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 -
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.
If you care about behavior why are you fixating on correlate instead of the thing you allegedly care about?
And again, how has that worked out? Would you describe thier 60 years of tenure as a good thing?
Because it's the best predictor. For example, how black an area is is a better predictor for crime than how poor it is. You can't look at things after the fact when you are trying to make predictions. Which is why a simple group based immigration policy like 'white men of good character' is better than 'lets throw shit on a wall and see what sticks'.
If you want the long and short of it look at economic outcomes for immigrants in Denmark. Turns out the only net positive tax paying immigrants are from other European countries and specific Asian countries. Everything else turns into a net negative. With that information you can craft a very good immigration policy if you care about net positive tax payers. But for some reason that's not good enough for any 'liberals'. As they stumble over the 'racism' aspect of it. Bending the knee to the modern 'woke institutions' they claim to be in opposition to.
Not for me, no. But it's been very good for them. They have had conservatives bent over the bed for 60 years and they show no sign of letting up. In fact, every decade a new crop of 'conservatives' pops up it's more progressive and liberal than the one before. And they all believe themselves to be the opposite! It would be comical if it weren't for all the ugliness, destruction and pain it causes.
No it's not, because an even better predictor is some combination of past history and direct obsevation.
I am going to disregard the multiple paragraphs of woke nonsense you just spouted off and ask a simple question. Are you calling Clenence Thomas a nigger?
Are you seriously trying to argue that because of his skin color he should be considered as a shoplifter or a drug-adict and not as a supreme court judge?
If your answer is anything less than an unequivocal "yes" how do you reconcile that with the rest of your post?
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
More options
Context Copy link