site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   21815 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 23, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I posted a while back about Canada, its housing crisis, and the political implications, but I want to talk a bit more about the biggest social/political trend in Canada recently: temporary residents.

In 2024Q2 Canada had 3 million temporary residents, amounting to 7% of our national population. Over half of this total arrived since 2020. I say it all the time, but it is hard to appreciate the speed and scale of this change. Canada was 73% white in 2016, 69% in 2021, and is about 61% now. The share of Canada's resident population from South Asia is only a few percentage points lower than the black share in the U.S. It was only 4% in 2006. Temporary resident inflows plus our normal immigration stream which is among the highest on earth had led to population growth of over 3% per year since the pandemic.

This has put huge strain on our housing market of course which is now among the least affordable on earth. However, one underappreciated implication of this migration is the impact on labour markets. The arrivals are disproportionately low skill and compete with young Canadians. Over the past year as economic growth has slowed significantly, unemployment has begun to rise (now 6.6%) but for 15-24 year olds its nearly 20%.

Housing unaffordability remains near all time highs. We now have 2023 crime statistics showing another increase and erasing all progress since the late 1990s. Canada's total fertility rate data for 2023 came out last week and shows a big drop to 1.26 -- the lowest ever recorded and well below peer countries.

Young Canadians are now 58th most happy in the world. Old Canadians are 8th.

The country continues to circle the drain.

Here is the happiness list (younger age 30):

https://worldhappiness.report/assets/images/2024/ch02/Figure_2.2_1.webp

1 Lithuania (7.7)
2 Israel
3 Serbia
4 Iceland
5 Denmark (7.3)
And
62 United States (6.39)

Unhappiest youth are predominantly in African countries beside Lebanon on second last place and Afghanistan (1,82) on last place.

I mean I’m probably claiming too much, but it looks to me like ethnic homogeneity is a better predictor than income for happiness.

Lebanon and Afghanistan are pretty homogenous as well.

This is extremely inaccurate. Lebanon is famously split between feuding Sunni, Shia, and Maronite christian groups to the degree that their constitution sets ethnic quotas for power-sharing. Afghan is also split between many warring tribal-ethnic groups as well, including Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazara, and Uzbeks.

I admit I put my foot in it re: Afghanistan but I don't think Lebanon is a slam dunk. We're talking about ethnic differences here, so we have to look beyond "well Israel is 75% Jewish so it's homogenous". Those Jews come from all kinds of places with all kinds of ethnic backgrounds.

So, first off, I don’t believe I have ever heard a single person describe Israel as homogenous. Any country where a full one in four of its citizens is from an ethnolinguistically and religiously different group from the other three is, by definition, not homogenous.

And yes, you note that even within the Jewish Israeli population there are significant divisions. That’s also true, and also a source of political and cultural tension within Israeli society! My understanding is that the tensions between the Ashkenazi founding stock and the later waves of Sephardic and especially Mizrahi Jews produced massive friction in Israel for the first decades of its existence. Israel is also still to this day having major issues with the differences between its Ultra-Orthodox/Haredi population versus the other strains of Judaism.

So yes, you have correctly noticed that Israel is not in fact a homogeneous country.

So yes, you have correctly noticed that Israel is not in fact a homogeneous country.

Cool, sounds like we agree that at best the homogeneity /happiness relationship is not entirely straightforward.

Israel has been engaged in a decades-long violent campaign, with periodic mass-casualty events on both sides, against a hostile ethnic group within its own borders. This is your example of a happy country?

More comments

I mean that’s just not remotely accurate. Lebanon has several religious groups who have been in open conflict many times over its history. Maronite Christians, Orthodox Christians, both Sunni and Shia Muslims, Druze, Alawites, and that’s to say nothing of the masses of refugees from the Syrian conflict currently residing within its borders.

Afghanistan, meanwhile, has always been an incredibly ethnically diverse and fractious region. Pashtun, Balochs, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Hazara, plus all kinds of obscure insular groups that still practice otherwise dead religious traditions, or who credibly claim direct descent from Alexander the Great’s wars against the Parthians a few thousand years ago.

Like, you’ve picked two of the least homogenous countries in the entire region.

I feel like this is going to be biased toward declaring groups that get along to be "homogeneous", and those that don't are subdivided into smaller groups until they do, with the broader discording factions declared "heterogeneous". You could divide the English into Anglos, Saxons, Normans, and so on, but they still mostly get along so you'll call them all "English".

What is homogeneity if not ethnic cohesion? Everyone is their own group of one and human divisions are fractal. Boundaries exist because we decide they do.

Ethnic groups only exist insofar as they are willing to exclude. Which is why Anglos, Saxons and Normans no longer exist, but English do. Fusions and splits are common methods of ethnogenesis.

It's not a bias, it's the phenomenal definition of ethnic groups.

Part of homogeneity is common ethnic consciousness, commonality in language, religion, ancestry, insufficient history of remaining grudges and bad blood, etc. The later element, if it existed in the past, has declined today. The English are one ethnic group, even with some heterogeneous elements and diversity in their history.

Ethnic groups have some heterogeneity in them. As with most things, the amount matters. Increase substantially differences, and you get a nation comprising of different groups. This is a genuine difference that relates to accurately separating ethnic groups.

This doesn't bias things, since you still got a homogeneous situation if the divisions are sufficiently irrelevant and have a robustly common identity. Conversely you get heterogeneity when divisions are significant and ethnic groups don't get along. You are getting an accurate message that proves the advantages of a homogeneous country and of small enough differences among the people, so much so that they can be identified as a common ethnic group.

The distinctions between Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Britons, Normans, etc. washed out hundreds of years ago, though. Nobody in England has spoken Norman French in over 500 years. Back when these groups were still linguistically and culturally distinct, they absolutely did not get along - see the wars between the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and then famously the conquest and subsequent violent subjugation of the Anglo-Saxons by the Normans. It’s only in hindsight, after a centuries-long process of mixing and integration, that we consider these to be constituent ancestries of a unified population. (And of course the existence of Wales as a separate entity, and the revival of the Welsh language, are testaments to the fact that the pre-Anglo-Saxon Britonic people were in fact never fully integrated, despite centuries of effort.)

Meanwhile, in Lebanon and Afghanistan these groups are still very distinct, generally geographically segregated, and - again, most importantly - have been in open violent conflict at various times even within your and my lifetimes.

Housing unaffordability remains near all time highs.

unemployment has begun to rise (now 6.6%) but for 15-24 year olds its nearly 20%

Canada's total fertility rate data for 2023 came out last week and shows a big drop to 1.26

I'd say the cause and effect is clear here. If young people can't get homes or jobs, then they won't be in a position to start a family.

The responsible middle class couple has a high floor of material attainment before starting a family. Price these people out of it and they'll not start families.

It's gotten really, really bad lately. I visited my family in Nova Scotia over the summer and I was just completely stunned at how utterly the demographics of my small rural hometown had changed, even over just the last decade. I'm not exaggerating when I say that every service worker I interacted with was Indian, Pakistani, or some other flavor of subcontinental. This in a town of ~4000 that was 97% white in 2001. Both of the local pizza joints which I fondly remember from my childhood have been sold to immigrants and the staff completely replaced. I haven't really looked into it, but as I understand it most of these workers are not strictly immigrants, they're there on some kind of education visa that allows them to work (and allegedly businesses are subsidized for hiring them -- not sure how accurate that is, but it's what locals are claiming.) There have always been "temporary foreign workers" involved in agriculture but the recent changes are just categorically different. (Professionals such as doctors and other medical specialists have also been mostly sourced from India for a while, but there were generally fewer complaints about that.)

Property prices have also increased commensurately, but none of the homeowners I spoke with felt particularly "enriched" because the increase is basically global and even if they cashed out there's nowhere else to move to. Some own lakeside cottages that they plan to retreat to; most aren't so lucky.

The mood is generally quite dour. I don't think anyone expected such a rapid demographic change was even possible, and it doesn't seem like something they can vote their way out of.

And that’s why I’m so terrified about the current election in the states. It seems like if the Dems win, then permanent demographic change (with one party state).

In principle the natives could vote out the politicians and pursue a deportation strategy. But the natives while firmly being anti migration are slightly more divided compared to the unified group of new voters.

The premier of Nova Scotia wants to double the population of the province by 2060. To achieve that would require immigration like NS has seen over the past 3 years repeated at the same level for the next 35. And he's the conservative.

It would be wrong to break down the way Canadian politics operates with respect to immigration as a conservative/liberal split. It is more coherently a young vs old dynamic, and somewhat even more pointedly people who own property vs people who don't.

Up until very recently there was a very strong national pro-immigration consensus across pretty much the entire political spectrum and all demographics, with the one exception being a fringe national party (People's Party). Canada was by a decent margin the most welcoming country to new immigrants and perceptions of the immigration system in general were strongly favourable. This was I think in part a reflection that the system itself was well-designed: priority to well-off, educated immigrants who spoke either national language.

The capital "I" immigration rate has gone up, but people don't really have a problem with this. More concerning to Canadians has been the growth in other types of migrants: international students, temporary foreign workers, asylum seekers/refugees. It's these categories that have driven the massive increases in population. For example in 2023 the breakdown was 477k new immigrants (i.e., foreign nationals offered permanent residence) and ~ 1.3 million "temporary" residents.

While the federal Liberals have certainly enabled and to a large part driven the abuse of these other flows of migration, they have not been the only bad actors. Provincial conservative-run governments have absolutely followed them in this race to rebuild Punjab in Canada. Together they have in the course of about two years absolutely destroyed the national consensus on immigration.

I think the pre-2015 immigration consensus was only partly to do with selectivity. The numbers were still high, but they went overwhelmingly to large cities that were already multicultural— especially their large suburbs. It was possible to live in Canada from 2000 to 2015 say and not perceive the rapid changes because they were occurring in Brampton. And critically, because they were so concentrated and numbers not insane, housing could respond. As recently as 2015, housing outside of the top 3 metros wasn’t just affordable it was cheap.

Now it’s everywhere. Every small town. Every neighborhood.

Yeah, I had a similar experience to you going back home last month and finding out the old hairdressing place I went to as a kid is now all Indians. And the grocery store I went to as a kid is all Indians. Etc. etc. I live in a very diverse part of Toronto so it's not like I'm easily shocked or whatever. Hell, even in my neighbourhood we're a lot different than three years ago, because the Filipinos and Chinese and African immigrants have been shunted out by Indians too. My brother-in-law who lived in Toronto for a decade was very surprised when he came back this year, and remarked how Toronto feels so much less diverse now that Indians are forming a new pseudo-majority in many neighbourhoods or employment sectors.

In my personal life I engage with a lot of well-off Torontonians, the type who have historically been among the most pro-Liberal (capital L) and pro-immigration. They have up until recently been insulated from the effects of immigration while benefiting enormously from higher property values and depressed wages. It's finally creeping up on them too: it's car thefts and the fact that their kids (like high-school, university age) can't get jobs. There are no typical student jobs left anymore. McDonalds? Grocery store? Retail? Forget it. There are a dozen people from Punjab for every Canadian kid, and they will put up with a lot more shit. These well-off Canadians are finally starting to realize they've created a country that is hostile to their children.

Anybody who has qualms with these developments is a racist white supremacist and no true progressive. Those who object to the rise in immigration are dogwhistling xenophobes who are covertly advocating for racist policies and non-inclusion of marginalized ethnic minorities.

Liam Kofi Bright has written that "the culture war is sustained by a material inequality that no one is seriously trying to fix" - except for Trudeau, who has done more to fix this imbalance in the distribution of resources between whites and colored people people of colour than any other Prime Minister in the history of this country.

Any progressive who is actually serious about effecting social change (and not merely screaming about it on the internet or using the ideology as a cudgel to beat their enemies into submission) would "give away their property and superior opportunities" to marginalized groups to actually bring an end to systemic inequality. This includes, yes, giving hard-working immigrants from the third world, who did not grow up with the white privilege of an upbringing in a materially wealthy nation with superior access to education and career opportunities, a chance to improve their lives in Canada.

If anything, the growing disdain with the policies of the Trudeau administration is revealing that when push comes to shove, and white progressives are asked to make material sacrifices to uphold and stick to their principles, they immediately step down from their high pulpit of moral superiority and inclusivity. There is no free lunch, and this is what it takes to ensure that marginalized groups can also get a slice of the pie; you cannot have your cake and eat it too by simultaneously demanding material equity and then crying when those same materials, resources, and opportunities are redistributed against your favour. This is the exact dynamic Liam Kofi Bright outlines in the previously linked paper, "White Psychodrama." White progressives should either put up, grin and bear the cost of the very same social justice they demanded through bloody cancellation and mob invective, or end the charade and shut the fuck up.

disproportionately low skill

compete with young Canadians

This sounds more like an indictment of young Canadians, their lack of skills, and their inability to compete in the marketplace with those who will do their exact same entry-level service job, except for lower pay, and for longer hours. Immigrants are hard-working, ambitious, and (possibly even literally) hungry for success. Their lack of access to said opportunities instills within them a greater work ethic and drive to succeed when they don't have the Bank of White Mummy and Daddy to catch them when they fall after their six-year all expenses paid academic career in Theatrical Non-Binary Basket Weaving fails to take off. Why should white Canadians feel that their white privilege of being born in a deeply racist country entitles them to continue upholding the institutions of racism by denying ethnic minorities a job that they can do just as well as a white? What entitles these already privileged whites to a job over minorities?

Prime Minister Trudeau gave an interview where he said: “Housing needs to retain its value. It’s a huge part of people’s potential retirement and future and nest egg.

As an ethnic minority homeowner, I agree, and I refuse to let whites claw back the very same resources they loudly and proudly proclaimed they wanted to redistribute to marginalized folk like myself.

If anything, the growing disdain with the policies of the Trudeau administration is revealing that when push comes to shove, and white progressives are asked to make material sacrifices to uphold and stick to their principles, they immediately step down from their high pulpit of moral superiority and inclusivity. There is no free lunch, and this is what it takes to ensure that marginalized groups can also get a slice of the pie; you cannot have your cake and eat it too by simultaneously demanding material equity and then crying when those same materials, resources, and opportunities are redistributed against your favour. This is the exact dynamic Liam Kofi Bright outlines in the previously linked paper, "White Psychodrama." White progressives should either put up, grin and bear the cost of the very same social justice they demanded through bloody cancellation and mob invective, or end the charade and shut the fuck up.

What I suspect in this case is something like what’s happening in the USA. The elites want the immigrants to drive up costs of goods (increased population leading to increased demand) and to hold down wages. This is how immigrants tend to improve the economy of the country they go to. On the one hand, as new arrivals, they’d need housing, and all the stuff that comes with it. They will need furniture, vehicles, clothes, shoes, kids need school supplies etc. probably toys. So the price of these things go up because suddenly you have doubled the size of the town and thus driven up demand. At the same time, their expectations for wages are dirt cheap— and this delights the business owners who can now bid down the cost of labor (and BONUS! Get points for your work to increase diversity) and even skimp on safety and health rules as third world countries have poor conditions and the workers aren’t going to complain about treatment that while bad by first world standards is wonderful for people used to poor conditions at the workplace. OSHA (and the Canadian equivalent) don’t exist in most developing countries.

So the benefits are the support depends very much on which side of the class divide you sit on. If you’re part of the investment class, immigration is net positive. The stocks will go up, GDP goes up, labor becomes cheaper and more compliant. If your on the working class side, your wages stagnate, your costs go up, your kids are denied opportunities for work (to make room for the cheaper and more compliant immigrant population who won’t complain or ask for raises) their schools spend more effort to teach immigrants English than getting your kids prepared for life after high school.

And there is the reason for the lack of support. It’s a battle between the beneficiary class who wants all these immigrants and the benefits they offer to their social class, vs the working class that all of this is happening too. They don’t like that their wages aren’t going up, or that the new immigrants are allowing dirty and dangerous conditions on the job. They don’t like the resources that should be going to the school computer lab instead being shunted to hiring scores of ESL teachers and textbooks written in whatever language the kids speak.

This sounds more like an indictment of young Canadians, their lack of skills, and their inability to compete in the marketplace with those who will do their exact same entry-level service job, except for lower pay, and for longer hours. Immigrants are hard-working, ambitious, and (possibly even literally) hungry for success. Their lack of access to said opportunities instills within them a greater work ethic and drive to succeed when they don't have the Bank of White Mummy and Daddy to catch them when they fall after their six-year all expenses paid academic career in Theatrical Non-Binary Basket Weaving fails to take off. Why should white Canadians feel that their white privilege of being born in a deeply racist country entitles them to continue upholding the institutions of racism by denying ethnic minorities a job that they can do just as well as a white? What entitles these already privileged whites to a job over minorities?

I think you have a wildly skewed idea of the kinds of people who live in small towns. These people don’t have the resources you think they do. They’re mostly working class. The immigrants are not taking the jobs of high skilled graduates, they’re taking jobs from the working class. And working class people don’t actually have the bank of dad to fall back on. So when they don’t get early work experience it’s an economic setback. Further, these people might be trying to support a family. The advantage immigrants have is that they’re cheap and compliant. They might work a bit harder, but the main thing is that they won’t ewww try to get better wages or conditions. They’ll work for peanuts and sleep 3-4 families to a house so they can live on $10 an hour. No first world labor can afford to work for that little, but now that we have immigrants, you can forget about your wages going up. But remember, if you’re not in favor of being underbid by imported labor, you’re a white privileged racist.

Sounds like you are one or two generations removed from a country in the global south. Here is a hypothetical for you.

Imagine there was a 20% white Mormon minority in your country. They immigrate in large numbers and have more kids per woman than the native born. The flow is so large they don’t need to assimilate in any significant way and within 3 generations they become majority of your society.

Imagine their cultural norms start to change how people interact in your culture and it begins to change politics in a way you dislike. For instance, suppose they insist that “materials, resources, and opportunities are redistributed against your favour” and they use politics to do it. People like you are discriminated against in hiring to give these newcomers a leg up since they are disproportionately poor. You and your kids hear endlessly, everywhere that your society is evil and you owe a blank check to these people.

Just try to inhabit the thought experiment for a second. What emotion do you feel? If you are a normal person, its probably a deep sense of loss – the “black pill” so to speak. The other obvious response is to ask “why do I owe these people anything? I am not gaining anything from their presence. Hell, they owe me for what I am sacrificing!” And indeed you are sacrificing: In sufficient numbers immigration entails the destruction of a society and its replacement with something else. The buildings might remain the same, but everything else would have changed. I’d say those Mormons owed you an enormous debt. And if you decided you wanted to avoid that outcome altogether – that your homeland was the only homeland you had and was worth preserving – then you would be a totally normal person, and your preference should be respected.

On non-inclusion of minorities and racism

Institutions and individuals should treat people equally in the equal-before-the-law Jeffersonian sense. This is what the majority owes the minority. One of the worst things about Canada's mass immigration plus wokeness is that we are jettisoning that sense of equality for equality measured by equal outcomes by group.

The minority owes the majority assimilation. Multiculturalism was a mistake. I take the deep roots thesis seriously: assimilation is a multi-generational process and often a two-way process where the native born can assimilate backwards to newcomer norms. Societies are basically a weighted average of the cultures that make it up, tending towards the lowest common denominator for things like trust – i.e. a high-trust culture can be destroyed once a certain threshold of low-trust people enter it. Your post is frankly full of ethnic resentment against whites, why would I want more of this in my society?

Even though I do believe in the equal treatment principle, that principle is compatible with caring about the future of your society and its culture. I don’t think Canadian culture is improved by admixture of 10% more Indian norms and aesthetics — or those of anyone else for that matter. Minorities should remain small so the assimilation pull towards the mainstream is very strong and the cultural substrate that is Anglo-French Canada can persist into the future. This is what the majority owes itself if it has any self respect.

On Canada living up to its ideals

Your specific point on Canada seems to be that Trudeau is actually delivering the goods that progressives seem to promise and Canada’s coming rejection of Trudeau-ism is hypocrisy. I think that is basically fair and is an indictment of progressivism. I’d only add three things: First when progressives want to redistribute resources on the basis of ethnicity, they are committing a grave injustice. Second, Trudeau’s Liberals have not actually done any of that redistribution. The beneficiaries of his policies are principally old white boomers who own houses. The losers are young people -- disproportionately non-white -- who live in major cities and have inherited more debt, more costly housing, and a worse job market. And third, even if you think that everyone is entitled to the opportunity to live in Canada as you do (and I definitely don’t), the intergenerational transfer from young to old represented by forcing young Canadians to compete with the global poor for work and housing is socially destabilizing and should be opposed for that reason alone.

As an ethnic minority homeowner, I agree, and I refuse to let whites claw back the very same resources they loudly and proudly proclaimed they wanted to redistribute to marginalized folk like myself.

They should never have loudly and proudly proclaimed it. And a fixation on housing as a store of wealth is a feature of immigrant cultures (especially Chinese and Indian) that has caused enormous harm to Canada and I would love to see it sent back.

While I don’t disagree with the main thrust of your post, you appear to have taken the bait of a troll. See this comment by the same user, whose profile is presumably private to keep people from keeping track of the various troll posts, for a general flavor of said user’s meager output.

Oof.

I mean I suspected he was a troll at first, but it was so elaborate complete with the nonsensical woke sociology links.

Million dollar question- so young Canadians want to leave, or no?

Like legal immigration to the US, Australia, etc is generally not easy, but is the mood among young Canadians a ‘we better get out of here’, yet?

Every young Canadian I've met thinks "America, Amirite?" Is the peak of humor and social commentary. They aren't going to move somewhere with guns and racism, which of course define the US.

I think Canadian men see American wages, which are often 2x for high skill professions and are very interested.

Then their wives remind them about abortion, no maternity leave, and school shootings and that’s the end of the conversation.

I think migration interest is highly gendered.

Can someone steelman why a wife would care enough about abortion that said wife would tank a doubling of income and a better life? That just seems insane.

The other two are a misunderstanding and innumeracy

Because expressing a willingness to move to America, especially a red state, from Canada impugns your progressive bona fides among your friends.

It really is that simple: “did you hear Claire is moving to Texas? I could never do that. Too many MAGAs down there, it’s crazy that she thinks she would fit in there. I went to Tampa once and everyone at the beach was white and you just know they all voted Trump. I was super uncomfortable”

Then their wives remind them about abortion, no maternity leave, and school shootings and that’s the end of the conversation.

LOL. The jobs with 2x pay are in places with plenty of abortion and maternity leave (though we're somewhat cruel and will only allow one or the other at a given time).

There are plenty of very high salaries available in red states.

Yes, and id wager those salaries go farther too.

Part of the pitch i use when recruiting from blue states is; What's the point of making 100 - 200k a year if you're going to end up spending 90% of that to live in a filing cabinet and take the bus or subway to work? Come to [redacted], buy a 5 year old luxury car, and enjoy driving to work on clean well-maintained streets and living in an actual house.

Yeah, the salience of tail risk in decision making is quite a difference. And on Mat leave in particular, half the point of going to the US for a Canadian is to escape the two-income trap anyways.

They aren't going to move somewhere with guns and racism, which of course define the US.

Unless they can get a job paying twice as much, then it's like "TN-1, HERE I COME".

Canadas emigration numbers are about 40,000 a year which is very low. However, Canadian statistics have a huge gap in the measurement of emigration. They often make errors of 5 or 6 figures in a year and it’s only when the census is conducted that we know what has actually happened in the interim.

All we can really say is anecdotally, there is a huge outflow happening. I recently moved and the previous occupant of my house moved to the States. One of my friends became an ex-pat in Europe last summer and another just sold his place and is moving to Colombia. Yes anecdotal, but this hasn’t happened in my friend group before.

What we do have good stats on is people moving within country and the migration out of major cities is accelerating. It’s always been true that major cities are population sinks with low fertility and outmigration of natives to be replaced with immigrants. Recently , this has picked up and smaller Canadian cities like Halifax or Victoria have seen big inflows (ruining their housing markets too).

So people are responding with action which is great to see, but politically this is going to be the greatest ever repudiation of the left in Canada. The conservatives are polling at 47% among the young.

So people are responding with action which is great to see, but politically this is going to be the greatest ever repudiation of the left in Canada. The conservatives are polling at 47% among the young.

It will be interesting to see what the Conservatives actually do if (when) they form government. So far Poilievre has only offered the vaguest commitments to reducing inflow (saying things like he will "match immigration to rate of homebuilding").

The Conservative Party has historically been reliant on industries that take advantage of TFWs/international students. Almost half their MPs are landlords. They don't really want to slow this down anymore than the Liberals do. The swing of the youth vote towards them is in large part predicated on anti-immigration sentiment, so how do they reconcile this?

Luckily for them the Liberals have given them so much room to maneuver this is less of threading the needle and more finding your way out of an open door. Even cutting the inflow by half would leave them at roughly double the rate of the Harper years.

I happened to speak with two Canadians this month and in both cases housing was brought up. One told me that there were too many immigrants arriving too fast but that their country of origin was immaterial, and in any case Canadians don’t have a right to complain because of the residential schools controversy. The other told me point blank there were way too many Indians arriving, that it is ruining the country and that they would vote for Trump if they lived in America. The former was a white Canadian of colonial stock and the latter was a first-gen Pakistani replete with accent.

As a migrant who mainly works with migrants , the complaints about housing and traffic are identical to what you'd assume the white "racist" would say.

It's at the point where more secure migrants are annoyed at the last wave.

Canadians don’t have a right to complain because of the residential schools controversy

I hate the idea that the residential schools narrative (and narratives of similar nature) could be so effective. How do you even begin to deprogram such a person?

Maybe just callously adopting your local equivalent of 'Armenian genocide? made up nonsense, and they deserved it all anyway' is the meta. Admittedly I'm biased in that direction.

I mean, residential school mass graves are quite literally made up.

Have you guys heard of Welcome To Country? Its basically land acknowledgments but somehow cringier, performed in Australia everyfuckingwhere especially at government level. I am 100% sure they originated as a tokenistic way of fobbing off the concerns of 'indigenous' communities.

While the aussies seem largely uncaring or sick of this government grovelling, the Canadians have been absolutely enthralled by it. White Canadians drooling at the prospect of demonstrating their progressive credentials, to further set themselves apart from their brutal southern kins.

I honestly think the Canadians are going the way of the Scots. A funny accented people whose entire modern existence is defined by differentiating themselves as much as possible from their far more successful and relevant southern brothers, with an almost ironic fetishization of a local orange-brown liquid. Thankfully for the Canadians Maple Syrup is actually good, unlike that disgusting abomination Irn-Bru.

unlike that disgusting abomination Irn-Bru.

Now that I know about this, I would be quite interested in finding a way to try it without having to actually visit that cursed island.

And Canadian accents aren't that funny.

It's an overly sweet bubblegum flavour drink that makes cherryade seem sophisticated and grown up.

While the aussies seem largely uncaring or sick of this government grovelling

Depends on the Aussie. People I've met from Melbourne were devastated when the voice referendum failed. I doubt they mind land acknowledgements.

Thankfully for the Canadians Maple Syrup is actually good,

How dare you try to appropriate what rightfully belongs to the Green Mountain State!

The other told me point blank there were way too many Indians arriving, that it is ruining the country and that they would vote for Trump if they lived in America. The former was a white Canadian of colonial stock and the latter was a first-gen Pakistani replete with accent.

Was this an attitude toward South Asian immigrants generally, or a reflection of Indian-Pakistani animosity? I'm assuming the former, but I've seen the latter around from time to time (my favorite example was a mixed group of second-generation students mocking that their parents probably hated each other).

I was told by this person that said animosity completely goes away upon migrating to the West, that Pakistanis hate Indians because they are “uneducated”.

Let’s say the resident school controversy was true. As best I can make out the logic, it is:

  1. Europeans came here and took land from the native population.

  2. Natives suffered as a result.

  3. As a descendent of those Europeans, I am morally responsible.

  4. Therefore it is a good thing if a new population comes here and harms the current natives (ie me).

It seems quite odd to me. First, it assumes generational guilt. And if that is true, then maybe the original natives “deserved” it. It also implies the new population while enacting justice is committing a wrong. Very confusing.

Well, if we did this to the Indians, it's only fair that the Indians get to do it to us.

More seriously, I think that especially among young Canadians, there is a sense that progressive policies have failed. As I write this, I'm walking by a sign advertising our local progressive party (The NDP). The sign sits in front of a number of tents containing the homeless (or "unhoused people"). 9 years ago, when I moved into this neighborhood, it was still not a good neighborhood, but there weren't visible crack pipes, dirty needles, or homeless people shrieking profanities all through the night. The BC NDP decriminalizing drugs has visibly led to an explosion in the homeless population and general appearance of decay.

I live in a rent controlled building. My rent is around $1200 CAD monthly, compared to what would be around $2700 CAD if I were to move in today. The progressive party has failed at keeping life affordable for the middle class (and their federal counterparts literally voted to keep increasing demand on housing.)

What I think has happened is that the youth have reached a point where it is literally impossible to survive with the progressive policies. The insulation that the standard progressive has against the negative repercussions of their policies has been worn away, and when they cry uncle, the government they elected doubles down on the policies hurting them.

It's easy to be progressive when it just means being nice. It's much harder when it means that you rent a tiny shoebox for the rest of your life, and can't start a family, or travel, or do anything but eck out an existence for the corporate overlords the progressives swear they opposed, but who somehow keep doing better and better. And all the while, the government keeps upping taxes, but somehow they're all gone by the time you're supposed to see them.

It’s quite interesting. In New Zealand, the leader of the anti-immigration party is a Maori. But Māori likely have more influence in New Zealand than the first nations do in Canada.

Adding to the confusion, only the guilt is transmitted forward through time. For some reason, none of the credit for building a first world country follows.

The same people saying "You must feel bad for the horrible things your ancestors did" will not even skip a beat before saying "you can't feel pride for the great things your ancestors achieved." So conveniently you can't assume any credit for creating a successful nation, but you get to feel blame for what happened to any minorities or natives who suffered during its creation, just in case you thought those two factors might balance out the ledger.

I am utterly unclear as to the mechanism that allows blame to propagate forward through time and generations but doesn't allow credit and pride to propagate as well.

Some of them hate whites, some of them are aware of the internal tension, and some of them see a sort of collective guilt that needs to be repaired by incorporating minorities into the broader structure of society.

I am utterly unclear as to the mechanism that allows blame to propagate forward through time and generations but doesn't allow credit and pride to propagate as well.

It's not about a mechanism. It's bullshit wordcelry.

The entire thing exists to harm what's left of the culture of your people and to deprive you of power. That was explicitly stated by the people who made it up, except nobody bothers to read marxist books but people paid to do so or lunatics. Trying to tease about the internal consistency of an ideology seeking your dispossession is just crazy.

Rufo's book "America's Cultural Revolution" goes about the genesis of that bullshit in excruciating, mind numbing details, it's also widely available.

I feel like Canadians used to be very smug about being a first world nation. America with +40% niceness and +20% multiculturalism basically.

I don't know what happened. My social circle has narrowed in terms of ethnic Anglo/native-born Canadians outside of a few at work and my media diet is extremely Americanized (and hyper-guilt driven) so maybe I don't see it as much (or people really are just tired after the recent migrant wave). On the other hand that may be true of Canadians themselves, which might explain the increased pessimism. Or whatever common factor drove the hope-and-change era around the time I arrived in both countries is just done everyone is now more pessimistic.

I am utterly unclear as to the mechanism that allows blame to propagate forward through time and generations but doesn't allow credit and pride to propagate as well.

Other countries didn't succeed in becoming first world nations because Canada/America/the West's success is based on their exploitation. Simple.

Other countries didn't succeed in becoming first world nations because Canada/America/the West's success is based on their exploitation. Simple.

Doesn't really work when you can see how Japan recover from nukes and occupation, or Singapore vaulting to first World status and becoming a beacon of civilization, with little apparent exploitation of other nations.

Works even less when you notice that places like Rhodesia and South America were pretty much first-world or close second-world countries right up until the Western influence withdrew.

I said it was simple, not that you would find it credible. But that's the argument.

You start giving counter-examples and you'll hear about Haiti's reparations, slaves building America, coups in LatAm, how India had X% of the world's GDP before Britain looted it, bad borders in Africa and the ME, sanctions against Zimbabwe meanwhile honorary white Japan (which was spared colonialism - somehow) was needed as a bulwark against the Soviets and so was treated relatively well. They have explanations, it's just a matter of how much you think they're cope (I've swung over to the "cope" side but I change most of my opinions an average of every eight years and I'm in the "converted zealot" stage and it's really not helpful for digging out nuance.)

It may not hold up but it's the closest thing to a coherent justification for the asymmetry I've seen.

You asked for some theory that would allow one and not the other, not just an explanation of nakedly self-serving behavior. I doubt anyone needs to hear "my opponents want me to believe things that help them and to avoid things that don't" from me.

No, I get that.

Its just every epicycle they have to add makes it less credible to me.

It is one thing to point to some guy who inherited wealth built on the backs of actual slaves or exploitation, and say that maybe he doesn't deserve everything he has.

Quite another to point at somebody who just happened to be born into a civilization that was built in part on the back of slaves and through exploitation of weaker neighbors, and claim that just because his ancestors bled, died, and labored to build a nation so nice that everybody wants to move there he doesn't get to be proud of himself... and he also should feel guilt for all the people that were exploited to build the nation (which includes his ancestors, mind!).

I've said it elsewhere, the lesson of politics since about 2010 is "identity politics and racial grievances are a great way to get others to do what you want and give you their stuff."

Of course the end state of this is leftists revolting against nature. It always is. Some nations were bequeathed huge stores of natural bounty, some were not, and this determined their future courses to some huge degree. The only way to correct for this is to move that natural bounty around until every place on earth can obtain some kind of parity.

meanwhile honorary white Japan (which was spared colonialism - somehow)

When the threat of colonization became apparent, they built themselves up into a modern state.

Which itself is a rather good refutation of the nonsense theories about how the plight of the Third World is all due to the First World, but you'll never get anyone who believes it to change their mind.

It is honestly a weird self hatred

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