site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   25610 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 20, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A genuine question I have for the people who don't like immigrants here: In your ideal world what would you have the immigrants who come to the west do when they get here?

I've heard people complain about immigrants drawing welfare when they don't work; I've noted all the complaints about immigrants driving down pay and making the job market more competitive when they work normal people jobs and I've sure as hell seen all the attacks launched upon them when they come and take over the very top of society to rule the natives beneath them.

So my question very simply is: given that immigrants aren't going to stop coming any time soon, what should they be doing that will make them acceptable in your eyes?

  • -10

I want them to convert to the local religion(or be a quiet atheist), I want them to do everything they can to not be annoyingly different, I want them to completely abandon all loyalty to the country they came from, I want them to not comment about how strange things are to them here, I want them to not advocate for their own identitarian concerns and police the locals’ behaviour, I want them to introduce zero social divisions that will suck up previous collective mental energy, I want them to keep their heads down for at least a few generations, and for godsake I don’t want them seeking the pity of the sentimental half of the local population with a saviour complex. My country has one visible minority ethnic group which has done a very good job of this, and so they have been awarded with trust. Other ethnics groups have not been awarded this same trust, and until they have I would like to keep their immigration to sub 200/ year.

So my question very simply is: given that immigrants aren't going to stop coming any time soon, what should they be doing that will make them acceptable in your eyes?

No welfare whatsoever, period. No support for lawyers, nothing. No family reunification either. Having an insurance bond to cover damages if the migrant breaks the law. (charities and leftists could pitch in here)

Citizenship possible after a decade of unproblematic residency or a net tax contribution of a certain size.

So my question very simply is: given that immigrants aren't going to stop coming any time soon,

Your question is also wrong. US is likely to lose WW3 pretty soon (~5 years ), after that its power and its cult of the brown person are going to wane.

Also Europe is going to be thoroughly broke and full of pissed off people ready to entertain any idea just to have law & order they remember from their childhood back.

I'd not rule out mass deportations, though I'm ruling out outright death camps and such.
Also possible: Chinese style labor camps for problem populations like north African men who fail an intelligence test or appear insufficiently sorry.

law & order they remember from their childhood back.

Crime is still lower than it was in the 1970s-1990s pretty much everywhere in the 1st world, and everyone who can actually remember the bad old days knows this. The only people who see brown faces on the streets and assume that crime is out of control are American racists.

  • -14

The only people who see brown faces on the streets and assume that crime is out of control are American racists.

This is an absolutely absurd and willfully uncharitable straw-man. Crime peaked in the 1990s at extremely high levels, and serious crackdowns were required for the subsequent gradual draw-down. That draw-down reversed in 2014, IIRC, and 2020 wiped out something like two decades of progress in the fastest increase in the crime rate ever recorded. Crime is in fact out of control in many areas of the country. Further, there is reason to believe that the federal statistics on which our analysis depends are significantly less reliable than they have been previously, given that the FBI recently made significant changes to its data collection practices and has failed both to collect data and to ensure that the data it collects and presents is accurate.:

In 2019, 89% of agencies covering 97% of the population submitted data, but by 2021, that coverage plummeted to less than 63% of departments overseeing just 65% of the population. Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City all failed to submit crime data. To increase participation, the FBI relaxed the NIBRS requirement in 2022, allowing agencies to report via the legacy system.

But many other cities, such as St. Louis, which had transitioned to the new method, still struggle to comply and submit partial or faulty data. The FBI compensates by relying more heavily on “estimation,” or informed guesswork, to fill in the gaps and produce aggregated data.

And the figures the agencies do report to the FBI do not match the agencies’ publicly reported figures. For Baltimore, the FBI reported 225 murders in 2023, but the city reported 262 — which means the FBI left out 37 murders. In Milwaukee, the police department reported a 7% increase in robberies, but the FBI showed a 13% drop. Nashville’s own data tallied more than 6,900 aggravated assaults in 2023, but the FBI counted only 5,941, leaving almost 1,000 of those offenses “missing.” This trend is consistent across the board: While 2022’s FBI city-level figures track the police’s own data, the 2023 numbers consistently undercount offense totals. Any year-to-year comparison overstates decline.

Other measures of crime levels undermine, or at least muddle, the veracity of the FBI’s data, which rely on “reported” offenses by victims and law enforcement themselves. The federal government’s own victims’ survey, which attempts to capture the gap between the number of actual offenses and the number reported to police, shows much higher offense rates than the FBI does. Moreover, a rising share of victims are failing to report their victimizations at all. In 2022, only 42% of violent crime victims and 33% of property crime victims bothered to report the crime to police.

People are not worried about out-of-control crime because they "see brown faces on the streets". We are worried about out-of-control crime because we are watching video of stores being looted without repercussions, and then watching businesses retreat en-masse from the cities. We are watching video evidence of vicious crimes being committed against the innocent while the authorities stand idly by. We are watching the authorities willfully nullifying the laws we've enacted through the democratic process in favor of signaling their own virtue. We are watching the criminals they refuse to police and incarcerate wreak havoc on our communities, and we're watching law-abiding citizens who attempt to intervene or resist be hammered by the full force of the state.

We are, in fact, suffering a sustained crime wave. That crime wave is very clearly the result of a series of intentional Blue Tribe actions: a sustained propaganda campaign to foment racial discord throughout the country, deliberate institutional support for and approval of large-scale, organized political violence, and a widespread policy of minimizing policing, prosecution and incarceration of all sorts of crime. The connection is so blindingly obvious that it cannot be addressed without unacceptable damage to Blue Tribe's cultural position, and so it is being ignored until the passage of time provides sufficient fog to allow them, per standard protocol, to be blamed entirely on the Red Tribe outgroup. In the meantime, tens of thousands of additional blacks will be murdered, hundreds-of-thousands to millions of additional blacks will be victimized by criminals, black participation in crime has increased dramatically and will continue to do so, and majority-black communities have been and will continue to be blighted by all the attendant ills of living without effective rule of law. All of this has happened before, is happening now, and will happen again. In another decade, people will admit it, on the condition that it is all attributed to an amorphous, undefinable "legacy of racism in a fundamentally white-supremacist society", and then in another decade or two the process will repeat in its entirety. All this has happened before, and will happen again, until Blue Tribe's social controls are broken for good.

Crime is still lower than it was in the 1970s-1990s pretty much everywhere in the 1st world

Not true. It's comparably low in the post-Soviet provinces, but quite a bit higher in places with a lot of immigrants. So the entirety of Western Europe, Scandinavia.

Don't be so parochial.

Murder is the easiest crime to count, and OWID has homicide rates falling since a 1990s peak in every Western European country with decent data (except Sweden, which has a migration-driven uptrend since 2010 but is still below the peak). In the UK, crime measured by the Crime Survey for England and Wales has been falling consistently since 1995 - this is a victim survey so results are not affected by willingness to talk to cops, and the scope of crimes counted has been consistent over time. I don't know how to find the equivalent survey data for other countries.

I live in London, and the drop in crime since the 1990s is as viscerally obvious as it was in post-Giuliani NYC. Before you quibble, I have been to the alleged "Islamic no-go zones" in Tower Hamlets, and some of the individual estates that have been taken over by Muslim gangs were so rough beforehand that the Muslim gangs were an improvement - just like when Mexican illegals take over a black neighborhood of a US city, the fall in crime is real.

I live in London, and the drop in crime since the 1990s

Drop? It stayed flat, despite presumably vast improvements in trauma surgery.

With better medicine, if homicide isn't dropping, it suggest violence is increasing.

has been falling consistently since 1995

If that's the case, why is the burglary rate that incredibly high, in contrast to places like Germany or Poland ?

Crime is still lower than it was in the 1970s-1990s pretty much everywhere in the 1st world, and everyone who can actually remember the bad old days knows this

Are you sure this isn't more of a US / Anglosphere thing? Sweden went from a left-wing meme about the glories of social welfare and prison rehabilitation, to a right-wing meme about the dangers of immigration. Data from any country that has the guts to record the ethnicity of criminals tends to show that whatever crime they have, is mostly attributable to immigrants.

The only people who see brown faces on the streets and assume that crime is out of control are American racists.

What is this bit supposed to bring to the discussion? If it turns out you're wrong, are you going to admit to your racism, or does it only go one way?

US is likely to lose WW3 pretty soon (~5 years )

Can you please elaborate? Maybe even in separate thread? Or please send me the links if you wrote about this previously.

Haven't, really.

Some links:

https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/ (retired officer, chronicled the entire dismal saga of US navy forgetting how to build and operate warships

Steve Hsu, a physicist, posts about ASBMs a lot.

https://stevehsu.substack.com/p/machine-intelligence-threatens-overpriced-aircraft-carriers-search

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/chinas-new-aircraft-carrier-killer-is-worlds-largest-air-launched-missile/

Basically, it's believe Chinese procurement is much more effective, they're rapidly catching up in technology too. So they're going to have more weapons, more ships, and there's also a reasonable suspicion that US which has had a large navy for a long time suffers from institutional inertia that makes it impossible to adapt fast enough. Meanwhile Chinese are building their navy to counter the US one.

So when China attempts to take Taiwan, US will either give up Taiwan and massively lose prestige and likely influence, or fight a war and lose it.

I don’t care about immigrants one way or another at an emotional level and don’t have a strong opinion at a rational level. But everyone, always, everywhere, hates competition in the absence of strong countervailing factors. Some degree of hostility is virtually inevitable. Ways that tensions can be reduced, with historical examples: -receiving population is self-consciously hurting for warm bodies (steppe nomad confederations tending to accept any and all willing dwellers in felt tents, the widespread North American Indian practice of ‘adopting’ war captives as full tribe members, competing ethnonationalists courting ethnically ambiguous populations (I’m most familiar with Silesians, Masurians, and Kashubians. I’ve heard similar things about bilingual Ferghana valley dwellers (Turkic vs. Dari), Macedonian Slavs, “Catholic Serbs,” etc.) -immigrants are hard to tell apart from natives (similar physical appearance, language, etc.) -immigrants are already aligned with Ingroup and conspicuously oppressed by Outgroup (Huguenots in England/Germany, Irish in Spain and France, oligarchic/democratic exiles from competing Poleis in Archaic-Classical Greece) -immigrants are part of Outgroup but we need them to run certain machinery in the meantime (only works if they eventually assimilate) -immigrants have the same religion or readily convert -immigrants aren’t forbidden from eating with, marrying, or interacting socially with the host population (Gypsies and Jews are especially well-known offenders, but a fairly common problem - present to a certain extent with Catholics/Protestants apart from the food. Parsis would be similar if there were more than five of them left. Less of a whole problem if the whole society is like this already (India)). -immigrants are only competing with people with no voice or power (Germans/Christian sectarians/Jews in Medieval Eastern Europe, Indians in English Burma/Africa, etc.) Situation tends to rapidly degenerate during anarchy (Chmielnicki rebellion), when the central authority changes (Russian annexation of the pale of settlement), or when (which God forbid) the popular vote is introduced.

I’m sure there are others

Edit: It’s helpful to have a third, low-status group that’s already in place and against which new groups can identify themselves. This was probably helpful in integrating miscellaneous European types as Whites in the Americas.

In my ideal world we would simply take a page out of the Islamic playbook and install a version of the kafala system in America. Immigrants work for fixed terms, with the privileges of the labor rights that don't exist in the Gulf states (employers can't withhold your wages or confiscate your passport etc.), and are rotated out at the end of their terms with no expectation of permanent residency or citizenship.

It's not complicated at all, and in practice we see Muslim states in the Gulf that are majority-helot and still structurally and culturally stable. I'm not advocating for anywhere near those proportions, but if the Kuwaitis and Qataris can understand that their supposed brethren in Pakistan and Indonesia will not be alchemically transformed into good Arabs by the magical power of ummah solidarity, we should stop pretending that our civic myths mean much to immigrants, who are by nature essentially just mercenaries.

When I was in high school I was part of a politics club that I started with a friend of mine. As we were looking to grow the size of the club I invited a junior of mine to join the club, and he invited his friends. When we were voting for who should be the president, that junior of mine had invited more of his friends and they all voted for him rather than the current president. That was a lesson in being careful who you invite into your space and the potential pitfalls of a democracy. Nothing they did was technically wrong, but we felt wronged in losing what was something we started to newcomers, so we just split off and formed another club.

Immigrants coming with wildly different ideas and values who don't assimilate remind me of that experience. There is a lot of effort in giving immigrants, especially unvetted undocumented illegal immigrants, the right to vote and change the shape of this country. Unlike my time in high school, we can't just easily split off and form another country.

I don't have a problem with immigration as a concept in and of itself, as my parents are immigrants and nearly everyone living in the US today have their roots in immigration. To be honest, I'd rather the US take in high-IQ, well-mannered, conscientious individuals from other countries so that their intelligence is used for the benefit of the US. The biggest problem with immigration right now is the large number of undocumented illegal migrants coming into the country.

Illegal immigrants who do work tend to fill in the role of low-skilled labor. These are jobs nobody is willing to work at the rates employers are willing to pay due to the high minimum wage. Low-skill jobs should go to low-skill workers for the value it's worth, typically teenagers and other people who haven't had time to learn/pick up skills. States like California may have high minimum wage but their economy is also full of illegal migrants working under the table for below minimum wage pay. That means less taxes are paid, but in California, they are still eligible for a whole slew of welfare-type assistance programs.

The immigration problem is less a problem with immigrants specifically and more a problem with the system that incentivizes the wrong type of immigrants to keep coming. There is a short-term incentive to bring in a bunch of outsiders, from economic benefits for a country that isn't able to sustain its growth through its birthrate, to bringing people that would vote for your party instead of the opposition party, but the consequences in the long term are dire.

Truthfully? I just want the country I grew up in back.

I want back a justice system and a police force that punishes crime, regardless of "disproportionate impact". I want back a world where I'm not skipping over 50% of the job listing because they explicitly say they have a focus on "marginalized people" for the role. I want back a country where it doesn't feel like we can't have one single nice thing because some third worlder does some third world shit and ruins it. I want back a country where our government isn't a naked racial spoils system. I have no illusions that the government was never corrupt. Just like I have no illusions that my auto mechanic is probably fleecing me. However, my auto mechanic, despite probably ripping me off somewhat, at least also keeps my car running. The government is just handing out sinecures to nakedly incompetent diversity hires, and meanwhile the country is falling the fuck apart.

I want back a country where I'm not awash in naked anti-white propaganda, and it doesn't feel like my government is oozing hate out of every pore at me.

If these wishes could be accomplished without violent expulsion, I'd be down. It felt like we had all these things in the 90's. Maybe that was an illusion. I don't know. Maybe the 90's was the top of the roller coaster, where for a brief moment the acceleration has almost cancelled out your velocity, before you plummet straight to hell. I no longer know what to believe that I'd say publicly about "multiculturalism". But privately, seems to me it's only going to end in genocide, and I'm not confident about who's.

As far as I can tell, the primary beneficiaries of "disproportionate impact" policies and hiring of "marginalized people" are black people. The people advocating and voting for these policies are white people.

How and when did this come about? Well, affirmative action dates back to the sixties, and was well underway in the nineties. As for where all these black people came from, if I remember your family history correctly, I am afraid you will have to blame your ancestors.

As for where all these black people came from, if I remember your family history correctly, I am afraid you will have to blame your ancestors.

Regrettably so. We were on the wrong side of both the revolution and the civil war. 'Won' both.

I've said this before, I'll keep saying it: solidarity with the far threat against the near enemy. progressive whites do not view normie whites as their own kin, the normie is the enemy to be subjugated. blacks are merely the enemy of normies so advancing blacks is useful. if blacks all turned out to be value aligned witb normies the progs would abandon them, just like the progs abandoned asians and now latinos. in the competition for cultural supremacy, the prize is being the dispenser of the systems spoils. that the fruits are withered because the normies tending the orchard have been replaced by blacks (or in europe muslims) is not a possibility entertained by progs.

As for where all these black people came from, if I remember your family history correctly, I am afraid you will have to blame your ancestors.

If we were truly to accept this argument, we could strictly limit affirmative action to ADOS, rather than all Americans of African lineage. On the other hand, maybe this could be acceptable: it would rule out race-based favoritism on behalf of, for example, Barack Obama and Claudine Gay.

I am against affirmative action in general, but I think there are some progressives who are on board with that.

What if my ancestors didn't own slaves, and in fact fought to free them? Do I get a prize?

They weren't a problem when they were slaves. Your ancestors fighting to free them are why we're in this mess.

You know why the south lost and Rome fell right? Slavery is as bad for the owners as it is for the slaves. It stifles every good thing in humanity and promotes the bad. Most surviving cultures have figured that out.

Slavery was a bad idea, and should never have been implemented. You might as well blame Kulaks and wreckers for the failures of Communism. Your ancestors should, in fact, have picked their own damn cotton.

You call it slavery, I call it animal husbandry. It worked just fine and while cruelty to animals sucks, domestication is not evil. Often it's a pretty great deal for the animals. Nature is harsh and wild animals are generally worse to each other than their human masters.

My ancestors are at fault inasmuch as they failed to adequately anticipate the fatal flaw in voting-based government, which is the incentive to expand the franchise to those who should never have had it in exchange for political support and dominance over the responsible opponents who refuse to stoop so low.

I'll go ahead and agree that modeling your fellow man as animals, or more specifically, social mammals, and then using animal husbandry techniques on them is valid. The same soothing and awareness and empathetic techniques work on both. I do notice that- "animals" being a slur is completely unfair both to humans and to non-human animals.

But chattel slavery was piss poor animal husbandry. As evidenced by its fruits. If your animals are suffering, you're not doing a great job. If you are in physical conflict with your animals, you have failed to engage with them emotionally. This is the smell of your mandate of heaven rotting beneath your mismanagement.

If your animals can learn read and write and become functional independent general intelligences that can potentially engage with high society and you aren't bothering to cultivate that. You fail druid class!

We allow all kinds of hot takes, including "slavery was good, actually," as long as you can argue the case civilly and in accordance with our rules.

You've broken a few of those rules, notably "Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument" and "Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion."

Sometimes people really want to say something about a particular group of people, because this is what they really, honestly believe. Things like "Jews are vermin," "Women aren't sentient," or "Black people are animals." And when we mod them for saying these things, they complain that we are "protecting the feelings" of the group they despise. Well, no, we don't care that you might hurt someone's feelings (arguing that blacks have lower IQs and higher criminality, or that women are hypergamous, or that Jews have disproportionate power in Hollywood, likely hurts some people's feelings, but you are allowed to say that). But it's one thing to describe your grievances with the behavior of a group, and quite another to declare they are less than human and should be treated as such.

Assuming you are not just trolling, pretend there are black people participating here (sometimes there are) and that you aren't trying to insult and denigrate them (even if that's what you do want to do - you may not).

Yes, I think you're generally correct to flag me here as 'just being honest' isn't a great excuse for being so transgressive, though most of the rest of what you wrote doesn't apply in this case I think. This isn't an instance of me wanting to say mean things about a group.

Nor is my issue with 'black people' so much as... look, I'm having sincere trouble finding terminology that gets the idea across without being legitimately interpreted as 'antagonistic'. There's a continuum problem. "Human" is a fuzzy category and largely in the eye of the beholder. Is a gorilla which speaks sign language human? What about Lucy (A. afarensis)? Primitive Tanzanians who discovered fire, then lost the secret and apparently reverted to the lifestyle of other hominids generally not recognized as human?

Skin color is not especially interesting to me. But I agree that the language about human/non-human is inflammatory and doesn't really get the point across, so I'll try to refrain from it in the future. My sincere apologies.

There is a quality which is something along the lines of 'capacity for moral responsibility' that generally (but not perfectly) correlates with IQ and which I think is localized entirely within select groups of ancestries and almost entirely men. These embody and sustain priceless phenomena ranging from how they experience and perceive the world to cultural inheritances. This heritage is inestimably valuable, fragile, and, increasingly, endangered.

My take on 'humans' outside of those groups is that they're something more like children than like non-humans. The trouble, of course, is that they generally don't have the capacity to grow into members of those groups. So they're something else, a third category between children and animals. Something more like permanently disabled children which are helpful dependents at best and, if they get strong and numerous enough, serious existential threats to the system and individuals within it. Their existences are often improved by domestication (honest question: is that word okay? I feel like it's exactly the one I want, no shade) and in the process they can participate in the grand project and enjoy in many of its fruits.

Meanwhile, inability to see this picture clearly or even discuss it intelligibly is one of the greatest threats to the Good and I'm at great pains to figure out how to articulate it.

So that's the perspective, more or less.

More comments

You call it slavery, I call it animal husbandry.

Humans aren't animals. Animals can be safely disregarded. Humans cannot. That is the distinction.

Often it's a pretty great deal for the animals.

And yet, they don't seem to have appreciated it, and because they are humans and not actually animals, their lack of appreciation is in fact dispositive.

My ancestors are at fault inasmuch as they failed to adequately anticipate the fatal flaw in voting-based government, which is the incentive to expand the franchise to those who should never have had it in exchange for political support and dominance over the responsible opponents who refuse to stoop so low.

I do not believe Abolitionism won because its supporters expected to reap new voters. All evidence I've seen indicates that it won because its supporters considered chattel slavery an intolerable evil, and were willing to make considerable sacrifices to eradicate it. I believe they were correct in this estimation. If you wish to disregard the humanity of Africans, I certainly cannot stop you. Leave them in Africa, and it's no business of mine what happens on the other side of the world. Bring them here and you make them, and by extension yourself, my problem.

Humans aren't animals.

I know you know you're arguing by defining things in a way I wouldn't agree with, so what's the point?

I do not believe Abolitionism won because its supporters expected to reap new voters. All evidence I've seen indicates that it won because its supporters considered chattel slavery an intolerable evil, and were willing to make considerable sacrifices to eradicate it.

That was the popular justification, yes, and for the same reason that people become vegetarians or vegans or join PETA and try to ban pet ownership: we're incredibly prone to anthropomorphizing animals.

The power politics behind the war were rather different. Regardless, my point has less to do with why the war was fought and more to do with what happened afterward. "Send them back to their native habitat" was a great idea with plenty of support and should have happened, though FWIW I think we owed it to them to administrate for their sakes. Whatever they are, they're close enough to us that I don't like the thought of leaving them to their own wretched devices. Perhaps in time, and with guidance...

But even people who cared very much for them often understood that treating them as equals, let alone giving them the franchise, would be insane. But it happened. So with women &c.

More comments

I'm still waiting for my prize for being the first of my ancestors to even be born in the western hemisphere, so I'll let you know.

You're your own ancestor?

Though art God. Drink water, grow closer.

No, you can sit in the same bucket with the white Ellis Island immigrants, who also never owned slaves.

You should know that somebody took your comment, combined it with the comment of @SecureSignals below, and posted in the /r/BlockedAndReported weekly discussion thread. I first assumed it was you yourself, but then I saw it's two different comments glued together.

ETA and it's gone. You can find the traces, a few replies of the "are you okay?" kind. It wasn't me, and I'm very curious what was the purpose of it all.

That's a fascinating sub with much wrongthink; has Reddit become more tolerant or is this sub just flying under the radar until they get the inevitable ban? I stopped browsing Reddit when they banned CCJ2, so I don't know how things go over there nowadays.

Great. See if I end up needing another new account soon. Nothing good ever comes of being noticed.

And because my comment wasn't yet visible to common users by the time of deletion, the culprit must be one of the motte mods, dun-dun-dun! But seriously, good luck, man, I remember the shitstorm with your previous account.

With 2 comments you say this?

Is there really a culprit? A crime? I don't know the tone of the comment over there, maybe it was totally mocking, but I also don't really share the fear that someone might notice us anymore. We're not on reddit, we are free of the gigajanny's tyranny.

It was not quoting those two comments, somebody was posting them as one and under their own name. Very weird. You can head to https://old.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/1cw6mpn/weekly_random_discussion_thread_for_52024_52624/l5bwmui/ and see that the replies line up with the contents of the posts by @WhiningCoil and @SecureSignals. Maybe one of Iconochasm, JTarrou, professorgerm, SerialStateLineXer, or somebody else who I don't know, caught it, but it stayed up for such a brief period that I doubt it. One could take these two comments and ask people in that thread if they recognize the result.

I'm tired of this matter, back to lurking for months. Peace.

And because my comment wasn't yet visible to common users by the time of deletion, the culprit must be one of the motte mods, dun-dun-dun

Really, now?

I doubt very much any mod did that. Here's an alternate hypothesis: given the recent spate of trolls spinning up alts to post flamebait and then deleting all their comments, it is far more likely it was one of them. You know, like a brand new account with a great deal of familiarity with the details of motte posting, whose only two comments here are to helpfully inform us about that now-deleted post.

Did you not get that I was joking, really? Teaches me to try to do right by a person whose posts I've consistently liked for my years of lurking. If I wanted to cause drama, I could have brought up his previous identity and what forced him to create a new account, not do this weird who-knows-what-this-is that just happened.

Yeah, I'm not good at being subtle.

Good news!

The people that hate you now already hated you in the 90s. Affirmative action was already going strong and third worlders were already ruining nice things with their third world shit.

It felt like we had all these things in the 90's. Maybe that was an illusion. I don't know.

Presumably you were a kid, so that helps. It also helps that this was in the pre-internet or later the dialup era, when people were generally less ‘pilled of broader ongoings.

However, I would agree in the estimation that things have certainly gotten worse since then: Affirmative action stronger; anti-white propaganda more naked; government more explicitly a racial spoils system; justice system and police force more anarcho-tyrannic and “disproportionate impact” pearl-clutchy.

If these wishes could be accomplished without violent expulsion, I'd be down.

I could also be down for some flavors of “with.”

The people that hate you now already hated you in the 90s. Affirmative action was already going strong and third worlders were already ruining nice things with their third world shit.

The difference is just time and accumulation. Mass immigration to the U.S. started in the 1970s and really got going in the 1990s before going insane in the Biden era.

In the 1990s, the effects of immigration weren't that notable in most places even if the seeds were already sown.

Mass immigration started in the 1850s.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/30/immigrant-share-in-u-s-nears-record-high-but-remains-below-that-of-many-other-countries/

And mass immigration was stopped in the 1920s, thereby allowing multiple contentious immigrant groups to assimilate. Furthermore, until the 1970s, almost all U.S. immigration was from European countries. Not counting slavery, of course.

Given that we were near record highs in 2019, imagine what 10 million more illegal immigrants has done to that number.

Efforts to "contextualize" the unprecedented wave of immigration we've experienced post-2020 are typically historically ignorant.

Ten million more illegal immigrants since 2019? What's the methodology for that estimate?

The total illegal immigrant population in 2021 (the latest I could find estimates for) was 10.5M, down from 12.2M around 2009.

I'm having a hard time this comment is being offered in good faith. Do you think the border crisis is just made up and the number of illegals has actually decreased since 2009? All those cities claiming they are overwhelmed... it's all just fake? If so, I can forgive you. Google seems to want you to believe that. They are really, really, determined to skew the information here. It's actually breathtaking how heavily their thumb is on the scale here.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=illegal%20immigrants%20per%20month%202024#ip=1

But, yes about 10.8 million illegals have entered the country since Biden took office:

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/03/26/factsheet-nationwide-border-encounters-hit-nine-million-on-secretary-mayorkas-watch-in-the-worst-february-in-decades/

I'll admit this article has a partisan spin. But it's based on DHS data. I could find an unbiased source if Google would let me or if I felt like running errands.

But, yes about 10.8 million illegals have entered the country since Biden took office:

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/03/26/factsheet-nationwide-border-encounters-hit-nine-million-on-secretary-mayorkas-watch-in-the-worst-february-in-decades/

As far as I can tell you're conflating encounters and people actually living in the country. The article contrasts 70k aliens granted parole into the country vs 256k encounters in February. I don't see how ten million new residents can come from this data.

More comments

For all the talk about Biden and Obama keeping the border secure by performing border rejections and spinning up ICE, no one ever acknowledged that Biden was seen by migrants as the opening of the gates. Migrants are motivated to gp to the USA by promises made to migrants such as DREAM and sanctuary cities, migrants are drawn to europe by weakness and riches for the taking.

The irony of developmental economics is that as western aid becomes more efficient at making poor countries richers, it just gives them resources to make a trip to the promised land. Refugee laws were made when only neighbouring countries would flood your border, now you can get a trip on Air India to Canada or get coyotes to set up food and water and transport on your way to the promised land. The only thing that will stop migrants flooding borders is the rejection of any benefits to these people, including NGOs hiding them from police and illegal work. You westerners have no idea how to deal with these culturally disruptive peoples and the rubber band will snap back soon.

You westerners have no idea how to deal with these culturally disruptive peoples and the rubber band will snap back soon.

The thing about rubber bands is that if you stretch them too much, they don't snap back; they break.

Genocide? This word has lost almost all impact through overuse in the current landscape. It also has a specific definition that is apparently being lost along with all meaning. The word was coined in 1944 by a Jewish Lawyer named Raphael Lemkin to describe what the Nazi regime had done. You think we're going to be in cattle cars soon? or are you talking peaceful demographic replacement? Those are 2 very different kinds of "genocide".

They need to love the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Founding Fathers. They need to be non-violent, prosocial, and always happy to help a neighbor.

The percent of immigrant population would ideally be between 5-10% to accommodate integrating them into our culture without American culture being upended too quickly. Currently the percent of the foreign born population is 13.9%

I would be very sad if the percentage dropped to 0%. We are a nation of immigrants after all. But I would hate for America to stop being America.

We are a nation of immigrants after all.

We are a nation of pioneers, settlers, and frontiersmen, not immigrants. The former civilized wild lands and built civilization in the wilderness. The latter are following their nose to where the money spigot is leaking. They are not the same.

Very few Americans, and I am a huge American propagandist and booster, were actual frontiersmen and wilderness explorers. Maybe 1 or 2 percent ever did that and everyone else flowed in after. I've spent more time in the woods than an average person from 1820.

Am I going to doubt the fact that the people who came to America were not pioneers? No. Were they also colonists who engaged in the genocide of the Native American people, and came here for the profiteering of the "New World"? Yeah.

Yes, but I'm not going to feel guilty that my ancestors were conquerors spreading the light of civilization into the wilderness.

I'm also going to remember that when unrelated foreigners show up on our shores, we should be wary of welcoming them, lest they displace us as we displaced those who were here before.

In short, I don't know what point you think you're making, but I know what point I take from your reply.

Half of my family was not frontiersmen. They came to the East Coast fleeing starvation and lived in a city. My grandfather joined the police force, his four sons followed suit. His brother died in Korea. They are proud to be American. I think there is room in the American Story for tales such as these.

I'm not the best person to answer this question, since I don't dislike immigrants, and the current world is so far away from my perfect one that it renders your ennture question moot, but generally it's about loyalty. Leave your past loyalties behind, and endorse the host population as your tribe, and we're good.

Everything that's talked about around this subject - jerbs, crime, language, culture - is just a proxy for that.

This is like saying, how should an unwanted house guest behave to make him living in my house acceptable to me? There's literally nothing he can do, I do not want him to live in my house. I don't hate you, I just don't want to live with you! Why do you insist not only on living with me (understandable), but claiming that it's wrong for me to have any preference in the matter?

Given that immigrants are not going to stop coming any time soon, the best/most likely course is an informal or quasi-formal caste system that puts social pressure against dysgenic mate selection and social pressure towards eugenic mate selection. That is much more likely than mass deportation, which is an enormous operational and political task.

An informal caste system could be established and transmitted purely memetically, and it's much more plausible. And if there were more radical political measure to be taken, that would have to be a first step in any case. Something like tiered citizenship would only be fathomable if such a memetic system has already taken root deep into public consciousness.

Tiered citizenship would be my preference, even above deportation, but the above would be a pre-requisite for that to be remotely possible. It would reinforce the cultural norms around mate selection. It would gatekeep welfare to people who deserve it and keep incentives aligned.

Work jobs that pay enough in taxes to cover their and their dependents burden on government at all levels, and stop voting for policies that harm me (either to help them, or which help nobody).

Personally I'd much rather productive labor market participants, ideally having a work-related visa contingent on a job paying >80th percentile and with their employer having to provide a clear plan towards how they will in future enable that role to be filled by locals. There are definitely some downsides of this form of migration. I feel that the moment for unskilled/refugee migration has largely passed in developed economy due to the relative lack of jobs fit for purpose, and the modern welfare & medical-welfare states meaning that they are ultimately massive value extractors with multi-generational timeframes to even begin to break even.

It's not like there aren't alternate solutions. I'm not advocating for the West to be literally Qatar when it comes to guest workers, but there is clearly a market for people from the developing world coming to participate in developed economies without a vector for citizenship or participation in the welfare state.

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