4 ms·

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

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.

tachydyne 10y ago
> * 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?
tptacek 10y ago
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?
- garanduss 10y ago
  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.
  - grzm 10y ago
    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.

tachydyne 10y ago

> * 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?

tptacek 10y ago

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?

garanduss 10y ago
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.
- grzm 10y ago
  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.