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 -
Immigration discussion is two faced. You are either talking personally about individual people, in which case the average conflict averse person will have nothing bad to say to anyone's face, or you are talking broad statistical trends that factor over larger populations, in which case the argument against immigration is a very clear and resounding 'not very good'.
These two positions are held at the same time, but never in the same room.
This is every issue on the planet. Abortion (it should be illegal and rare — unless a female family member needs one, then I need an appointment on Tuesday), war (defeat the enemy! Wait, what do you mean my draft number was called?). It’s what ends up causing bad policies. Everyone wants the final results, they want the six pack abs, but they aren’t willing to diet to get them.
It seems the real issue is letting people make decisions when they aren't (or don't realize they are) the ones to face the consequences.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, no. Certainly wasn't that way in WWII, for instance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe in europe, but american immigration is still net economically positive by most quantifiable metrics. People on this forum make some combination of the "but it's not good for absolutely everyone" and the "but cultural diversity makes me feel bad" arguments. In response to the first argument, lazy rent-seekers can work harder instead of trying to interfere with my ability to do commerce with whoever I want. In response to the second argument-- shrug. Reducing immigration makes me feel bad and I don't see why they should get their way.
I'm inherently skeptical of 'immigration' and 'America' as useful concepts in this context.
If you removed the already hispanic and black populations from the native tally of 'Americans' and compared it to the now mostly white averages, you'd be looking at numbers very similar to Europe. That's to say: Immigration from certain population groups can be economically positive or negative. Just depends on the population group and what you compare it to.
As for your freedom to do commerce with who you want... I don't believe I can convince a true believer that this is a negative. But I am sitting on the experience of watching free market absolutists change faces as soon as the diversity comes knocking on their door, and it's their progeny on the line, rather than those of some 'lazy rent seekers'. They sure can complain then, despite the root cause of their problems being nothing other than people's freedom to do commerce with who they want. They almost start mouthing off that the good of the commons sometimes need overwrite the freedom of the individual. Almost. I suppose they will leave that for their children and grandchildren to figure out.
And whilst my experience is rather Eurocentric, you can see the same thing established in practice in America. As exemplified with regards to housing prices and proximity to blacks.
Yeah, and europe is worse than america so that's proof that the presence of hispanic and black populations are actually having a multiplicative positive effect on the welfare of the white population. And beyond even the fact that I am the diversity knocking at the door, I don't much fear later waves of immigration because I believe my culture is literally chosen by God to eventually "win." That's the benefit of being roman catholic-- 2000+ years of always winning in the end to be smugly confident about.
I don't begrudge you your fear, mind. In fact, I think it's perfectly sensible for you to be afraid. Amero-catholic culture is superior to all other cultures and it is therefore inevitable that your beliefs and practices will eventually be supplanted by my own. Despite being exposed to the benefits of literally thousands of other cultures, protestants/atheists were unable to pry my faith from me and my Brazilian/French relatives failed to convince me to stay proficient at their languages or become well-versed in their cultures. So I'm confident that I sit at global maximum of culture, because if any other culture was superior I would have already been converted.
That sounds wildly far fetched, but is unrelated to the point being made. Which is that certain populations are net negative tax payers, and that factoring them into a simple cost/benefit analysis, similar to what's been done in overviews here, would obviously alter the native baseline. Which is why I supposed that the assumed benefit of certain immigrants is only relevant insofar as we are counting net negative population groups towards the native average.
For the rest of your post, if you are the diversity you will fit in fine with the rest of the diversity.
If we are allowing ourselves to 'reason' so far beyond the bounds of data, we can just look at these nations today and see the effect of these sort of economic policies on aggregate.
All western countries are in a downswing. The cost of living is prohibitive, and the culture needed to keep the public open to immigration is functionally suicidal. The economic system that drives this is obviously dysfunctional and needs to be dismantled.
To that extent no further discussion is needed. If the genetically superior immigrants were who they claim to be, on aggregate, they should be able to make their own societies that far surpass the west. They don't because they can't. Thats the end for the immigration debate.
"Beyond the bounds of data"!? We have all the data we need! GDP PPP per capita keeps going up! You just don't like the data because it disagrees with you. The western world keeps getting richer-- and immigrant-friendly nations get richer, faster.
You're worried about some sort of cultural decay-- which is probably fair enough. I don't know what culture you're part of, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear about it failing. But there's a reason pluralistic liberal urbanites love immigration, and want it to stay. Our culture is resiliant, and growing, and has the right complex of beliefs and behaviors necessary to benefit economically. I can't blame you for being threatened by us, because you absolutely should be. But I can blame you for pretending like restricting immigration is somehow for our own good. It's the same condescending bullshit as when one of our elites tells a ruralite that all they need to participate in the modern economy is a retraining program. Obviously, the only thing that would help ruralite culture survive is the complete collapse of globalized society-- and since that's impossible because we make it impossible-- all they have left is the ability to rage at the machine.
Did you read nothing I wrote? I'm not saying there are no differences between populations-- I'm saying that immigrants are not a representative sample from their native population.
But in point of fact, yes, forcing immigrants to stay in their home countries would improve them. That's why I'm against it! I don't want other countries to catch up. Just like I wouldn't want to force young people to stay in their rural towns. Let me drain the brains! I want all the backwoods towns and backward states to collapse into the void left by the absence of all their best, most motivated people.
GDP is a bad metric for the topic. It goes up even when things are going bad. A 100% increase in foreign construction workers driving down pay whilst doing sub par work that needs to be repaired in two years is actually great for the GDP but terrible for anyone that wants to live in a well made house in a country with a healthy construction labour force.
Urban liberals are either dead end economic units with no children, or in their late 30's trying to move away from the city to find a better life for their children. Red tribers in America have identified the threat. They don't want those kinds of people in their neighborhoods since their policies and beliefs create places that are terrible to live in. It's less fear of supremacy, and more fear of a plague.
Try reading yourself. Immigrants not being representative of their native population is irrelevant to the point.
The immigrants move, facilitating the western countries becoming worse along with their own. Everyone loses except a few economists that look at the world through a monetary lens and somehow can't wrap their brains around the fact that an economic theory that necessitates demographic collapse is a bad thing.
Except that's not what happens. As demonstrated by identity grievance politics.
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
More options
Context Copy link