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 -
Man, it's a good reason no Irish or German immigrants ever came. They'd totally make the mission of the original WASP Americans a complete failure in the game of life. They'd probably have dissolved the community too.
The science of hybrid vigor is actually reasonably well settled as well -- your individual genes would (all other things being equal) be better off hitched onto a mate somewhat further away from you.
Of course, "all other things being equal" is doing a lot of work here -- you would genuinely have to find an Indian or East Asian of the same IQ and temperament as your hypothetical replacement mate. Given your point (2) though, it seems like you wouldn't find that too implausible.
Without necessarily agreeing with the above post, yes, massive Irish, Italian, German etc immigration did irreparably change the character, culture and identity of the United States. Whether it was for better or worse is a question of opinion, but it did change.
Indeed. I don't at all dispute that it was a change, but it seems ridiculous to sit where the US is today and look back and see that as a failure.
Change is inevitable, static societies die. So too are societies that change too fast or in unwise ways.
the US as it was founded was killed, the Republic was killed, federalism was killed, and what was produced was Empire
no, it's not ridiculous to think this was "a failure"
trying to imply the US in <1850, pre mass german and irish immigration waves, was a "static society" is simply ridiculous
it's hard to think the US with its anglo stock and TFR >5 wouldn't have become a global juggernaut superpower without the mass immigration of Irish or Germans or the Ellis Islanders in 1890+, perhaps with a generation delay, but it's a counterfactual
If the current economic and cultural dominance of the US is a failure, then I cannot imagine what actual success might look like.
A generation of delay would mean a generation too late to win WWII.
I don't see a current world without US cultural and economic dominance given the population in the US, absent waves of Irish, German, or other Ellis Islanders, and the territory it conquered from the Atlantic to the Pacific (also before the waves of Irish, German, or other Ellis Islanders), and the context of their neighbors and large oceans on either side. You seem to think it's a necessary condition and I'm not sure why.
According to Americans at the time, success would likely look like a powerful and dominant nation of Americans which is full of Americans and their posterity under a particular social organization and a particular religion. The "America" as the Americans at the time thought of it was destroyed by the waves of mass European and especially Catholic immigration.
you mean the generation which won WW1?
gosh, I wonder what would have been had the American generation which won ww1 not shown up and we didn't get the 1919 Treaty of Versailles
even if one views American involvement in WWII (or WWI) as a good thing, and I don't, I'm not sure what this short quip is supposed to show or support
It's a fairly widespread view that the Germany and Japan of WWII were evil across a number of dimensions. Perhaps not universal, but almost so.
I am sympathetic to the view that perhaps the whole thing could have been avoided with a more statesmanlike resolution of WWI. To that extent that (perhaps) American involvement in the prosecution of WWI made a poor resolution more likely, I would be happy to say it was a bad thing.
The US coming to save the British Empire, the French Empire, and the Soviet Union puts that into context. Making the world safe for communism and plunging large portions of it under Soviet occupation was a bad thing and avoidable.
Oh, well I guess since it's a fairly widespread view then I guess that ends any thought or discussion about it.
You're welcome to defend the governance of either Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany.
There is no end of thought on it, but come on -- if you want to take a shot at it, go ahead. Be sure to actually address the historical record of what those governments did, both domestically and abroad.
Of course it was extremely unfortunate!
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link