Reversion from hegemony to multi-polar competitor was historically inevitable for the United States. Just as inevitable is the slow pace with which American's identity politics catches up to America's reduced role. The amount of empathy America has as individuals may no longer be able to match its capacity for political and policy empathy - in domestic and foreign spheres.
So, while I agree with the Author's contention that this mismatch in identity is being exploited, I would also argue the acrimony and social discord is as normal as it is unpleasant.
I'm disappointed to see this on the front page. I followed John Robb years ago when he had an unusual perspective about the rise of non-state actors and asymmetric disruption in global politics. He had subject matter expertise and an unmotivated point of view. He has since relegated himself to partisan punditry in support of Donald Trump. It's baffling and disheartening.
> "I am righteously indignant; you are annoyed; he is making a fuss over nothing."
> Notice how the factual content remains unchanged.
I know that I am nitpicking and I am not a logician at all, but the factual content in these usages seems to me to be different when they are interpreted not just as formal propositions, but sentences made in a human context. To be "righteously indignant" has connotations that one is indignant about an important matter, whereas "making a fuss over nothing" implies that the matter is not very important. There is a significant difference in how important the matter is between these usages.
For e.g., one can differ on the matter of drawing cartoons of a religious figure. You can either be "righteously indignant" or "make a fuss over nothing" about it. These two have different factual content because they convey different claims about the severity of the matter.
The story with "fake news" is pretty straightforward, if you want to take a second to understand it.
It began with an actual, technical phenomenon: a brand of webspam designed to solicit clicks by running lurid, Weekly World News grade political stories on auto-generated news sites filled with (if you checked their backcatalog) crazy stories like the Pope consorting with demons. There were dozens of these sites, built with scripts, and they were literally what the label we stuck on their tin said: "fake news".
Then, deploying the rhetorical jujitsu Frank Luntz was so successful at popularizing on the right, Trump co-opted the term. "Fake news" wasn't webspam sites filled with literal manufactured news having no connection to reality or for that matter physics, but instead any news a partisan disagreed with.
So effective were Trump supporters that the term "fake news" has lost all meaning, and sucks all the oxygen out of conversations in which it's used.
This article captures none of that story, because it's a partisan political piece written by a (literal) partisan Trump supporter unaware of the irony of the deceptive point they're trying to make.
>Then, deploying the rhetorical jujitsu Frank Luntz was so successful at popularizing on the right, Trump co-opted the term. "Fake news" wasn't webspam sites filled with literal manufactured news having no connection to reality or for that matter physics, but instead any news a partisan disagreed with.
No, the foodfight started when two things happened. Liberal pundits began blowing fake news' impact out of proportion and suggesting that it swung the election. They also began casting it as a characteristically conservative problem and put legitimate right-wing news outlets like Breitbart on lists of fake news sites. We right-wingers then began using the term tongue-in-cheek and people got all worked up thinking it was some kind of propaganda technique. It's just lighthearted needling/trolling.
Remember that right before "election hacking" became the only election topic discussed among Clinton supporters, it was "fake news".
It is, in fact, empirically a conservative problem: fakenews sites are something like 9-1 conservative.
If you care to check (you can just take my word for it), I've been pushing back on the idea that Breitbart is fakenews, from the jump.
I find Breitbart abhorrent, though. My conservative friends are sheepish about it. Do you get much value out of it? Could you explain it to me? I'm not a conservative, but I respect a lot of conservative ideology (Hayekian bottom-up economical thought, strong emphasis on the private sector, maintenance of the Pax Americana, &c). Am I crazy to think that Breitbart is a parody of serious conservative thinking?
I'll focus on the second paragraph in this response.
I find it depressing how partisan and tabloidy Breitbart is, and I'm therefore unsurprised that people like Ben Shapiro have denounced it.
However, Breitbart presents an alternative to the mainstream media, which has developed such a pervasive bias that it no longer understands what fair reporting is.
The conservative community realized the depth of this problem in cases like the Kermit Gosnell trial, where the entire media ignores the topic and Fox, basically the only A-list conservative media outlet at this point, miss it too because it's simply under the radar. The mainstream media outlets rely so much on the AP and one another that you need a source that is fundamentally independent in determining what they find notable. So if I want news on immigration, abortion, or guns that isn't pandering garbage, Breitbart offers a better alternative.
Here's an example that stuck with me. A couple months ago, the NYT had an article called "The Week In Hate" prominently listed on the front page of its website. It was a short list of hate incidents, including a high schooler sending a Snapchat with a racial epithet in it, and someone writing "black bitch" in the snow on a black woman's car. The front page of the NYT. The same people who didn't write a word on a man who murdered an estimated hundreds of infants by snipping their spinal cords because it was "local news". The world has gone insane, and although Breitbart is insane too, it might be the kind of insanity we need.
In response to your last sentence: "serious" or "sensible" conservative thinking usually just means neutered conservative thinking. The current conservative revival is partially a backlash to the left's perceived entitlement to define acceptable right-wing thought.
What's the difference between neutered conservative thinking and full-throated conservative thinking? Is it mostly about being pro-life?
For whatever it's worth: I'm Catholic, from an Irish and Eastern-European Catholic family in Chicago, and I am quite familiar with the activist pro-life movement. I respect it, though I do not admire or agree with it.
If you were going to characterize your view of conservativism in just a few bullets, how would you? (I could do that for my view of Democratic liberalism).
I come from an immigrant Catholic background as well. Personally, I'm mildly pro-choice (I see first-trimester abortions as necessary but distasteful).
I think that the populist conservatism I see and largely subscribe to has the following features:
* a concern with upholding abortion as a woman's right and morally unambiguous (this is a peripheral one but relevant to our discussion)
* a hatred of the New Left's hair trigger accusations of bigotry and hate speech, and the censorship that political correctness affords them
* a frustration with the denigration of Western society that is becoming the norm in our education system
* a deep-seated respect for the individual, his agency, and the importance that he take responsibility for his actions
* a recognition that much of the rest of the world doesn't like us and wants to eat our lunch not because we're bad people (i.e. not because we deserve it), but because that's how tribalism works
* a respect for cultural diversity in the sense that sovereign nations are entitled to do things differently (e.g. guns in America)
* a recognition that no matter how much the New Left bashes colorblindness, that's the only way a multiethnic society is ever going to function
* an appreciation of both masculinity and femininity, and a belief that modern feminism and gender theory is based heavily in man-hating and biological denialism
* a frustration with the increasing integration of iffy and controversial progressive goals into so many aspects of corporate and academic life, and a frustration with the hegemony that threatens our livelihoods and reputations if we question these goals
* a heavy suspicion that -- although most of us wish this weren't the case -- culture and genetics play a large role in the relative success of races
* a disappointment in the mainstream media for so thoroughly strawmanning and denigrating right-wing thinking that people are sheltered from basic facts of reality (e.g. the relative tolerance of the US, the senses in which transgenderism may be a mental illness or a symptom thereof, to give two randomly selected examples)
* a distaste for the fetishization of protest culture and the idea that any right-wing or traditionalist policymaking needs to be met with autistically shrieking hipsters and burning cars
* a preference for facts and logic over feelings when justifying beliefs
* a sense that "multiculturalism" often just means culturelessness, and that there is a real benefit to making sure people who immigrate are willing and able to integrate and arriving in small enough numbers to avoid major cultural disruption
* a concern with the absolutist and marauding culture of the Muslim world, its resistance to Westernization in Arab immigrants, and the New Left's refusal to acknowledge this problem
* and more
Hopefully that wasn't too long. I'm interested to see your list.
> * a preference for facts and logic over feelings when justifying beliefs
As someone who falls in the middle on many issues, I've been saddened to see so many republicans deny the existence of global warming. On many issues that are hot topics in this country reasonable people can disagree, but on global warming the facts are very clear. If populist conservatism believes so strongly in the facts, why is there such a strong push to deny them in this very important case?
a hatred of the New Left's hair trigger accusations of bigotry and hate speech, and the censorship that political correctness affords them
a recognition that no matter how much the New Left bashes colorblindness, that's the only way a multiethnic society is ever going to function
a heavy suspicion that -- although most of us wish this weren't the case -- culture and genetics play a large role in the relative success of races
I disagree with pretty much all your points, of course, but here I have a visceral reaction. You see that you're indirectly making a case for racial superiority with that last point, right?
The science isn't out, but much evidence suggests significant genetic correlation between race and IQ. In that sense, I'm not "making a case for racial superiority", I'm simply pointing out that some of the racial injustice the left perceives may be due to biology, and that they denigrate and deny this science.
It would be great if every race had the same distribution for height, athleticism, IQ, etc. However, that doesn't seem to be the case -- we're genetically different in more ways than just our skin color and facial features. I simply don't understand people who make these emotional appeals or dark accusations against someone making a dispassionate scientific argument.
I think the difficulty is how this type of data can so easily be misused to justify (very wrongly) treating individuals in incredibly unjust ways. Each individual is just that. Who knows where one falls among the distribution of whatever category they're currently under consideration? Each person needs to be treated fairly as an individual.
There's also the naturalistic fallacy. What actions should be taken based on this data? Here I'd like to provide an example as I think they're useful, but I'm terrible at coming up with good generic examples and am hesitant to use an actual one for fear of distracting from the general idea. It's all too easy to excuse adverse discriminatory practices when you can point to some statistics that appear to justify them.
I believe you when you say you're not making a case for racial superiority. However, you and I both know that there are plenty of people who would use that data exactly for that purpose, or excuse other negative discriminatory behaviors. It lends so much more credence to one's agenda when you have science to back it up.
Plus, we have to take into account natural human biases towards tribalism. I'm a fan of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature, and do, in general and on average, believe we're becoming more civilized. I believe part of this ongoing civilization project is to work against this tribalism bias (while necessitates taking into account) where it causes us to treat each other badly, just as we use science to work against our biases to improve our understanding. This work against tribalism bias is clearly (and unapologetically) normative on my part.
It's a very tough question. And one that's difficult to discuss, because to do so effectively requires an overabundance of good faith and good will on behalf of the participants. I have a lot of respect for many members on HN, though I'm still not sure HN is the place to have the discussion. Frankly I'm surprised I took the opportunity of your comment to post.
I'm sure there are those who strongly believe that there are no correlations like you describe. I think there are many who understand it but aren't willing to discuss it because the next step of the discussion is one that's so difficult to have in good faith.
As a nationalist and constitutionalist American, I strongly agree about treating individuals as such. However, the problem is that the left has demonized that approach and suggested that if a demographic underperforms, it's inherently because of oppression rather than culture or biology. These days, tribalism is the left's. If we ran an individualistic society, we wouldn't have to ask these hairy and unpleasant questions, but as long as the left phrases white, Jewish, and Asian success solely in terms of oppression, we'll be mistreating individuals of those ethnicities.
I agree that data on this is uncomfortable and can be misused, but (despite academia's wishes) science is not a tool for supporting progressive cosmopolitan perspectives. If people think that current policies are sensible, they shouldn't be afraid of what scientists might uncover about the nature of human genetics. Personally, I think I could logically defend egalitarianism and individualism in the face of significant racial IQ disparities. People who feel wedded to affirmative action and victimhood culture, however, are going to be hostile toward legitimate science in this area because it delegitimizes these institutions.
Just a point: I try to be very careful to not generalize about groups of people with with charged language like "the left has demonized that approach", "despite academia's wishes", "supporting progressive cosmopolitan perspectives", and "victimhood culture". That actively separates people into for/against camps that I find very detrimental to effective discussion. If there's something in my post that smells that I'm doing so, I'd appreciate you pointing it out to me, because I actively work against it, not because I'm trying to hide anything, but because I don't think it accurately describes my beliefs.
You mention "the left has … suggested that if a demographic underperforms, it's inherently because of oppression rather than culture or biology." I agree, there are issues there. I've also seen a lot of arguments from just the other side as well: there can't be any oppression because any difference can be accounted for due to culture or biology. I think it's both, and when either side isn't willing to talk about both sides objectively, I'm very hesitant to get both of my arms cut off when I reach out.
One phrase that I used that I think may be construed as such would be "tribalism bias", which I believe I'm using in a neutral manner. To be honest, at this point I'm hesitant to even bring up things I've read because I'm afraid you'll consider it part of some suspicious academic agenda.
I don't consider myself on the side of the left or the right, though I have a visceral, negative response when I see people generalizing about either, even if there's some justification for it, as it poisons any discussion that might be had to bridge the two.
I'm sorry if this comes off as defensive. It definitely is. As I expressed in my initial comment, I think there are a lot of people who are gun-shy about talking about this. Perhaps you consider me too weak or sensitive in reacting this way. It's more of being incredibly reluctant to getting piled on from every side.
As I've said before, I think discussing issues like this is hard. Increasingly hard on the internet: I don't know you other than a couple of comments I've read, and we have no additional context for communication other than the words we type. Tough all over.
I'll give you my honest opinion when I see a statement like this. I believe that there is inequality among demographics in the US. I also think that part of that is due to factors outside of biology. I think we should work to correct this. I understand that affirmative action is one tool to do so. I see where it can help, and I can also see how it can be considered working against the ideal that it's attempting to correct.
When I've just started a conversation on a difficult topic like this, asking me to cede more than a little ground, I do so, listing a number of caveats of why I'm hesitant to do so, and the next two comments I see play right into what I was hoping to avoid, it makes me very hesitant to continue. You've brought up a very common issue with discrimination (affirmative action), without adding any additional context or understanding that there might be some benefit to what it's trying to accomplish, or that those who support it might have rational reasons to do so, even if you don't agree with them. I don't believe you're discussing this in bad faith, but the overabundance of good faith that I think is necessary to make these types of discussions work seems to be lacking.
Maybe you don't agree with the premises that I'm working from above, so maybe that's where the discussion needs to start. Jumping straight to critiquing one attempt at a solution might be getting ahead of ourselves. But given I've already opened up in my other comment, I'm hesitant to continue granting what I think is common ground when I don't see much offered.
He's referring to Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion doctor who ran an incredibly gruesome, dangerous, and unethical medical practice that apparently included "abortions" for viable infants; he basically built a practice that victimized poor residents of Philadelphia.
I agree that Gosnell got less coverage than it merited, although the motivation for that goes both ways: since a powerful majority of the country supports legal access to abortion, you could argue that Fox News avoided the story because it underscored the lack of availability of safe, ethical reproductive health services to the poor of this country, which is something the state-level Republican parties are campaigning against.
"Mainstream media" has not only developed a pervasive bias that has, somehow, incidentally developed. It is a direct and inevitable result of what they're taught in Journalism and Media schools - that there is no such thing as "truth", there is only opinion, and conforming to th narrative of one's political affiliation is he essence of doing their jobs. They have been taught to be Marxist propagandists as if that were the only possible thing that could constitute a "serious" media profession.
It is a direct and inevitable result of what they're taught in Journalism and Media schools - that there is no such thing as "truth", there is only opinion, and conforming to the narrative of one's political affiliation is he essence of doing their jobs.
What is your evidence of this? I went to school with a number of journalism students, some of whom I count as close friends, and this is nowhere close to what they would consider ethical journalistic behavior.
There's always going to be bias in journalism, and it's good to work against that to be as fair as possible (if that's your aim), and it's also important readers to be on the lookout for it as critical readers.
One that's impossible to avoid is bias on what to report. Publications are physically limited by what they can cover: they can't cover everything. Choices have to be made as to what to cover. Some stories are going to get covered, some won't, and regardless of the choices that are made, there's going to be bias from some side. It's impossible to avoid, and something they'll always be susceptible to by uncharitable accusers.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more conservative fake news, but remember that those lists showing a 9-1 balance are made by leftists whining about the election and trying to delegitimize its winner.
There are academic studies confirming the number of conservative vs. liberal fakenews sites. That doesn't make fakenews an intrinsic problem with conservativism! Clearly: both ends of the spectrum are willing to deploy almost any tactic available to them. It just means that in the last election, Trump's supporters leaned far more heavily on fakenews than Clinton's.
Since fakenews sites are principally stood up to make money for fraudsters and probably secondarily stood up to jam the election process by foreign governments (no serious supporter of Trump thinks a news site with stories about demon orgies is going to help the cause), the motives of the sites themselves are almost besides the point.
Well from a purely financial aspect - the peddlers of fake news mentioned that fake pro-right-leaning/trump stories performed much better (in terms of spread & revenue) than pro-left-leaning ones. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-do...
Milo's stratospheric rise in popularity hasn't helped.
But for coverage of say Gamergate, it was the only news organization I'd seen to actually investigate and show the other side, rather than just utterly misunderstanding it and labeling it as "gamers are misogynistic racist hate-peddling trolls" and "gamers are dead".
I find Bannon repugnant, and I disagree with a lot of what their journalists and commentators say, but they have a different perspective that's important to hear.
Edit: In case anyone hasn't actually seen what gamers were actually pissed at, it was the corruption in the gaming journalism industry. The Wikipedia article is horseshit, as was most of the mainstream press coverage. Start at http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=monster and see for yourself.
30 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 79.2 ms ] threadhttps://medium.com/@johnrobb/the-race-to-weaponize-empathy-5...
So, while I agree with the Author's contention that this mismatch in identity is being exploited, I would also argue the acrimony and social discord is as normal as it is unpleasant.
> Notice how the factual content remains unchanged.
I know that I am nitpicking and I am not a logician at all, but the factual content in these usages seems to me to be different when they are interpreted not just as formal propositions, but sentences made in a human context. To be "righteously indignant" has connotations that one is indignant about an important matter, whereas "making a fuss over nothing" implies that the matter is not very important. There is a significant difference in how important the matter is between these usages.
For e.g., one can differ on the matter of drawing cartoons of a religious figure. You can either be "righteously indignant" or "make a fuss over nothing" about it. These two have different factual content because they convey different claims about the severity of the matter.
It began with an actual, technical phenomenon: a brand of webspam designed to solicit clicks by running lurid, Weekly World News grade political stories on auto-generated news sites filled with (if you checked their backcatalog) crazy stories like the Pope consorting with demons. There were dozens of these sites, built with scripts, and they were literally what the label we stuck on their tin said: "fake news".
Then, deploying the rhetorical jujitsu Frank Luntz was so successful at popularizing on the right, Trump co-opted the term. "Fake news" wasn't webspam sites filled with literal manufactured news having no connection to reality or for that matter physics, but instead any news a partisan disagreed with.
So effective were Trump supporters that the term "fake news" has lost all meaning, and sucks all the oxygen out of conversations in which it's used.
This article captures none of that story, because it's a partisan political piece written by a (literal) partisan Trump supporter unaware of the irony of the deceptive point they're trying to make.
No, the foodfight started when two things happened. Liberal pundits began blowing fake news' impact out of proportion and suggesting that it swung the election. They also began casting it as a characteristically conservative problem and put legitimate right-wing news outlets like Breitbart on lists of fake news sites. We right-wingers then began using the term tongue-in-cheek and people got all worked up thinking it was some kind of propaganda technique. It's just lighthearted needling/trolling.
Remember that right before "election hacking" became the only election topic discussed among Clinton supporters, it was "fake news".
If you care to check (you can just take my word for it), I've been pushing back on the idea that Breitbart is fakenews, from the jump.
I find Breitbart abhorrent, though. My conservative friends are sheepish about it. Do you get much value out of it? Could you explain it to me? I'm not a conservative, but I respect a lot of conservative ideology (Hayekian bottom-up economical thought, strong emphasis on the private sector, maintenance of the Pax Americana, &c). Am I crazy to think that Breitbart is a parody of serious conservative thinking?
I find it depressing how partisan and tabloidy Breitbart is, and I'm therefore unsurprised that people like Ben Shapiro have denounced it.
However, Breitbart presents an alternative to the mainstream media, which has developed such a pervasive bias that it no longer understands what fair reporting is.
The conservative community realized the depth of this problem in cases like the Kermit Gosnell trial, where the entire media ignores the topic and Fox, basically the only A-list conservative media outlet at this point, miss it too because it's simply under the radar. The mainstream media outlets rely so much on the AP and one another that you need a source that is fundamentally independent in determining what they find notable. So if I want news on immigration, abortion, or guns that isn't pandering garbage, Breitbart offers a better alternative.
Here's an example that stuck with me. A couple months ago, the NYT had an article called "The Week In Hate" prominently listed on the front page of its website. It was a short list of hate incidents, including a high schooler sending a Snapchat with a racial epithet in it, and someone writing "black bitch" in the snow on a black woman's car. The front page of the NYT. The same people who didn't write a word on a man who murdered an estimated hundreds of infants by snipping their spinal cords because it was "local news". The world has gone insane, and although Breitbart is insane too, it might be the kind of insanity we need.
In response to your last sentence: "serious" or "sensible" conservative thinking usually just means neutered conservative thinking. The current conservative revival is partially a backlash to the left's perceived entitlement to define acceptable right-wing thought.
For whatever it's worth: I'm Catholic, from an Irish and Eastern-European Catholic family in Chicago, and I am quite familiar with the activist pro-life movement. I respect it, though I do not admire or agree with it.
If you were going to characterize your view of conservativism in just a few bullets, how would you? (I could do that for my view of Democratic liberalism).
I think that the populist conservatism I see and largely subscribe to has the following features:
* a concern with upholding abortion as a woman's right and morally unambiguous (this is a peripheral one but relevant to our discussion)
* a hatred of the New Left's hair trigger accusations of bigotry and hate speech, and the censorship that political correctness affords them
* a frustration with the denigration of Western society that is becoming the norm in our education system
* a deep-seated respect for the individual, his agency, and the importance that he take responsibility for his actions
* a recognition that much of the rest of the world doesn't like us and wants to eat our lunch not because we're bad people (i.e. not because we deserve it), but because that's how tribalism works
* a respect for cultural diversity in the sense that sovereign nations are entitled to do things differently (e.g. guns in America)
* a recognition that no matter how much the New Left bashes colorblindness, that's the only way a multiethnic society is ever going to function
* an appreciation of both masculinity and femininity, and a belief that modern feminism and gender theory is based heavily in man-hating and biological denialism
* a frustration with the increasing integration of iffy and controversial progressive goals into so many aspects of corporate and academic life, and a frustration with the hegemony that threatens our livelihoods and reputations if we question these goals
* a heavy suspicion that -- although most of us wish this weren't the case -- culture and genetics play a large role in the relative success of races
* a disappointment in the mainstream media for so thoroughly strawmanning and denigrating right-wing thinking that people are sheltered from basic facts of reality (e.g. the relative tolerance of the US, the senses in which transgenderism may be a mental illness or a symptom thereof, to give two randomly selected examples)
* a distaste for the fetishization of protest culture and the idea that any right-wing or traditionalist policymaking needs to be met with autistically shrieking hipsters and burning cars
* a preference for facts and logic over feelings when justifying beliefs
* a sense that "multiculturalism" often just means culturelessness, and that there is a real benefit to making sure people who immigrate are willing and able to integrate and arriving in small enough numbers to avoid major cultural disruption
* a concern with the absolutist and marauding culture of the Muslim world, its resistance to Westernization in Arab immigrants, and the New Left's refusal to acknowledge this problem
* and more
Hopefully that wasn't too long. I'm interested to see your list.
As someone who falls in the middle on many issues, I've been saddened to see so many republicans deny the existence of global warming. On many issues that are hot topics in this country reasonable people can disagree, but on global warming the facts are very clear. If populist conservatism believes so strongly in the facts, why is there such a strong push to deny them in this very important case?
a recognition that no matter how much the New Left bashes colorblindness, that's the only way a multiethnic society is ever going to function
a heavy suspicion that -- although most of us wish this weren't the case -- culture and genetics play a large role in the relative success of races
I disagree with pretty much all your points, of course, but here I have a visceral reaction. You see that you're indirectly making a case for racial superiority with that last point, right?
It would be great if every race had the same distribution for height, athleticism, IQ, etc. However, that doesn't seem to be the case -- we're genetically different in more ways than just our skin color and facial features. I simply don't understand people who make these emotional appeals or dark accusations against someone making a dispassionate scientific argument.
There's also the naturalistic fallacy. What actions should be taken based on this data? Here I'd like to provide an example as I think they're useful, but I'm terrible at coming up with good generic examples and am hesitant to use an actual one for fear of distracting from the general idea. It's all too easy to excuse adverse discriminatory practices when you can point to some statistics that appear to justify them.
I believe you when you say you're not making a case for racial superiority. However, you and I both know that there are plenty of people who would use that data exactly for that purpose, or excuse other negative discriminatory behaviors. It lends so much more credence to one's agenda when you have science to back it up.
Plus, we have to take into account natural human biases towards tribalism. I'm a fan of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature, and do, in general and on average, believe we're becoming more civilized. I believe part of this ongoing civilization project is to work against this tribalism bias (while necessitates taking into account) where it causes us to treat each other badly, just as we use science to work against our biases to improve our understanding. This work against tribalism bias is clearly (and unapologetically) normative on my part.
It's a very tough question. And one that's difficult to discuss, because to do so effectively requires an overabundance of good faith and good will on behalf of the participants. I have a lot of respect for many members on HN, though I'm still not sure HN is the place to have the discussion. Frankly I'm surprised I took the opportunity of your comment to post.
I'm sure there are those who strongly believe that there are no correlations like you describe. I think there are many who understand it but aren't willing to discuss it because the next step of the discussion is one that's so difficult to have in good faith.
As a nationalist and constitutionalist American, I strongly agree about treating individuals as such. However, the problem is that the left has demonized that approach and suggested that if a demographic underperforms, it's inherently because of oppression rather than culture or biology. These days, tribalism is the left's. If we ran an individualistic society, we wouldn't have to ask these hairy and unpleasant questions, but as long as the left phrases white, Jewish, and Asian success solely in terms of oppression, we'll be mistreating individuals of those ethnicities.
I agree that data on this is uncomfortable and can be misused, but (despite academia's wishes) science is not a tool for supporting progressive cosmopolitan perspectives. If people think that current policies are sensible, they shouldn't be afraid of what scientists might uncover about the nature of human genetics. Personally, I think I could logically defend egalitarianism and individualism in the face of significant racial IQ disparities. People who feel wedded to affirmative action and victimhood culture, however, are going to be hostile toward legitimate science in this area because it delegitimizes these institutions.
Just a point: I try to be very careful to not generalize about groups of people with with charged language like "the left has demonized that approach", "despite academia's wishes", "supporting progressive cosmopolitan perspectives", and "victimhood culture". That actively separates people into for/against camps that I find very detrimental to effective discussion. If there's something in my post that smells that I'm doing so, I'd appreciate you pointing it out to me, because I actively work against it, not because I'm trying to hide anything, but because I don't think it accurately describes my beliefs.
You mention "the left has … suggested that if a demographic underperforms, it's inherently because of oppression rather than culture or biology." I agree, there are issues there. I've also seen a lot of arguments from just the other side as well: there can't be any oppression because any difference can be accounted for due to culture or biology. I think it's both, and when either side isn't willing to talk about both sides objectively, I'm very hesitant to get both of my arms cut off when I reach out.
One phrase that I used that I think may be construed as such would be "tribalism bias", which I believe I'm using in a neutral manner. To be honest, at this point I'm hesitant to even bring up things I've read because I'm afraid you'll consider it part of some suspicious academic agenda.
I don't consider myself on the side of the left or the right, though I have a visceral, negative response when I see people generalizing about either, even if there's some justification for it, as it poisons any discussion that might be had to bridge the two.
I'm sorry if this comes off as defensive. It definitely is. As I expressed in my initial comment, I think there are a lot of people who are gun-shy about talking about this. Perhaps you consider me too weak or sensitive in reacting this way. It's more of being incredibly reluctant to getting piled on from every side.
Ironically, this is exactly what college administrations do when discriminating against white and Asian applicants.
As I've said before, I think discussing issues like this is hard. Increasingly hard on the internet: I don't know you other than a couple of comments I've read, and we have no additional context for communication other than the words we type. Tough all over.
I'll give you my honest opinion when I see a statement like this. I believe that there is inequality among demographics in the US. I also think that part of that is due to factors outside of biology. I think we should work to correct this. I understand that affirmative action is one tool to do so. I see where it can help, and I can also see how it can be considered working against the ideal that it's attempting to correct.
When I've just started a conversation on a difficult topic like this, asking me to cede more than a little ground, I do so, listing a number of caveats of why I'm hesitant to do so, and the next two comments I see play right into what I was hoping to avoid, it makes me very hesitant to continue. You've brought up a very common issue with discrimination (affirmative action), without adding any additional context or understanding that there might be some benefit to what it's trying to accomplish, or that those who support it might have rational reasons to do so, even if you don't agree with them. I don't believe you're discussing this in bad faith, but the overabundance of good faith that I think is necessary to make these types of discussions work seems to be lacking.
Maybe you don't agree with the premises that I'm working from above, so maybe that's where the discussion needs to start. Jumping straight to critiquing one attempt at a solution might be getting ahead of ourselves. But given I've already opened up in my other comment, I'm hesitant to continue granting what I think is common ground when I don't see much offered.
Would you mind providing a reference for this?
I agree that Gosnell got less coverage than it merited, although the motivation for that goes both ways: since a powerful majority of the country supports legal access to abortion, you could argue that Fox News avoided the story because it underscored the lack of availability of safe, ethical reproductive health services to the poor of this country, which is something the state-level Republican parties are campaigning against.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
Without being combatant: it's usually best to quickly use Wikipedia and a search engine before asking for a reference in cases like this.
What is your evidence of this? I went to school with a number of journalism students, some of whom I count as close friends, and this is nowhere close to what they would consider ethical journalistic behavior.
There's always going to be bias in journalism, and it's good to work against that to be as fair as possible (if that's your aim), and it's also important readers to be on the lookout for it as critical readers.
One that's impossible to avoid is bias on what to report. Publications are physically limited by what they can cover: they can't cover everything. Choices have to be made as to what to cover. Some stories are going to get covered, some won't, and regardless of the choices that are made, there's going to be bias from some side. It's impossible to avoid, and something they'll always be susceptible to by uncharitable accusers.
Since fakenews sites are principally stood up to make money for fraudsters and probably secondarily stood up to jam the election process by foreign governments (no serious supporter of Trump thinks a news site with stories about demon orgies is going to help the cause), the motives of the sites themselves are almost besides the point.
But for coverage of say Gamergate, it was the only news organization I'd seen to actually investigate and show the other side, rather than just utterly misunderstanding it and labeling it as "gamers are misogynistic racist hate-peddling trolls" and "gamers are dead".
I find Bannon repugnant, and I disagree with a lot of what their journalists and commentators say, but they have a different perspective that's important to hear.
Edit: In case anyone hasn't actually seen what gamers were actually pissed at, it was the corruption in the gaming journalism industry. The Wikipedia article is horseshit, as was most of the mainstream press coverage. Start at http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=monster and see for yourself.