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 -
What jumps out the most about this substack piece is the writer's remarkably over-inflated sense of self-importance. This ad may very well have fallen on deaf ears (or maybe it didn't, idk. Like someone else pointed out, it came out a week ago), but his evidence for that is that it was mocked on dissident RW twitter, which does not exactly have its finger on the pulse of American public opinion, or even American right-wing public opinion. Later he claims that Assadist gas attacks were an attempt by "the regime" to manufacture consent for, I guess an invasion of Syria (?), but that this was narrowly thwarted only by anons on twitter and 4chan ("weaponized autism").
As a sidenote, the author takes a bunch of jabs at the "official" 9/11 story over the course of his article, pretty clearly indicating he believes it was a US government op done with the help of the Mossad ("dancing Israelis" etc.) I haven't looked particularly deeply into 9/11 conspiracies but I've never understood what was supposed to be so ridiculous about passports being recovered from the crash sites. The official story is that three out of nineteen hijackers' passports were found semi-intact, two of them in Shanksville, where one would expect the recovery of onboard items to be significantly easier than at WTC or the Pentagon, since it was an empty field with nothing else around.
Well, not recently.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, countries which have the most people send the most immigrants.
People often underestimate the magnitude of immigration from the some of the less savory countries. In the 1960s, U.S. immigration from Africa was 9,314. In the 2010s it was 686,698.
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2022
The U.S. doesn't collect seem to collect stats on Iraq and Afghanistan immigration, but it's certainly up a lot. And there are lots of people who seem hell bent on celebrating mass immigration from these countries under a sort of "you broke it, you bought it" principle.
Philippines is #12 in population. In 2020, the country sending the most immigrants is Mexico and the Dominican Republic, #87 in population, sent the fourth most immigrants.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link