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 -
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.
My family routinely works with the same pair of illegal immigrant contractors and they always do great work. The idea that immigrants do poor work is just cope from people who can't compete.
The original article tries to argue that immigrants are inferior to natives by using statistics from the immigrants' home nations. But I'm pointing out that those statistics are worthless to evaluate immigrants because immigrants are a non-representative sample. Regardless of what the average IQ for sub-saharan africans is... your average sub-saharan african immigrant is likely to be much smarter than that, and potentially smarter even than the average member of the native USian population.
Except that is what happens, as demonstrated by identity grievance politics! All this anti-immigrant, protectionism nonsense is as much grievance politics as affirmative action. You want to force pluralistic urban areas into giving you money for labor and goods despite the fact that you can't compete on your own merits.
The policies and beliefs that make California suck are Nimbyism and Prop 8. Anti-immigration, protectionist whining is just more of the same.
And this is the part of your argument that I understand perhaps the least. I'm catholic. I have two sets of grandparents that were both unusually fecund. I think my family's beliefs and culture are useful and worth preserving-- and across the generations, and the many branches of my family, I see that they generally are.
So why would I want other people to have children? That's just competition. I think liberals are obviously stupid for not encouraging pro-fertility norms, and I think conservatives are obviously stupid for not encouraging liberal anti-fertility norms. If you actually believe someone comes from a weak, maladaptive culture... you should be celebrating! At "worst," they'll be converted to your culture. At best, you can exploit them without risk to further your own aims.
The opposite of my work experience. But regardless of that, the X in ten that happen to be proficient workers is not worth the hollowing out of the native labour force. Furthermore, my point still stands. GDP would go up if the assumptions made in my comment are correct. An obvious example of why GDP is a bad metric for this topic.
Which is irrelevant to the point being made. We could see by simply looking at immigrants already here that they are 'inferior' to certain native populations. They are only positive when we lump in negative population groups into the native tally. This is why I said I don't like the term 'immigrant' and 'American'. We can see where the 'good' immigrants come from by comparing them to net positive native population groups.
You said they would 'disappear into the void'. That's not happening. They are advocating for themselves based on identity grievance politics. Stop trying to pivot out of your arguments.
In the most polite way possible: I did not ask nor do I care about what your pocket theory for why California sucks. The point of contention related to how urban liberals are the lowest fertility demographic in the world. You said that their culture is 'strong' and here to stay. In reality liberals are on the fastest track to self replacement of all the demographics.
This is a fundamental disagreement we have. I don't see others people children as competition nor do I celebrate human shortcomings and failure. To that extent I think your viewpoint is extremely anti-human and ugly. Aside from it being very different from most Catholics I've interacted with.
Unemployment was tiny (at least through biden's presidency) and labor productivity keeps going up. The empirical data is not on your side.
The kind and degree of inferiority matters a lot. I've been arguing the whole time that the degree is small and the kind has no real evidence of being genetic.
Okay so then they're doing totally fine? Then they have nothing to complain about! You can't have it both ways. Either these communities are threatened or they're not.
That's changing.
There's also a really interesting-- albeit fuzzy-- chart on page 8 you might want to check out.
Don't be so quick to dismiss my "pocket theory" out of hand. It's the difference between low-fertility rates being a structural feature of cities vs. something cities have the power to change.
I've been talking to a lot of anti-immigrant people and to the extent that they've been concerned with demographic replacement that's exactly what "seeing other people's children as competition" means. Certainly, that's the position of the original blog post in question. But if it's not, I'll be charitable and assume that the question of demographics is fundamentally uninteresting to you, and-- assuming that's settled-- only address the question of economics from here on out.
To clarify, I'm apathetic on the position of the outgroup having more children. I'm not looking to sterilize outgroup members, or anything-- that would definitely be anti-catholic. But if they just don't want to have children I don't see how I'm disadvantaged. And as I said, I think I'm better than them, and I think my ingroup is better than my outgroup. Even if they have lots of children, I'm still unthreatened. For the benefit of their own souls there are moral laws I would like them to follow that would result in them having more children.... but in proportion to their adherence to those laws and therefore their increases in fertility, they become members of my ingroup, so there's still nothing to worry about.
Unemployment is irrelevant to the point, and labor productivity is in this context just relabeled GDP.
The degree being small is dependent on context. A small degree of negativity can have large cascading impacts on a population that relies in part on civil services that can only exist with a certain amount of surplus within an economy.
As for evidence of something being genetic: It's all genetic.
No, they're not fine. They are pissed off and want radical change. The point here is very simple: If your economic policies produce political unrest then you are going to have problems.
I don't see the consequence. Liberals are failing to have their own children and this can be seen by simply looking at birth rates by political affiliation.
There is a difference between being against demographic replacement and 'seeing other peoples children as competition'. If you want to discuss the former I suggest getting rid of the latter.
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