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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
When minorities vote Democrat at rates of 60% (Hispanic and Asian) or 90+% (black), you don't need to buy anything, you just need to have them there, and registered. They will take care of the rest with or without your handouts.
Why do you think this is the case, then?
Probably because those minorities and foreigners are exhibiting the failure mode of all democracies, especially when they are multi-racial. They know voting is a racial head-count, and if they want to be counted, they need to vote D.
The Democrats are the party of minorities and foreigners. They've chosen to be so rather than moderate their policies to appeal to the native American population. This is a reversion to form, as Democrats have been shot through with international communists and Soviet sympathizers since FDR was first elected.
This is why you see internal migration going from blue states to red states. Democrats have shit policies which drive people out. This should cause Democrats to slowly lose relevance, or force them to pivot to more reasonable policies. Instead, they import foreigners, make them citizens, and rely on those votes (and the census representation that goes with the warm bodies) to maintain relevance.
The problem with this is that it means Democrats are trying to replace their opponents, breed them out, and kill them through neglect and indifference, in order to turn the country into a one-party government. When California becomes a one-party state, people leave for Texas and Idaho. When all of the US becomes Soviet, there's nowhere left to move.
I'm interested in "failure mode of all democracies" -- do you really think this, and what evidence are you using? Because sure, I can think of a fair few countries where democracy went poorly, but I'm not sure I'd jump to "democracy always fails in this manner" or similar argument "all democratic failures happen in this manner" or even "all countries that get too multiethnic and are democracies fail this way" and the similar prediction that "all democracies are doomed to eventual failure". Not quite sure which angle exactly you're describing.
If anything, I think that the two-party system, for all its incredible and well-documented failings, actually serves as a pretty good insulation from what I think you're talking about. Since both parties have an incentive to change their policies (often incrementally, but the base pressures are there) in order to win, or regain an edge, this means that a multi-ethnic state cannot rely on simple alliances between ethnic groups, but must in some sense compete for them, and trade groups once in a while too. Don't think we'd get very far broaching replacement theory per se in this context, but more wondering about the proposed mechanism and evidence side of things. Even assuming deliberate importation of votes is happening and intentional (which I obviously above dispute), for the sake of argument here, you can't do so indefinitely. I just don't think it usually makes sense numerically, without being washed out by backlash. For example, we can plainly see that even Kamala has had to harden her border policies. That's in direct response to discontent. Might she be lying? Sure. But the discontent is real and might even cost her an election, which I count as evidence for my above contention.
Greece and Rome, mostly, as well as the American Founders reflecting on Greece and Rome. This is ancient, and has been known for millennia. This is nothing new, and it is nothing I came up with on my own.
Read Aristotle and Socrates and Plato. Read Thucydides. Read history.
If you're looking for a peer-reviewed study in Nature or Science, you've come to the wrong place.
You are incorrect, it's obviously happening, and it's happening at an unprecedented pace during this administration.
Another, longer article arguing the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Even in a high-immigration scenario, US population will peak around 2080 and red tribe white TFR is the highest stable one. Just make it that far and the country gets reconquêred.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link