Crake
Protestant Goodbot
No bio...
User ID: 1203
Many people care about their local community and don't want it to change. Whatever the details are regarding the fertility rate of the established white population in the area versus the fertility of the new group is really secondary. The large infusion of new people from a different culture will change things. That is something that many people don't want, and understandably so. They are invested in the way things are, maybe for many generations.
Is the native population declining?
even if they aren't things will change. But white americans don't have very high fertility rates so we can assume that the established white community probably doesn't have such overwhelming fertility rates such that they make the influx of new people irrelevant.
I wouldn't consider that replacement. I think the word 'replacement' suggests a wholesale removal.
Fine. How about dilution? The existing population, and their community, and their culture will be diluted, which is bad enough. Concentration is just as important a variable in community strength as raw numbers are. At the very least, as the original local population is diluted their collective political power is equivalently diluted. So there is an objective reduction in the power they have over their home.
And dilution becomes more threatening due to the fact that white communities in America are generally pretty weak in terms of cultural vitality. Having a large influx of foreigners who might have more vitality and a stronger sense of community means that the new comers can punch above their weight comparatively. As dilution occurs the threat of actual replacement becomes greater, and the ability to resist it is diminished.
You can prefer dilution and cultural change in exchange for increased economic investment, but many don't. It seems like you're being intentionally avoidant about the concern.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
6mo ago
Its really hard to believe that you or anyone would actually hold this position.
if you are as racist as you claim, then surely you would prefer to live in a place where all jobs were done by white people, if only because it would mean that you would only have to interact with white people. But instead your position is that for abstract reasons, it offends you to allow white people to do manual labor, so its better to import brown people to do it, even though it means that you and your friends and family have to interact with brown people all the time? And you now risk brown people becoming a meaningful voting block in your society that can never be expunged. Like it would be one thing if you said you were in favor of the migrant work laws used by UAE and not america, or you like rhodesia, but your position doesn't seem to be divided like that. Those of us who live in the modern west, live in the modern west. Is you position based on a fictional alternate reality?
Your position seems really counterintuitive. I strongly suspect you are lying because your stated beliefs and policies are so wildly out of sync with each other - when taking into account the real world as it exists now.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
6mo ago
I would never get a tattoo and have judgements about tattoos but this doesn't really indicate that tattoos are a red flag. I mean, they are. But this goes well beyond that. There's a big difference between a tattoo of a bird on your arm, and what this person has which is the equivalent of having "I am an insane and dangerous person" tattooed across your forehead.
Back to my main point: people covered in tattoos and/or piercings are the human equivalent of aposematism, change my mind.
Does anyone who isn't a full on progressive zealot disagree with you that a person tatted up that that guy is probably bad news? I really doubt it. And the progressive zealots actually agree with you too, they know that person is bad news, they just see protecting and creating people who are bad news as a core goal.
I honestly don't know why some women are so stupid. Yeah, loving and devoted up to the minute he swings at you with a sword, you silly girl.
They're not stupid. They know that they are flirting with genuine danger. That's the appeal.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
6mo ago
Because up until that point, they think it's hot that he could attack other people with a samurai sword, but he could never do that to them because he just loves them that much / they alone have the power to tame him / he's so emotionally dependent on them that his world would collapse without them / insert-their-preferred-framing-here.
You and most other posters on this thread seem to think that women are only interested in dangerous men being dangerous to other people and are obviously in denial about the possibility that dangerous men are dangerous to them. I don't see any reason to assume that. Why can't women (well some women, I'm not a believer in the redpill position that all women. are the same) be actively attracted to men that are dangerous to themselves. I don't really think that the women that feel a strong attraction of total lunatics like this (as opposed to the normal attraction to bad-ish boys) are deluded about the fact that they may themselves be harmed by them, in fact that may add to appeal. Plenty of men and women like to jump out of planes or free climb, I don't see why these women have to be lying to themselves about danger to involve themselves with dangerous men.
Well I would say yes, that is one of the concerns. But I didn't meant to imply that only cultural change matters. Demographic change, or more directly, ethnic change, is also part of the concern. Ethnicity is a powerful layer that has major effects on community and culture. Ethnic groups have in group preference and people of a shared ethnicity will almost always seek each other out to cooperate when in a multi ethnic setting.
ok then lets proceed with that
Yeah, I recognize that. I think you are being a little too literal with your interpretation of that term but I heard you concern. Thats why I offered an alternative, which is dilution. Do you accept that term? If so, can you then respond to all the stuff I said about why dilution could be reasonably considered bad or threatening to many?
I also argued that dilution has the effect of weakening the political power (and other kinds of power) of the established group, thereby making that group more vulnerable to actual replacement in the future. So while you don't accept that whats happening represents active replacement, would you agree that it is a step in that direction? When people are saying demographic replacement they don't usually mean that it is radical and immediate ethnic cleansing. But lets switch to dilution, something else that is threatening, do you agree thats happening? Do you see why that would threatening?
I didn't really say anything about an agenda of replacement, or agenda at all. I think that sometimes is a real thing. I sort of doubt it in this case. But thats not the core concern. The influx of foreigners will dilute the established group and that has negative effects, therefore it is a topic of concern, and we should seek policies that will prevent it - was what was being discussed I think.
More options
Context Copy link