means whites compared to other races have the lowest in-group bias (even non-liberal whites have lower in-group bias compared to other races on average). So preferentially hiring from whites compared to other races means the business will have less in-group racial bias than some other demographic mix, making it better from a lessening racism, in-group bias perspective.

Irony is often lost on me, thx.

Do...do you have a source for that, or are you just trolling?

LARPing the White Man’s Burden strikes me as a profoundly unsound strategy to reduce racism in any sense.

I find it pretty hard to believe that you haven't seen this.

I have, and I don't think "feeling thermometers" are good enough evidence for a very, very strong claim.

This is obviously going to be very socially determined. The minorities are both 'newer' to american/progressive culture and are guided to progressive versions of "ingroup bias" (because they're oppressed so they need it!). A thousand years ago - well, none of the ways we phrase these things would make any sense in "surveys" a thousand years ago, but you'd probably be hard-pressed to find anyone supporting racial equal rights.

Progressive minorities (on social media at least) are some of the most viciously racist (against whites) people you’ll find today. I doubt more time to soak in progressivism will solve that.

Progressive minorities (on social media at least) are some of the most viciously racist (against whites) people you’ll find today. I doubt more time to soak in progressivism will solve that.

yes, that you'll find today, and specifically that you will find today in america. Five hundred years ago, they were in africa killing each other, and we were in europe killing each other. A rural african of any stripe is much more "racist" than an american black or american white.

The survey questions were literally using this thermometer widget to answer these among other questions in a random order:

  • How would you rate blacks?
  • How would you rate whites?
  • How would you rate Hispanics?
  • How would you rate Asians?

Then cross referenced against other answers about the survey takers demographics. "On a scale of warm-or-favorable to cold-or-unfavorable how do you feel about $race" is the kind of thing you could ask someone from 1022 as easily as 2022.

I'm not sure an african in 1022 familiar with the 'number rating' instrument, or give coherent answers to it. And their answers would be totally incomparable to ours - what if 5 is "they seem fine, we only had a minor blood feud with them ten years ago"?

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