site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Far Right HBD Civil War

Bronze Age Pervert recently xeeted on what he believes in the current infeasibility of HBD politically:

While for the sake of truth I think facts about racial disparities should be discussed, it’s not good at all politically. In fact it’s impossible in the present circumstances. Only a myth of race blindness is workable. You won’t convince some populations that they are inferior by birth and deserve their station in life. You won’t even convince “decent people” from high achieving populations of this. On the other hand discrimination to offset perceived past discrimination or natural inequalities is also felt to be wrong (although I think it would be relatively easy to convince modern populations to accept affirmative action to offset natural inequalities, which is another reason pushing this with a political intention is a big mistake). The only solution in short run is race blindness, stopping and reversing all racialization of politics and society. This isn’t my own preference by the way but a statement on fact. The “HBD position” is an impossibility politically and culturally today. Public hypocrisy is the only way out that will be accepted unless you are ready to go the Nietzsche and Gobineau route (and you are not).

This was controversial with numerous pundits amongst the different spheres of the Right: with Woods, Winegard, and Fuentes having opposing views.

I think the question of politically feasibility of HBD is a point of discussion, in addition to—perhaps more interestingly—the timing of the xeet by Bronze Age Pervert—wat means? Is HBD the path forward? In the chaos of the Isreal-Hamas war and the current anti-woke backlash, is the vitalist Right looking to make themselves more palatable?

Blacks are generally regarded to be better athletes than other races. They are also regarded as better dancers and perhaps better musicians overall. If the races are equal on all other fronts, does this not necessarily imply the racial inferiority of other races relative to blacks? Is there an offsetting "advantage" for each of the races that I am missing? The only other one I can think of in the public consciousness would be a belief in Asian superiority with regards to math.

How do strict racial equality believers square this circle?

Most white progressive racial activists don't consciously think that black people are hereditarily biologically superior to whites at athletics or dancing. If you ask them they'll usually say it's culture or some form of geographical determinism that isn't explicitly genetic.

In the United States, the black overrepresentation in professional sports is largely downstream of the pipeline really starting to sort kids by ability early on in puberty(which black kids hit earlier).

I very much doubt it is the largest reason for racial disparities in professional sports, given we have the international Olympics where we can plainly see which (usually homogenous) countries are represented in which sports. The Caribbean overrepresentation in sprinting is due to starting sports training earlier?

Not to mention the assortment that takes places in US sports, e.g. QB vs RB demographics. I know differences in puberty onset is technically HBD (well 'HBD lite' that may plausibly be impacted by environmental factors such as diet/BMI), but I buy that other socio-economic factors definitely impact professional sports participation. Which sport played, which roles, which positions and so on. But to pretend that the number one factor isn't adult biomechanical differences I struggle with- a 6'9'' 300lb man is more likely to be a basketball player than a 6'2'' man regardless of whether they hit puberty 3 years later.

Something like "it's one of the few avenues for success they have so they funnel themselves into them".

From Adam Rutherford:

Just as ACTN3 is not a speed gene, ACE is not an endurance gene. These simplistic reductions of biochemistry betray not just the complexities of their roles in the body but how much or little we know about those functions. “Necessary but not sufficient” is a phrase that geneticists like to use a lot. There is no reason to suppose that the variants of both ACE and ACTN3 that form part of the foundations of elite athletic ability are unique to Africa or recent African descent. Are fast-twitch muscle cells more common in sprinters? Yes. Are they more common in West African people? Possibly. Are they more common in African Americans? Maybe a bit. Are they unique to African people? No. Does the RR allele of ACTN3 or the II allele of ACE make you run faster? No: In elite athletes, they appear to be necessary but not sufficient for athletic success. The difference in regionally mediated success is culture. The utter dominance of Finnish long-distance runners in the first half of the twentieth century ended because the culture of running dissolved. The current dominance of Kenyans and Ethiopians in long-distance running, and descendants of the enslaved in the Americas in sprinting, is because they have cultures and icons of total supremacy.

And Rutherford is writing a normiesplainer where, uncharitably, his goal is to inoculate them against his enemy without facing an unambiguous debunking that torches his own credibility.

Most people aren't that constrained and don't think about it beyond the latter half.

What about American football/basketball where if anything I expect whites have better access to equipment/coaching/practice facilities due to the wealth differential?

So, the presence of the R allele (either one or two copies) is definitely higher in African Americans compared to White Americans, 96 percent compared to 80 percent. The numbers are almost the same for Jamaican people. That doesn’t come anywhere near the observed discrepancy between African American or Jamaican Olympic sprinters and White competitors. If it were just down to that one gene, you might expect to see maybe six elite sprinters being Black for every five White runners.

Take another sport where explosive energy and speed are an asset: basketball. In the National Basketball Association, the ratio of Black to White players has been consistently around three to one since the 1990s, again Black people being significantly overrepresented if the R allele is your sole criterion.

This is an ultra-simplistic argument, as obviously many other factors that are genetically influenced are important in basketball, notably height. In other sports, desirable body form is more variable. In the National Football League, the proportion of Black players is around 70 percent, but like rugby, that is a game where there are highly specialized positions with different skills and physical attributes. Offensive linemen tend to be heavy and strong, running backs tend to have the physique of sprinters, and most are Black. Linemen though are a fairly even split of Black and White Americans. But in the center position within the linemen, Whites outnumber Blacks four to one. Why? We don’t know, but it does not appear to have anything to do with genetics. In Major League Baseball—a sport that requires sprinting and powerful throwing and hitting—African Americans make up less than 10 percent of players.

None of the numbers makes a great deal of sense if biological race is your guiding principle, and patterns in relation to ethnicity are terribly inconsistent both between sports and within them. And while there is uneven distribution of the R allele in different populations, this does not match the makeup of elite athletes in different sports.


If you mean Rutherford and not the average normie that's all he says on those sports. That's his rebuttal.

Take another sport where explosive energy and speed are an asset: basketball. In the National Basketball Association, the ratio of Black to White players has been consistently around three to one since the 1990s, again Black people being significantly overrepresented if the R allele is your sole criterion.

But there are vanishingly few White American NBA players. You can't even get out of the top-5 before you get to guys who are marginal starters on a playoff team. Instead, what we're seeing is that there are disproportionately huge numbers of hyper-talented Slavs; the white NBA stars are Serbs, Slovenes, Polacks. There's a tiny sub-population within Whites that produces a bunch of great NBA players, the entire US white population would get smoked against the South Slavs, and forget the rest of Europe going against them.

But then, all NBA players are extreme outliers, even more extreme than in any other sport as they are all freakishly tall and there are only 160 starters in the whole NBA, as compared to 700+ in the NFL and 420 in MLB (European football has a much more complex talent distribution so it's not as easy to spit out a number, but there are loads of equivalent spots).

I also hold the semi-conspiratorial opinion that racism in College Football and NFL coaching rooms is holding back the white WR, and probably the Black TE, in the NFL. The Top 5 TEs in the NFL are all white, there is only one elite-level white WR. The skill-sets are virtually identical, with differences only of emphasis on blocking versus receiving. The only logical explanation is that coaches see a white kid and put him in the TE bucket right away.

As another user alluded to, and as Steve Sailer has written about, part of what appears to be holding back American white kids from excelling at basketball is that they are attending school alongside blacks, who mature more quickly. A white kid trying to get into basketball in middle or high school is likely to be substantially less physically developed than his black peers of the same age - shorter, less muscular, less physically confident - and this is likely to be highly discouraging and could lead to bullying. Whereas if the same kid had been surrounded by whites who were at the same stage of physical development, he would have stuck with the game long enough to develop fundamental skills and confidence while waiting for his body to catch up developmentally.

Cooper Flagg, currently the top high-school basketball recruit in the country, grew up in rural Maine, far from black kids, which very likely helped him to develop his talents without being put in a disadvantageous position during his formative athletic years. Had he grown up in Atlanta instead, he’d probably have switched sports at an early age, or abandoned athletics entirely.

South Slavs (and Balts), besides being on average quite tall and strong, similarly spend their formative athletic years surrounded by peers who can be expected to develop physically at basically the same rates, creating far less stratified talent/athletic distributions and encouraging them to stick with the sport longer, especially since there are few if any other major sports competing for the same pool of athletes. None of them is going to switch to gridiron football or baseball.

Regarding racial distributions in the NFL, I would dispute your claim that the skillsets of WRs and TEs are virtually identical. TEs are, as a rule, nearly always significantly slower than WRs, especially when it comes to short-burst speed. Genetic differences in the density of fast-twitch muscle would be sufficient to explain most of the racial differences between the positions. Combine that with whatever factors causing the significant overrepresentation of white players at the offensive line positions potentially also spilling over into affecting racial differences in the blocking part of the TE position, and I think you can justify pretty much the entirety of the racial differences without appealing to racism on the part of coaches/recruiters.

Whereas if the same kid had been surrounded by whites who were at the same stage of physical development, he would have stuck with the game long enough to develop fundamental skills and confidence while waiting for his body to catch up developmentally.

This seems unlikely given the rate at which white kids make it to NCAA teams. 70% of NBA players are African American (10% land in "other" which I suspect may include a lot of biracial American kids and Black Africans), while only 53% of NCAA players are African American. It's unlikely that white kids who just needed a little boost to make it to the NBA couldn't make it to some college team, and it is unlikely that they're still "maturing" in college. I guess there theoretically could be a bunch of white kids who just never pursued the sport at all, but that seems unlikely.

RE: TEs

Two thoughts about Travis Kelce

A) Travis is basically a wide receiver at this point. He blocks marginally more than your average wide receiver, but he's not in there to block Micah Parsons he's in there as a pass catcher. He's the number one pass catching option on a division champion team, and if theoretically he was only allowed to line up outside no one can doubt that he would be a better pass catching option that at least half the wide receivers in the league. What's notable about this is that it is common with really great Tight Ends to end up like that near the end of their career, but first they have to spend two to four years playing as primarily or 50/50 blocking. There is no reason to think that he gained speed or agility in that time. Effectively, Kelce (and Gronkowski and Ertz and Goedert) had to earn the right to catch the football by blocking defensive ends and linebackers for years.

B) Travis Kelce has a brother, Jason. In high school, Jason played running back, and Travis played quarterback. Scroll midway through this article for high school yearbook photos. They look similar in build. Once they reached college, their bodies diverged. Jason moved to the offensive line while Travis moved to tight end. The changes in their bodies were not genetic, they were the result of intentional decisions made by each brother to change their body to meet the needs of their assigned position. Jason Kelce decided he didn't need to be as fast, he needed to be bigger and stronger. If Travis Kelce had been assigned to play wide receiver, he would be building his body to be faster. Now presumably they were assigned different positions because of some slight inherent differences in their bodies, but the differences would be much smaller if they didn't train for different positions. This applies to all positions: Travis Kelce might never be as fast as AJ Brown and AJ Brown might never be as good a blocker, but if Kelce trained for speed and Brown trained to block they'd be closer.