site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   30028 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 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.

“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 state yard.

Foreigners drive down native birth rates. Diversity drives down White birth rates. It is replacement, and it's genocide, and it's ethnic cleansing.

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.

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.

Foreigners drive down native birth rates. Diversity drives down White birth rates.

[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.

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?

Multiple factors?

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".)

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.

Who is being genocided here again?

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.

The ones who are being subjected to migration in their homelands.

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.

Ok, but what that means is that homeland is mutable. If America is your homeland it is also the homeland of African-Americans, and Jewish-Americans and so on and so forth. Haitians can become Americans just as your ancestors did. That's the logical problem here. Either homeland is immutable which is consistent but means America is not your homeland, or it is mutable and all homeland means is who has the power to move there and live there.

More comments

White people's homeland is not America

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.

Entirely fair. But then America is also the homeland of lots of Asian people and black people and Jewish people and even Haitians and the like. If it is just a matter of time, then everywhere is just a potential homeland for whoever moves there, which I think KMC rejects as he doesn't believe people can really become American. That's the logical hole in his argument I am pointing at.

If he believes America is now the homeland for white Americans, it must also be the homeland for all the other ethnicities, like African-Americans etc. But he explicitly does not think that hyphenated Americans are real Americans.

More comments

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?

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.

"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.

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