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 -
Americans (of any non-indian ethnicity) lose the biological competition regardless of whether intermarriage occurs 100%, 50%, or 0%. Because Indian genes will still make up 99% of India if +200mil were dropped in America. American genes simply reduce their prevalence (if admixed) or ability to proliferate (if no intermarriage occurs). It makes no sense to do this given what we know about our design: with instincts to form groups exclusively for the purposes of gene proliferation. Who would ever form a group that specifically reduces their reproductive success?
If this continues, the genes of that organism will go extinct. Their genes are reduced by half per iteration.
Humans did not evolve to be cloned, they evolved to live in somewhat small bands where 3rd-4th degree cousin marriage was common.
Only if they're immigrants (who wouldn't otherwise have come, else they reproduce with each other) and fertility's perfectly elastic with population density (so that the home country reproduces more to replace the emigrants and the destination country reproduces less because of the immigrants). I don't think fertility's perfectly elastic with population transfer, though as I've previously noted it's not zero either.
Even if it is not elastic with density, these people are going to be in your territory forever, whereas the original people still maintain dominion over their territory. So they have thousands of years to change fertility in their country where they often make up 99% inhabitants, but you introduced genes that will stay in your territory forever.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is this guy white?
White enough.
Heck i would argue that guys like Larry Elder and Clarence Thomas are "Whiter" culturally than a lot of the queer/non-binary grifters posting about "white supremacy" on X.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm an American. The past few generations of my family were Americans.
What on Earth is an "American gene"? I don't mean that as an obtuse "pretending I can't understand words" rhetorical trick. My ancestors are from Ireland. You mean my Irish genes were transformed into American genes? Like how most white Americans are predominantly some mix of English and German genes, now transformed into "American genes"?
I literally explained this in the parentheses of the first sentence. If you are an American, of literally any ancestry, then your reproductive success is harmed with the introduction of Indian genes. Your biological success is reduced by introducing H1B immigrants, especially as it makes eventual citizenship more likely. Because this is a new introduction at a time when every group is low TF. And so this applies to all non-Indian Americans. Are you American? You have genes and are affected.
I don't see how this harms my reproductive success. The presence or absence of such people is unrelated to me having kids. Unless I have children with one of them, in which case it is to my reproductive benefit.
We're missing some important point here to tie this together.
American population cannot growth infinitely and you are filling the land with far away genes. These people disproportionately take high income jobs. It deters the government and industries from problem-solving about our own fertility. Even nepotism aside, which is also an issue, it affects your reproductive success*. And you shouldn’t be sure that your descendants are going to forever mate in a separate sphere. Also, H1B is mostly men. Also, if you would only reproductive if you saw a woman who originates 8000 miles away, you are a genetic anomaly.
Those H1B men aren't taking all the women. Our reproductive success or lack of it doesn't hinge on half a million H1B workers hyper-concentrated in a few major cities. They're a small and irrelevant group in this matter. I've never been denied a relationship because an Indian guy took her first. That's not a problem for American men.
I know a number of American men who married immigrant women and have kids with them. Those particular immigrants were apparently to those men's reproductive advantage. Not to generalize too much from a few people I personally know.
There are some guys who appear to excessively like a certain sort of woman. Only dating Hispanics or Asians or something. I'm not that way, but I'm not going to judge them. If they are overcome with lust for women who traveled 5000 miles to live in the US, so be it. Now that I'm older, I know older couples and those guys typically married one of those women. I'm calling that success according to their preferences.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My brother in Christ, I can assure you my reproductive success is enhanced by the introduction of thicc Latinas, beautiful Persians, and blue-eyed Ukrainians into our domain.
I urge you to free your dick from these restrictive covenants.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's by no means an implausible mid-term future scenario for the US to have higher fertility than India; indeed, the USA being a top three developed world country for TFR(competing with France for #2) is very much in the cards and India's fertility is plummeting and already below replacement.
More options
Context Copy link
Why should it matter to us how many total Indians there are in the world? There could be two or three billion people on the subcontinent and they would still be living in miserable squalor and unable to influence global affairs. Countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia have populations in the hundreds of millions and can be freely ignored or bullied by more powerful states a fraction of their size.
Given the fact that the urban areas where such people tend to live are fertility shredders, the proportion of Asian ancestry in their descendants will be lower than you might expect (cf. the mixed urban population of the Roman empire left hardly any genetic trace in modern Italians and yet they did leave behind many cultural and literary works of value).
That is true, and yet I am still different from a Papuan tribesman not simply by culture or upbringing, but because my ancestors underwent thousands of years of genetic pacification and adaptation to living in settled agricultural communities with higher population densities. The software may not yet be out of beta, but I have no desire to scrap it all and return to the jungle. Thankfully, there are no countries with millions of hunter-gatherers for mindkilled liberals to suggest we take in, but if there were I would oppose it in the strongest terms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link