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 -
I mean, just look at the history of the eugenics movement, and what happened to it (spoiler alert: they did not go away in shame). Various iterations of "sustainable growth" are explicitly on the agenda on every world-spanning establishment organization from the UN to the WEF, and has been for decades. Some countries like China and India went to quite extreme lengths to lower their population growth.
That's the beauty of it: if you successfully decrease the natives' fertility, you can then use it as an excuse to increase immigration. By the second generation the immigrants from the fertile countries you're importing will turn into the same sort of hedonist-nihilist low fertility bots westerners have already become. Just keep marching fresh immigrants into the meat-grinder, and you have the best of both worlds - decreasing population, and a steady supply of low wage workers.
Except Elon Musk is now a "far-right extremist", and for every Musk I can find you 10 Rockefellers, Ehrliches, Huxleys, Strongs and Ghandis.
sure i'll give you China and India, but outside of that I still find the argument that this is happening on a mass scale outside of these 2 exceptions to be lacking and without merit
as ironically nihilistic as this comment is, it seems again a extremely poor choice. why not just do both? you can get unchecked immigration with a rising population, although it's admittedly not very stable at high rates of both, and also lock people into bitter political rivalries
being far right or whatever political philosophy you say he is does not exempt him from his primary motivation: wealth accumulation. his concern is a poor theatre. he is one of the richest men in the world, he is going to advocate policies that are going to be in his interest, while putting on a poorly done kayfabe of concern for humanity or whatever.
The cases if China, and India are undeniable, my claim is that the implementation in the West is a lot more subtle, so you're not going to see a smoking gun like this, but the the fact that the world elites were explicitly debating depopulation as a goal is also pretty much undeniable.
Wait... how was it nihilistic?
Because they don't want to? If their goal is to depopulate while maintaining their wealth, why would they want to increase population?
On this we agree. Though I don't think it's so much advocating for policies in his interest, as pandering to an internet tribe so the tribe will circle the wagons around him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link