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 -
/pol/ had the kill shot years ago. How are they good for us but not their home country?
If we answered that question truthfully we could have a serious discussion about exact numbers to allow, rather than having to "dance" around it with the sledgehammer of the elimination of all H-class Visas. We could say, biologically, there is a maximum and knowable quantity of immigration candidates from any given country with average standards of living below the West.
Then, if we were allowing more than that umber, we would know either our standards were slipping, or they were being gamed.
Europeans and certain other populations exhibit a high average level of civilized behavior, call that inclination h, following from g. Russia is very close to the US, in many ways more civilized, but I would still feel confident saying measured on the whole, Russia is one standard deviation below America in h value. One step of degradation below Russia is not India, so India must be at least two steps below Russia, which means it is no closer than three below the United States. In comparison, Iceland is probably one sigma above, and Japan two.
I think this is imprecise, that there are external factors to an extent, but there are such obvious differences looking from India, to the US, to Japan, that there's something intrinsic and gestalt that speaks broadly to the peoples, and that does feel close enough.
For an Indian immigrant to match, they would need come from a population at least 3 sigmas above India's average h. This rejects almost all Indians, from 1.4 billion to 1.9 million. It's less than that, though, because if you want to improve a country, you can't bring in people who are only average. So the actual line starts at 4 sigmas, and that reduces it to about 45,000.
I have no problem believing there are about 45,000 Indians who would contribute to the strength of America. It's math. Here's the problem, I would assume a minimum of half of those persons intend to live out their days as citizens of India, using their talents in their own country for their own gain. Also consider others in that population will have immigrated elsewhere, such as Europe. This means short of calamitous conditions wherein only America is a viable immigration target, we should have a soft cap of 20,000, to in no circumstances exceed the hard cap of 45,000.
We're well over that. In 2023 (Page 32) there were 279,386 H-1B issuances to Indian nationals. Ignore everything I just wrote, I know that number immediately as gross excess. The US isn't lacking, in anything, to the degree that it requires the importation of nearly 300,000 laborers from a single country. Especially when you remember, that's just the H-1B admissions.
Despite this, it is conceivable the number could exceed 45,000, but only if we instituted extremely strict requirements, ensured those requirements could not be gamed, abolished birthright citizenship including retroactive revocations, etc.
Who says they aren't good for their own country?
The immigrants say that when they leave and don't come back.
There are Mexican immigrants who would be good for Mexico even though they aren't good for the US. The Mexican government has built a dependence on those people leaving. They're dissatisfied and highly motivated compared to their remaining countrymen, they could be rallied by a populist like Bukele as he oversees a new and greater Porfiriato and grinds the cartels into the dirt. Years ago I wouldn't have thought it possible, and Bukele is in a different situation since El Salvador is so small and Mara Salvatrucha members have the most convenient habit of getting MS-13 tattooed on their faces, but a horrifically violent gang just bent over when a figure finally stood tall and said enough. The cartels are also horrifically violent, but as roughly as I know Mexican history, I know they're just the latest examples of Mexico's long history with caudillos, they are tolerated, and this is very important: the cartels exist because the Mexican government allows to exist. Porfirio repeatedly crushed such groups when they failed to acquiesce.
Bukele could be in the States, enjoying life in luxury as a highly successful private citizen. Strict immigration controls wouldn't stop a man like that, he'd find a way through or immigrate to some other highly civilized nation. But El Salvador was the violently shaking pressure cooker, primed for the arrival of Bukele, and Mexico would be that, too, if they didn't have the release valve of all the people who would historically be the greatest agitators for change instead just crossing a border. So that man might be in Mexico, but I think it unfortunately all too likely he's instead in the States, a private citizen doing very well for himself, but who could have been Mexico's Bukele or superior Porfirio.
India, with 1.4 billion people, is a little harder, and I'm not remotely qualified to speculate on what would improve it except that I know it's not 300,000 H-1Bs.
More options
Context Copy link
If anything they are the only thing preventing their country from going to the dogs. If you had Brunel +50 million chimps stranded on an island the average living quality and infrastructure will be chimp tier, even though Brunel on his own would be a massive positive contributor (but when all you have is chimps you really can't do much more than a few small bridges). America should take Brunel and leave the chimps behind and if the choice is between giving an engineering job to the foreign Brunel or a local chimp, well then Brunel should get it.
Who's Brunel?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If a modern Indian Brunel couldn't make comparably sweeping improvements to India then it would be absolutely true that he should be in the States, and it would also be absolutely true that the total immigration accepted from India would need to be moved even lower from 20,000 to a 5 sigma 400, so 200.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This analysis assumes that there is a single Indian population whose traits are normally distributed, but it seems pretty clear that there are in fact dozens of genetically and culturally distinct subpopulations that differ in average g and h by at least 1 or 2 SD's. This plays havoc with any tail-end estimates and there is an unfortunate lack of data in this area.
I would say, and I did say, it seems reasonable to consider factor h civility of a nation something gestalt. If 150 million Indians truly abhor their living conditions, their h is nevertheless indicted for failing to effect change.
It's charitable anyway to consider it a collective trait of people from India, and that's because with so many ethnic groups of presumably differing h, the alternative is a general ban.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link