site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28416 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Richard Hanania writes we need to shut up about HBD.

https://www.richardhanania.com/p/shut-up-about-race-and-iq

He defines HBD as believing:

  1. Populations have genetic differences in things like personality and intelligence. (group differences)

  2. Groups are often in zero-sum competition with one another, and this is a useful way to understand the world. (zero sum)

  3. People to a very strong degree naturally prefer their own ingroup over others. (descriptive tribalism)

  4. Individuals should favor their own ingroup, whether that is their race or their co-nationals. (normative tribalism)

And he goes on to criticize 2-4. I tend to agree with those criticisms, but I think it’s fairly common in these kinds of circles to believe a version of 2 focused on ideological competition, not between racial groups, where the social justice left and its preferred policies to rectify group differences can only be defeated by using the facts to explain group differences that won’t be rectified through policy.

While I accept Hanania’s point that the facts frequently don’t matter in which political ideas rise to the top, I still feel like Cofnas has a point (whom Hanania is responding to).

I’m quite philosemetic, for example. The best argument against antisemitism based on observing Jewish overperformance and concluding it’s due to some kind of plot is explaining that intelligence matters and the Ashkenazim underwent a particular history and we now observe them having very high average test scores.

Hanania himself wrote not so long ago about how Jewish personality traits might be needed to fully explain their political interest and influence, beyond just intelligence.

Using biology to explain overperformance but not underperformance seems like a strange compromise.

In much of today’s polite society, if one points out the achievement gap among groups, you’re a racist.

But if one doesn’t acknowledge the achievement gap between groups to justify affirmative action, you’re a racist.

And that’s without even mentioning biology! Watching lefties like Kathryn Paige Harden and Freddie deBoer try to (admirably) describe these kinds of issues while trying to remain in the good graces of polite society is enlightening.

Now, if you could guarantee me a return to a more race-blind culture and legal system if we shut up about genetics then I would take that. But we are on a path towards learning the murky details of (and being able to influence) genetics of both groups and individuals. I don’t think the elephant in the room will stay quiet.

It’s a bit remarkable to read Hanania write:

Truth in and of itself is never a good reason to talk about something. There are many facts nobody wants to discuss. The idea of sleeping with very short men fills many women with revulsion. The severely handicapped are a drain on society’s resources. And so on.

I think he means, “talk about something publicly” as opposed to at all, but actually I’ll easily bite those bullets and say we ought to understand the disadvantages short men face due to female preferences and that we ought to know just how much we expend society’s resources on the severely handicapped.

Social desirability bias is incredibly powerful and one should choose one’s battles. Polite society in the West went from being quite racist, in ways that didn’t always align with the facts, to correcting hard (thanks, Hitler) to race is only skin deep, which also doesn’t align. And then we got the influence of Kendiism.

Even ignoring immigration (where he doesn’t cover the Garret Jones stance), a lot of US politics comes down to this issue, and HBD was mostly in a quietist tradition the last few decades with little influence for being outside the Overton Window.

I know Trace doesn’t like HBD much, but wow is that like the whole story of his FAA traffic controller storyline. If you listen to the Blocked and Reported episode, he and Jesse aren’t shy about pointing out it was an insane policy to completely jettison meritocracy, but they dance around the general point that if you set a fairly high intellectual bar for a job, it’s going to look like the racists are right. If you allow self-selection, you also very well might make it look like the sexists are right.

The elephant in the room is only growing larger for anyone following the facts. Conceding the present Overton Window is unassailable is I think conceding defeat to the social justice left.

I think he is correct. I find HBD plausible in principle, but it's terrible political tool in practice. For one, its radioactive and attracts a high proportion of radioactive supporters. Second, many better tools already exist (standardized tests, colorblind policy, merit based immigration vetting). HBD is a worse substitute than existing policy frameworks. It purports to partially explain a wide variety of complex human behavior of ill defined groups. Interesting in principle; a bad policy tool for a nation that focuses so much on the individual (culturally and legally).

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.

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…

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.

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