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 -
It was imposed by law. You haven't seen photos of 101st Airborne escorting blacks into a white school ?
The US constitution was replaced by the Civil Rights Act, and over the next fifty years, activists were busily using state power to browbeat anyone opposed into compliance.
The government decided people can't segregate themselves by law, so they're now doing it financially. Federal government is disappointed, and has now resorted to mandating better loan conditions for people with worse credit scores.
You think these changes have been very positive.
Ask whites in London or Paris how happy they're about these 'changes'.
The 'elites' in Europe are so braindead and so feckless in face of 'human rights activists' the continent is no doubt going to be taking in expected Bantu immigration waves by tens of millions, and within thirty years, the benefits of black bodies is going to be felt in every city from Madrid to Moscow.
Please post about specific rather than general groups to the extent possible. Please provide effortful argument and evidence in proportion with how partisan or inflammatory your claims might be.
They believe humans are a fungible, interchangeable mass, and as policy are supporting 'replacement migration' to improve the age profile of European Union.
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/legal-migration-and-integration_en
This is completely absurd because as we know, people aren't interchangeable, and analysis in for example Denmark found that migrants are not beneficial to public finances at all, and are making states worse off at fiscally.
Which other states are generally too pussy to even consider doing.
Moreover, European Union has a cargo-cult mentality related to education.
These people truly seem to believe sending everyone to university is a worthwhile goal that's somehow going to lead to a more qualified workforce.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's not quite fair, they also escorted white students.
Yeah. There’s also a bunch from the preceding days with the state National Guard blocking out black children. And a few of boring, unarmed segregationists following them around and booing.
These were the tactical moves in a broader state-vs-federal, south-vs-everyone-else power struggle. Maneuvering for photo ops was the name of the game, especially once the armed forces were involved.
More options
Context Copy link
It was "staged" in the sense that the pro segregation crowd went in with the full knowledge of the army's orders and were probably hoping to get this picture or something very similar plastered across the front page of every newspaper but that doesn't make it "fake".
Try to start a fight or make a scene
More options
Context Copy link
I guess to protest and make a scene, apparently with the knowledge of the optics of being held back at gunpoint by the Screaming Eagles(?).
As it turns out, nobody cared -- even back then -- if you fix bayonets and aim your rifles at an unarmed white kid. Optics is what the media says it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Civil Rights Act was passed by democratically elected legislature, the 101st was deployed by a democratically elected president. People have had fifty years to organize a majority to overturn the civil rights act and it remains broadly popular. It was legally imposed by the majority of the country on the South for sure, but why did the rest of the country support it?
It's interesting we've switched from 'politics is downstream of culture' to 'culture is downstream of politics' and politics is just whatever elites decide.
That's the same thing as I've said.
It was imposed by force, by the government, with elite support.
The public did not understand what was going on and what was going to happen to them, as one can expect.
For example, it was overwhelmingly supported by Northern democrats. And then, when put into practice in the North, caused things such as The Boston Busing crisis..
That your government uses 'democratic election', where an older government simply would say it's the "divine right" of kings doesn't matter much.
'Our Democracy' is a mechanism for obtaining legitimacy, not a mechanism for having voters have a say in policy.
Half of your electorate understands this perfectly and doesn't bother to vote.
See: "Manufacture of Consent" and "Political formulas".
EDIT: forgot a couple of words.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe, but from my perspective this is little more than the logical outcome of letting the Left-wing/Rousseauean mindset run unchecked. If your whole model of society is predicated on the idea that all social conventions and contracts are "imposed" upon an unwilling populace by "the elite" how could you arrive at another conclusion?
I think the causality flows the other way, when you're losing the idea that the whole game is rigged is really attractive. People see their values/aesthetic preferences losing popularity and their group losing status and want to find reasons to declare this illegitimate. The elite conspiracy position then becomes appealing. Fixation on elite-imposed values and manufactured consent as proof the game is rigged and there's no point in playing it is naturally the domain of the fringes who need to rationalize not moderating to gain popularity.
I think it's mistaken to conflate the broad idea of an external locus of control with elite control. There are lots of external forces that you can point to that influence individual or group behavior that aren't completely subject to elite control, market forces, and technological progress for example. You're setting up an internal vs. external locus of control axis, but there's also a separate tendency (cough cough The Paranoid Tendency) to view this external influence as the highly coordinated outcome of decisions made by a small set of human agents rather than as an uncoordinated cross-product of technological, environmental, and economic forces with some human agency acting at pivot points where path dependency is influential.
I have to disagree. external loci of control really is a hell of a drug, and it makes the notion of elite control obviously correct.
But it also falls apart the moment you introduce a potential alternative. After all what is "elite"?
As uncharitable as it may seem the old "NPC" meme has a certain amount of merit because the sort of Londoner or New Yorker who goes on about the BBC or NYT being "arbiters of credibility" genuinely seems to lack ability to not believe what they read in the newspaper. As 0 HP Lovecraft observes, the possibility that they may be lied to (or that they might not immediately detect an obvious lie) just doesn't occur to the average rationalist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People, including a lot of people in the south, genuinely wanted it to work and expended a great deal of effort to make that happen. It's a shame it failed so absolutely, by the objective standards and definitions of its proponents. The social cohesion that made such an effort possible was burned in the process, and such efforts have little chance of being repeated. Instead you get metastasizing cynicism, withdrawal, polarization and extremism... But hey, how'd one of the old-timers here put it recently: Blues don't get held accountable for being wrong, or for the harm their bullshit causes. Fifty years later, they've written all the histories, so few remember what actually happened. It's a brilliant strategy that works marvelously right up until it abruptly doesn't.
Put very simply and rather reductively, Black people wanted better outcomes and an end to discrimination and racism, and white people wanted an end to black dysfunction and rioting.
Black outcomes are measured relative to white outcomes, and by that standard, their outcomes have not improved much if at all. They still have much worse educational outcomes, economic outcomes, marriage outcomes, vastly higher crime rates, vastly higher rates of single-parenthood, and on and on.
We've engaged in heroic levels of social engineering to try to eliminate discrimination and racism. To the extent that such elimination is actually possible, I'd say we've done it. Approval of interracial marriage is probably a good proxy here, and we've gone from supermajority disapproval to lizardman-constant disapproval. It doesn't seem to have mattered; black outcomes didn't improve, and blacks and their allies don't appear to perceive a substantive improvement, don't perceive that their demands have been satisfied. Usually in discussions like this one, people focus on the changes made, and ignore the deeper outcomes those changes were attempting to secure.
Black dysfunction and racial conflict remain intractable problems. All plausible methods of improving the situation have long since been exhausted, with no evidence of any significant effect. People are now pushing highly implausible methods like explicitly racial systems of government. Bad outcomes for the black community are used to argue for the continued existence of racism, but by this standard, one is forced to conclude that there is no detectable racism gradient anywhere within our very large and quite heterogenous society. By the consensus standards we've adopted to measure it, racism appears to be just about exactly as bad in California and Seattle as it is in Mississippi or Atlanta. This means that the fifty years of intense social engineering has worked exactly as well in the most stereotypically progressive places as it has in the most stereotypically racist and reactionary areas. The simplest explanation for how this could be so is that the engineering hasn't actually worked, even a little bit.
And of course the riots are still happening, and for the same reasons.
What does "the south getting its act together" even mean? Again, there is no objectively measurable racism gradient between the south and anywhere else. Ending Segregation didn't fix any of the bedrock problems it was supposed to fix. It didn't even fix Segregation itself, since people simply found workarounds to ensure that they didn't have to share space with underclass blacks, who remain awful to live among.
There's a story where the Civil Rights era was a crusade against intolerance that struck down the legal and social discriminations that had oppressed blacks for hundreds of years, giving us hope for a brighter future. There's another story where nothing fundamental has changed, black people are still oppressed, our society is still defined by systemic racism and oppression, and radical change is needed. These stories, due to the particulars of their narrative, can't both be true. You have to pick one or the other, and blacks and the progressives who speak for them have picked the later.
I think that, given the state of the evidence, honesty compels us to concede the point. Blacks are still doing about as badly as they were before the Civil Rights movement, relative to whites, and none of the consensus methods of changing this have worked. We either have to accept the current state of affairs, or try something radically different than the path we've followed to-date.
I don’t think this is true. I’m pretty sure that black educational and economic outcomes may not have caught up to whites(and may not ever), but that they’re a lot better than in the fifties.
A lot of this is due to declining standards to help them 'do better'. Everyone else pays that price.
More options
Context Copy link
They are not appreciably better relative to white outcomes, which is the standard the champions of the Civil Rights era applied then and the standards their descendants apply now when they declare our outcomes to be unacceptable. I would happily agree with you that this is not the standard we should be using, if there were a way to consistently enforce some other standard in consensus discussions. There isn't one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think the constitutionality has much to do with what I'm arguing. If you're saying that this change in public opinion was imposed top down then you have to explain how, in a democratic society, people holding those views got to the top in order to impose them in the first place. The Supreme Court you can play the 'activist judges' card but legislation and presidential actions are harder to explain that way.
I'm totally fine with the old fashioned arguments that this is a sort of tyranny of the majority unconstitutionally trampling regional peculiarities and freedom of assembly. That's well trod ground. I just think it's shit social history to explain massive changes in social attitudes as top down action of a mysterious elite.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Am I the only one who notes that there’s some pretty substantial natural barriers between Bantus and Europe, and that there’s also a lot of countries that care much less about human rights in between?
Crossing a hard desert bigger than the continental United States which is also an active war zone and has no roads to arrive in an Islamic dictatorship which has typical Arab attitudes towards blacks before somehow crossing an ocean to get to the white countries which are getting steadily less friendly to immigration is a very different feat from taking out a loan to pay human smugglers to drive you to a border located in a productive agricultural region.
As long as there's money to be made ferrying them across, and there's media and elite support for the migration, these barriers are not very meaningful.
In a few small parts, there is low level conflict. It's not like trying to cross the front in Ukraine, where attempting to sneak through at nights means you get blown up in complete darkness by someone far away.
The public may be, but the public doesn't matter much.
No one in Western Europe ever voted in a government with a mandate of 'increasing immigration', yet Paris and London look how they look.
I recognize that this is a standard woke/alt-right talking point but I don't buy it.
Then why is London, Paris full of nonwhites. It was never wanted by the public.
Have you read the Populist Delusion?
Because nonwhites wanted it, and they’re part of the public.
Nonwhites were present in numbers too small to matter.
Weren't rich either.
No, it wasn't the non-whites.
I believe it was the white left which got fed up with the working class not being interested in what they have to sell, and decided that minorities are a better base for future power.
So they embarked on a decades long project of increasing immigration, and largely succeeded.
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
Then how to explain the existing migration of sub-Saharan Africans into Europe?
As wealth has increased in Africa, immigration to Europe/USA has increased as well. A koisan tribesman has no way to immigrate to Europe. But a person living in Lagos might be able to scrape together enough money to be smuggled in.
We can see the massive growth in immigration from Africa in the last 2 decades and conclude that the Sahara is not the barrier it once was.
More options
Context Copy link
There is already a thriving trade in human smuggling from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe, and they're not crossing an ocean, they're just crossing the Mediterranean to Italy or France. The Arab countries will probably wave them through just to avoid them sticking around in their countries - let them be Europe's problem instead. The real deterrent is the willingness of European governments to ignore NGOs shrieking at them for policing the sea, and so far this deterrent is yet to appear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Like hell it was.
@No_one's claim on this count needed more effort, or at least greater exploration of why the evidence provided should be interpreted as pointing in this direction. But it would be helpful if you did not meet a low-effort claim with an even lower-effort, higher-heat claim; that's one sure road to quick degradation of the conversation.
More options
Context Copy link
Take it up with Christopher Caldwell's book.
Although it'd be more accurate to say that Wilson & FDR killed off a lot of the old one.
More options
Context Copy link
I believe he is referencing this thread from Kulak.
https://twitter.com/FromKulak/status/1623859736629198848
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link