site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   28493 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 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.

11
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The viability of standardized tests, colorblind policy, and merit-based immigration vetting all depend on either their outcomes being race-neutral, or HBD being at least tacitly accepted. The strong belief that all racial groups are equal, combined with the demonstrated fact that they are not, means you have to give up or distort standardized tests and merit-based immigraiton vetting, and discard colorblind policies.

depend on either their outcomes being race-neutral

I may be wrong but I think this is explicitly untrue legally. AFAIK, if you can demonstrate a necessity of hiring in a way that causes a disparate impact, and your methods were not arbitrary (standardized tests are usually used as a defense), then it's perfectly legal.

Are there people making ignorant or bad faith cases about the arbitrariness of the standardized tests? Of course. But as far as I can tell, they lose in court.

AFAIK, if you can demonstrate a necessity of hiring in a way that causes a disparate impact, and your methods were not arbitrary (standardized tests are usually used as a defense), then it's perfectly legal.

Burden of proof of necessity is on you, and if the complaining party can suggest another method of hiring which would solve the same problem without the disparate impact, they win. Obviously they don't have to suggest something which works (how can you tell in the case that it was not used) or is even vaguely practical, just something which sounds plausible to the arbiter.

Are there people making ignorant or bad faith cases about the arbitrariness of the standardized tests? Of course. But as far as I can tell, they lose in court.

  1. The process is the punishment

  2. First you have to get to court. Which means having the administrative process run to conclusion, Which means getting through the EEOC. Which is rather friendly to disparate impact arguments of the right valence.

  3. See point about burden of proof.

Why can't it be like something like the NBA - where EVERYONE can see that certain groups are vastly over- or under-represented, and it's still understood to be almost completely based on merit?

It’s interesting that the NBA is your example, because it’s an example of overrepresentation that probably isn’t genetic- other major sports leagues aren’t that black, and basketball rewards height and hand-eye coordination- things blacks are unexceptional at- more than, say, sprinting speed or hitting puberty early- things blacks have an advantage at. It’s also really easy to tell how well players merit being where they are, and as far as we know those are simply the best players available.

It’s probably cultural reasons, not genetic ones- blacks really like basketball and everyone knows it, so they become good basketball players and not good baseball players. There might be some HBD around the edges, but most of it is that blacks like basketball a lot.

Traits like height, sprinting speed, hand-eye coordination, etc. are approximately normally distributed. That means even small differences in mean or variation matter a lot on the tails. If we are talking about the highest levels of play where only people 2+ standard deviations out can even compete, then even the smallest differences matter more, exponentially more. It's not something that can be consigned to the margin, it's almost the only thing that matters at this level.

Look at someone like Shaq, he has no skill, he's just a big guy who could bully the court with his size.

Sprinting is the obvious one. Also marathons.

Why doesn’t white privilege from all the fancy coaching help them here? Does white culture really not highly prize athletic performance?

It’s pretty obviously not “blacks just like basketball so much more than whites” that explains black overrepresentation here.

Tons and tons of American white boys, far outnumbering blacks, try as hard as they can to make it big in basketball and football.

And there’s a lot more white football players than in basketball. It’s reasonable to think that culture is the main reason for that particular discrepancy.

Blacks make up over half the NFL so they’re still overrepresented by a factor of four.

Culture doesn’t cut it there either as an explanation because both whites and blacks have very strong cultural motivations for those two sports.

Where culture does tend to explain things is when blacks aren’t overrepresented because it’s a sport where black kids are less likely to have a shot or interest. Famously, the Winter Olympics don’t have a lot of Africans on the podium. The NHL is very white and that almost certainly is explained by culture and not by skating genes. Similarly, baseball has a different cultural situation.

Blacks make up over half the NFL in part because they hit puberty earlier, and this is a sport where physical size in high school really matters to whether you get a career or not. They’re also better sprinters, which matters a lot in football.

That being said, blacks are also more willing to accept their sons being injured or missing educational opportunities for the sake of an athletics career, which is very relevant for football. So I think there is a strong cultural component, and that a key piece of evidence for that is the stars being much whiter than the league as a whole, although still probably blacker than genpop- the stars are presumably a pure-talent selection, and we would expect that to match the distribution of talent more closely than any cultural factors.

You’re forgetting other obvious factors such as leaping - something which involves fast-twitch muscles - and wingspan, which is an incredibly important physical trait in the NBA. Blacks have significantly different bodily proportions than whites; their arms are proportionally significantly longer, as are their legs. Hand size as well. The bodily proportions particular to blacks are especially well-suited to basketball.

Since when does leaping ability not matter in basketball? Which is definitely a think hbd types would point to as a black edge.

From 1984-2022 only one white person won the nba slam dunk contest. 2023/2024 a white person won named Matt McClung won but the competition is weird and filled with g-league players and only one NBA star participated. Honestly looks like white affirmative action.

Obviously other abilities matter in basketball too, but a big one is my launch point for my shot is higher than the defenders ability to block that shot which is heavily aided by jumping ability.

I just have a huge urge to use a cliche but “tell me you’ve never been dunked on without telling me you’ve never been dunked on”.

I wasn't actually even trying to use an example where genetics is the main difference. My point was simply that we should understand that disproportionate representation can come about through other reasons than 'racism'. I agree that culture is a big part of it. If kids in Asia didn't spend so much time studying for various exams and more time playing basketball, there'd probably be more basketball talent produced (though note that I'm saying nothing about proportionality).

Having said that, I do think genetics is a part of it though. Other countries are also crazy about basketball - like, say, the Philippines, and you don't see a mass influx of Philippine basketball talent into the NBA every year. I think fast twitch muscles also help in playing defense, for example. Height also helps one be good at basketball, and I'm not sure how many 6'7 Asian dudes there are.

What happened here? How was puntifex soliciting an opinion from you?

When you do decide to chime in, do so politely, please.

One week ban.

Because the left controls the narrative. Underrepresentation in the NBA? Git gud whitey. Underrepresentation at medical schools? That's racist.

I don't disagree! You should read my question as a wistful "why can't we be treat things that non-black Americans do disproportionately well at like we treat things black Americans disproportionately excel at"?

Or, why can't we strive to change our institutions to be less racist (albeit in the opposite direction from what everyone thinks)?

The viability of standardized tests, colorblind policy, and merit-based immigration vetting all depend on either their outcomes being race-neutral, or HBD being at least tacitly accepted. The strong belief that all racial groups are equal, combined with the demonstrated fact that they are not, means you have to give up or distort standardized tests and merit-based immigraiton vetting, and discard colorblind policies.

This is what's frustrating about talking to "roll the clock back twenty years" temperamental liberals. Let's say you manage to return to a norm of colorblindness and implement effective tests for merit in immigration, education, and criminal justice, all while keeping HBD a studiously quiet truth only known to geneticists and a few internet edgelords.

What is your answer when the black professional class all but evaporates? Or when the AP math and science classes at your local inner city school are entirely asian and white? Or when the black arrest rate increases after a 'fair' new colorblind policing reform?

The answer is that your fancy meritocratic tools get torn down and replaced with racial quotas again.

What is your answer when the black professional class all but evaporates? Or when the AP math and science classes at your local inner city school are entirely asian and white? Or when the black arrest rate increases after a 'fair' new colorblind policing reform?

On the contrary, what is the HBDer’s answer? “Just suck it up, that’s life fam, sucks to be you I guess”? The “promote HBD as an explanation” argument has no answer to what happens when the erstwhile black and Latino professional (or otherwise) class says “I don’t care about your bullshit race science, go fuck yourself”. Are you gonna fight some kind of race war against 50+ million people spread out across the entire United States? Since when is that desirable?

The “promote HBD as an answer” position seems to imagine that all the groups that are publicly identified as genetic losers will just roll over and take it, “oh yes, Sir, I suppose whites and Asians really should be in charge then while me and my children are destined to be poor forever”. That seems pretty unlikely.

On the contrary, what is the HBDer’s answer?

The same as the answer of Jews or Asians when whites complain about them doing too well.

Yeah, and while that answer works it’s a good one. But will it continue to work?

Uh, the Latino professional class are mostly there on merit or something close to it, it won’t just evaporate. Yes, there will be far fewer black med school admits, but nothing about HBD suggests that actually existing black doctors should lose their jobs.

On the contrary, what is the HBDer’s answer? “Just suck it up, that’s life fam, sucks to be you I guess”?

yes_chad.jpg

HBDers can even appropriate a pre-existing set of insults and condescending phrases currently used against white and Asian males who object to affirmative action: “skill issue,” “sucks to suck,” “you’re just a sore loser,” “if you were truly merited you’d succeed regardless.”

Black lives mattering more and catering to and coddling the egos of black (and latino) egos may be the current state of affairs, but it’s not some fundamental law of the universe, especially one where colorblindness is occurring.

Note that the inverse of affirmative action is not colorblindness, but rather massive racial preferences in favor of Asians and whites relative to blacks and latinos. The left has sufficiently controlled the narrative such that even wrong thinkers treat the Overton window as ranging from colorblindness to infinite affirmative action in favor of blacks and latinos.

The policy answer is race-blind policies that treat individuals as individuals and don’t create double standards for certain categories.

Race realism/hereditarianism/HBD is the explanation for why certain disparities will persist in a fair playing field.

This is basically the same situation as Damore faced. It shouldn’t be tenable for it to be a major scandal and firing offense to state well-evidenced facts about reality. The Overton Window has to shift.

The Overton Window has to shift.

Except it won't, because those who would seek to do so lack the power to do it.

Hard evidence and the freedom to tweet are already changing the online discussion of it.

It’s the same issue with gender preferences.

I don’t think the current mainstream position can hold indefinitely.

I don’t think the current mainstream position can hold indefinitely.

Why not? Or at least, if not indefinitely, at least for a few more centuries? So long as one side holds all the power, they can just use that power to suppress all the "heretics" who disagree — see the Medieval Church. One good, hard Albigensian Crusade against HBD, and…

Cancel culture doesn’t have the power of the medieval church, thankfully.

But mostly because genetic science is casting light on the finer and finer details of our traits and so it won’t be easy to bury one’s head in the sand.

Cancel culture doesn’t have the power of the medieval church, thankfully.

Not yet, perhaps, but they also have far better technology for hunting out wrongthink than any inquisitor of yore.

More comments

Why should the 300 million yield to the 50 million, rather than vice-versa?

Yield isn’t binary. The present is clearly undesirable, although in my opinion so is ‘let them rot’. For better or worse, nobody’s going back to the Old World. Some peace, ideally a lasting and prosperous one, is desirable. The question isn’t about yielding but about what must be done to ensure a high quality and functional society.

Discipline, order, a decline in promiscuity and a restoration of marriage, an extreme taboo on children out of wedlock, more limited divorce, strong male role models including male teachers for boys. Even limited affirmative action, to create black elites in professions like medicine and law who will return to black communities professionally aren’t unjustifiable. All this requires money, and whether it’s for police or other programs it won’t be done without (what is ultimately) the tax contributions of other groups.

And, without being facetious, one cannot forget that they did yield, and it ultimately led us here.

Some peace, ideally a lasting and prosperous one, is desirable.

I see no reason to believe peace is possible. Jefferson had it half-right:

Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made ... will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.

He didn't predict defection of the liberal elite, of course. It took Orwell for that, with the alliance of the high and low against the middle.

The question isn’t about yielding but about what must be done to ensure a high quality and functional society.

The question is exactly about yielding. Do the elites keep forcing whites (and Asians of all sorts, and probably eventually non-black Hispanics) to self-flagellate as 'racists' and continue bending and distorting everything in favor of URM/POC/etc while being unable to hide the extent of the distortion? Or do we quit doing that and let the chips fall where they may?

It’s not the underclass you have to convince. It’s the lawyers and the police force, as well as a democratic majority of the country.

You can’t convince someone that they didn’t deserve position X, any more than you can convince a looter that they can’t afford nice things. One of the reasons for having a police force is so that you don’t have to.

You can also sweeten the pot; I’m not actually a pure meritocrat, a certain amount of redistribution doesn’t bother me. But it’s much better to do it with your eyes open than, ‘This is all temporary, in 25 years none of it will be necessary. Oh, wait, it’s still necessary, our society must be fundamentally irredeemable.’

What is your answer when the black professional class all but evaporates? Or when the AP math and science classes at your local inner city school are entirely asian and white? Or when the black arrest rate increases after a 'fair' new colorblind policing reform?

Well, given some of the people of this type I talk to, the answer is that this will take time. If we "roll the clock back twenty years," return to a norm of colorblindness, etc., we buy ourselves a decade or two, which gives us the time to quietly develop the technological solutions — either genetic engineering to fix the HBD issues (see @mitigatedchaos here), or else we develop the AI singleton god-king that either immanentizes the eschaton or turns us into paperclips.

Should note that for the record, I answer all requests from the left to silence the HBDers with "you first; show that you're serious about not supporting 'racial consciousness' and 'corrective' racial discrimination," so realistically I don't expect to take any actions to silence HBD discussion during the next 10 years.

Only people like tracingwoodgrains have moral standing to even make the request, and they're not powerful enough to make it binding at this time.

Should note that for the record, I answer all requests from the left to silence the HBDers with "you first; show that you're serious about not supporting 'racial consciousness' and 'corrective' racial discrimination,"

At which point, those lefties just ignore you and keep on "supporting 'racial consciousness' and 'corrective' racial discrimination" (and there's nothing you can do to stop them)

so realistically I don't expect to take any actions to silence HBD discussion during the next 10 years.

They don't need you to "take any actions to silence HBD discussion", they'll do that just fine themselves.

Well, you’d have to go back to cultural dysfunction arguments. Progressives will still call them racist but you can still peel off some percent of minorities.

And then the progressives can pull out the adoption studies and demolish your cultural dysfunction arguments, leaving you with racism again.

Wait, do progressives really pull out the adoption studies? That's a risky move.

No, I'm saying that in this counterfactual world where HBD was completely off the table, they could defeat the culture argument with that.

They won’t though.

Besides if they started pulling out adoption studies then progressives themselves are saying they believe in race realism and the GOP is believing in race realism but using a polite euphemism for it.

In a world where HBD was completely off the table, adoption studies simply measure the effect of culture. If achievement follows the child's race instead of the family's race, culture is ruled out, leaving you with racism.

In the real world, it's possible the populations of children of different races are in fact, not statistically identical. But to get that result you have to allow for HBD, not rule it out because it's yucky the way polite anti-HBD conservatives would.

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