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 -
Here's my good faith answer: They won't.
Demographically there is no future 'Republican' party. There are no measures in place to turn the tide of the browning of America. What you'll get is a third world political schema. The playbook runs the same direction everywhere: Brown identitarianism. The democrats can literally do nothing and everything will be golden.
The Republicans will change their tune and move towards 'respectable' and 'sensible' third world politics. A regimented and what they hope to be invisible caste system where specific institutions that separate the good from the bad are solidified and protected. The future 'democrats' exist to destroy this with more extreme class and ethnocentric propaganda.
There's no sense in presuming anything else. Demographically the country is being held together by a bunch of 40-80 year olds. White children are already a minority. On top of that the history of American conservatism is one of nothing but losses. There is not a single thing on earth they have managed to conserve. The only thing democrats need to do is keep on keeping on. Which is what happens regardless of who wins the elections as seemingly every single politician loves nothing but an endless stream of brown immigrants.
I disagree.
The GOP has a clear path forward, Trump has seemingly reinstantiated the Reaganist "coalition of doers", the coalition of people who add value to the economy rather than extracting it. That is a brand with a future.
In contrast it seems to me that it's actually the Democrats who are looking down the barrel of demographic collapse. As they increasingly become the party of queer xes/xirs and wine-drunk cat-moms they become increasingly dependent on "imported" votes and lumpenproles and that is why they have (quite reasonably tbh) been treating Trump's anti-immigration stance as an existential threat.
The "browning of America" is a non issue next to the "Asiaing" or "South Americaing" of America.
If you want to tie your future to third world politics, sure. That is exactly what happened to Reagan's California.
Democrats are not looking down the barrel of demographic collapse. Every single relevant immigration demographic votes Democrat. You are completely wrong in this assumption. To put things a different way, both Republicans and Democrats in the US face a demographic 'collapse' of their white voter base, as the white share of the population is shrinking. Both need their share of the voting block to grow, but it's only Democrats who are successfully doing it by. Republicans are doing worse than nothing for the last 80 years.
Trump has no 'anti-immigration' stance. As the man has repeatedly stated he wants as many people as possible to come in legally.
The 'browning of America' counts everyone who is not white. That includes Asians and South Americans.
Yes, California's ruling class has been quite vocal in their repudiation of the low-key barstool populism of men like Nixon and Reagan. How has that been working out for them? You want to see what the "third-worlding" of America looks like in practical terms? California is your patient zero.
Yes I know. It's also a rather stupid and Unamerican way to frame things, which is why I made the point to say the "Asiaing" or "South Americaing" of America. Because you see, the problem is not white people brown people or blue people. (that's the woke mind-virus talking) The problem is the importation of parasites and social dysfunction from Asia and South America.
You see, the specific corner of the US I am in has a sizeable black/brown population that's been here since the 18th century. In short, my America isn't "browning" so much as it is brown and has been for longer than anyone can remember. It is also obvious at a glance that it's not these people who are the problem. You want to see the problem? look to California, look to the Northeast. There is your problem.
That's exactly my point? What did you think I was saying when I pointed out the folly of California? How did you think Californias current "ruling class" came to be?
Can you place the parasites and social dysfunction in a box or does it come with the people? It's obviously coming with the people. Where did they get it from? Does it fall from the sky or is it just a product of these people not being like white people? And the most important question of all, are there any realistic mechanisms to sort the people from the parasites and dysfunction?
Your particular corner of America is not representative of America as a whole, which ued to be 85-90% white between 1910 and 1960. The social dysfunction that has followed the largest non-white group of 'Americans' has done so for the entirety of the countries history. These people are obviously a problem, regardless of what you think it is.
I think they "came to be" by rejecting both our nation's founding principles, and the "low-key barstool populism of men like Nixon and Reagan" in favor of the rhetoric of people like you. People who care more about the color of a man's skin than they do their behavior/content of thier character.
Yes you can. Specifically by tackling the behavior directly. The cucked liberal identitarian whinges about "disparate impacts" and "social capital" the based conservative declares "looters will be shot" and allows the cards to fall where they may.
Im going stop you right there. When I look at the US today (or anytime in the last 40 years or so) the most socially dysfunctional states are almost never the states that are the most black or brown, its the states that are the most blue.
Then you would be wrong. The people who came to be the ruling class in California just promised a group of people within their constituency certain things that those people wanted. These things were not illegal because men like Reagan made them legal. The only principle of the founding fathers that was rejected was rejected by both Reagan and the now ruling class of California: That immigration be reserved for white men of good character.
I care about race, since race correlates with behavior.
The cucked liberal runs every socially relevant institution in America. The based conservative licks their boot and talks tough on social media before folding to the new cucked liberal politics like every single conservative before him. I mean, everything you've professed to believe so far is just the cucked liberalism of 30 years ago.
So black population centers aren't the most violent and poorest? The social dysfunction you see in places where the murder rate is comparable to Africa is somehow not as bad as in white neighborhoods in Vermont? I'm far from convinced.
No, you care about race because you made a choice to care about race.
And again, how has that been working out for them? and how has it been working out for those institutions?
Mine is not the "cucked liberalism" of 30 years ago, mine is the cucked liberalism of 200 years ago.
Define black, define poor, define violent. Alternately just take a walk through San Francisco, Chicago, or Minneapolis and then take take the same walk in Atlanta, Mobile, or Jacksonville and tell me which seems more dysfunctional.
I understand that you will likely disagree but i would contend that a reduction in social status is a small price to pay for clean streets and relative peace.
Race correlates with behavior. This is a fact. You can ignore it and make bad decisions or take it into account and make better ones.
They've been in charge for the last 60 years and have been solidifying an underclass to secure their existence into the future... Pretty good, I would say. Most of them have ballooned in size, with the people in charge becoming richer and more powerful. At the same time they have increased their influence. Not just in America but globally.
Your anti-race position says otherwise. There is no reason for a classical liberal to hold any reservations about race as a relevant metric. Which is why actual classical liberals who had to make decisions took it into account.
Is this a joke?
I don't understand your point. For instance, Jacksonville has a very high violent crime rate. Not a surprise given its sizeable black population. Compared to San Francisco, with a relatively small black population, but a big Asian population, it has a comparatively and relatively low violent crime rate. I don't understand why you are comparing these cities as if I would like one over another. There are areas in both that are safe and not safe. The most predictive variable when looking at crime is how black the city is.
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
More options
Context Copy link
Much more so on X than in reality. Apart from Texas, the places that pay net federal taxes are all solidly blue, and the people who actually build Musk's rockets appear to be (based on published stats about who corporate employees donate to) supermajority Democrats. The biggest Republican success story (De Santis' Florida) has an economy that is dependent on attracting retirees who come with large fiscal transfers attached. Remember that Trump's stated economic policy (which his normie supporters are strongly in favour of) is to repeal the CHIPS act, impose 10-20% tariffs on any ASML EUV machines that Intel (or TSMC US) tries to install in their next fab, and focus industrial policy on trying to bring toaster factories back to the Rustbelt.
The problem for a coalition of doers on the right is that most of the doers sit in the libertarian quadrant of the political compass, whereas the easiest place to take votes off the Democrats is in the populist quadrant. In the UK, housing policy is sufficiently centralised that this problem blows up the Conservative Party about once every six months.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Demographics isn’t the only story here though. Trump made serious headway with conservative Hispanic voters, which proves that the GOP doesn’t have to be a rump party for grumpy white men hrumpfing their way to demographic irrelevance. The thing drawing people is that the conservatives are also the Christian Party and the party of such values as anti-abortion, pro-marriage, not wanting to trans your kids, teaching the Tem Commandments in schools, etc. all of which conservative Catholic Hispanics would be mostly in favor of. The GOP is also the meritocratic and capitalist party in which hard work and private ownership of goods, businesses etc. are seen as the keys to prosperity. This would also tend to draw the same demographics as they’re fleeing actual socialism, and they know exactly where it leads. They’re not going to vote for socialism in their new country.
I'm hard pressed to call 45% to the 44% of Bush Jr "serious headway".
The reason demographics is the only story here is that the group voting 45% for Trump is growing. Whilst the group voting 60% for Trump is shrinking. And despite allegedly "fleeing actual socialism" the majority of them has consistently voted for the closest approximation of it in American politics.
On top of that, the things drawing people towards the Democrat party are far more tangible than the Republican. Most notably money in your pocket and food in your belly. As can be seen in California where 55% of immigrant households accept some form of welfare benefits. This group, as a total % of the population, is growing. Whilst the "native" group with 25% accepting welfare is shrinking.
The main point that underscores all of this is that the demographics are pushing the country towards third world norms. If people care a lot about whatever third world hole they live in being controlled by people labeling themselves "Republican" instead of "Democrat" I can't fault them. But I point out, usually in complete futility, that once you've reached that point, it doesn't matter. You get to have Brazil level living standards and if you want something else it doesn't matter.
Odd thing to comment on a thread explicitly about the electoral prospects of the Democratic party. Not every post is an invitation to kvetch about immigration.
It's not an odd thing and my answer was on topic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Naw. Even if there was some great conspiracy to brown america, intermarriage rates have been getting higher for decades. The endpoint is just brazil. where even people with visible african and amerindian admixture just identify as "white" and have the same culture as everyone else in their city anyways. America's assimilative power is just too great.
Clarence Thomas is "Whiter" in the Kipling-esque sense than any of the queers, trans, furries, Et Al who are very concerned about dysigeninics or "the browning of America". CMV ;-|
More options
Context Copy link
Nawone said that there was.
80-90% of people are not intermarrying. The largest population increases are not from new births but immigrants, most of whom are arriving from rather ethnohomogenous places. I see no relevance to that graph unless you are talking about an America 200 years in the future. My point would be that until you have Brazil and full blown third world politics, you have more and more brown identitarianism. Which is what's already going on and has been going on with every single third world minority group that enters America.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link