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 -
Deliberately working to reduce the White share of the population is called...what exactly? I like my words, what words do you use?
“Replacing” you? It’s a traditional complaint, even.
I guess I wouldn’t mind “supplementing,” either. It’s more accurate.
Foreigners drive down native birth rates. Diversity drives down White birth rates. It is replacement, and it's genocide, and it's ethnic cleansing.
Supplements are not the majority, and if they are, they are no longer supplementing. It's less accurate, but it's more palatable to your sensibilities.
I wouldn't be saying this if it were truly supplemental, and the nation were 85% White, 10% Black, and 5% Supplements. Did you notice that the numbers are far from that? Or are you just ignoring it?
Dandelions aren't supplementing my lawn any more than grass is supplementing my flower beds. And Morning Glory, no matter the location, needs to be uprooted in any civilized
stateyard.Actually, in the US, white birth rates are highest in three areas- those with high percentages of religious minorities(ex Amish country), deep rural areas, and heavily Hispanic areas.
Not foreign, few foreigners, and are the Hispanics counted as White? I would bet on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
[citation needed]
The lowest birth rates are found in very homogeneous countries such as South Korea and Japan. In spite of all its diversity, the US white (non-hispanic) birth rate is still greater than that of comparatively homogeneous countries like (much richer) Norway or (barely) (much poorer) Hungary. What gives?
"Diluting" seems like a more accurate and value-neutral verb.
Multiple factors?
More options
Context Copy link
Number 1 result when I searched that exact phrase, which references this study.
Now that I've cited it, you'll concede the point, right? Otherwise what is the point of asking for the citation?
Thanks for the citation. It's a bit of a rough read, being a working paper (which also means it has not fully gone through peer review), but if I read it correctly, Table 5 suggests that with sufficient controls, diversity drives down other races' birth rates by at least about as much and in many cases more (Blacks, East Asians) than those of Whites. This makes your gloss of it rather tendentious. Who is being genocided here again?
(Assuming the rest of the paper is sound, I would take it as evidence for a more general point along the lines of "diversity drives down birthrates".)
The ones who are being subjected to migration in their homelands. Niger isn't getting diverse, and neither are India or China even if Nigerians or Indians or Chinese are also negatively affected by diversity.
But White people's homeland is not America. The Native Americans then would have been ethnically cleansed by us. But if it has to be our homeland to count then we have no claim to be upset about people moving to the US. Leave that to the natives.
I am a Native American.
If you want to weep tears for the Sioux, or the Blackfoot, or some other tribe, then go ahead and name them, but they are not, and have never been, American.
More options
Context Copy link
For how many years must a people inhabit a location before that location counts as that people's "homeland"? I'm thinking that a timespan of 200 years sounds quite reasonable. Even 100 years or 50 years could be argued for.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why does it matter for purposes of determining whether a "genocide" of Indians is going on whether an Indian woman is made to have fewer children in India, or whether she is shipped to the US and then made to have fewer children there? Would you consider it less genocidal of US Whites if the same numbers (so something like 100 million?) that is currently enticed to move into diverse US cities and goes on to have lower TFR there instead were enticed to move to India and died childless over there?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If these people weren't "deficit financed" maybe. But that's not the situation. There is no level playing field here. There is a scheme to undercut the labor market of legacy Americans, so that the company no longer needs to pay a living wage, and the government subsidizes these people to live there.
So you lose your job because these people can be paid less. Your taxes go to paying for them. All your institutions (schools, hospitals, policing) are overrun by them such that the services you can derive from them are greatly diminished. Landlords kick out their tenants because why rent to 1 legacy American family when you can collect welfare checks from 5 third world families.
Yes, they are replacing white Americans. This isn't just a "git gud" or "sucks to suck" argument where Whites have sour grapes about foreigners outcompeting them. The thumb is on the scale so fucking hard it's impossible to survive, except to accept living in third world conditions or leaving.
Or being killed in the ongoing pogrom.
More options
Context Copy link
"supplant", possibly. Increase the supply of workers and the mid-to-high iq whites are forced to move to lower crime and higher-pay, yet lower birth-rate cultural and physical zones.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link