site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022

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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Last week there was a discussion regarding restricting the right of released robbers to vote. In a related reporting, Aotearoa (New Zealand) Supreme Court has discovered that 16 and 17 year olds not being allowed to vote is discriminatory.

The reasoning relies on the fact that Aotearoa's Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits making a distinction based on age between people over 16. From this one could assume that, unlike in the US, the age of majority in Aotearoa is 16, with voting a seemingly overlooked exception. A helpful website contains counterexamples to this thesis as many other rights are also denied to 16 year old Aotearrans.

While today "18" is a common age under which rights are restricted, and its commonality is used to justify it, any deviation from it, undermines it. Age of consent being 16 in Europe (and Aotearoa), alcohol requiring being 21 to purchase it in the US and now voting age being lowered to 16 in Aotearoa, etc increase the uncertainty and invite debate. Debate into why exactly is voting allowed to those that it presently is and denied to the remainder. Attempts are made to search for the principles underlying this discernement usually find no satifactory answer.

What exactly do all law abiding (even this qualifier isn't universal among US states) American citizens over 18, young and old, rich or poor, smart and dumb have; but which no non-citizen or child posseses?

People who are pro-reducing the voting age seem to think it will solve the problem of "young people don't turn out to vote but old people do, so the people who get elected are those who are slanted towards issues old people think important".

If 18-20 year olds can't get off their backsides and go vote, why do you think 16 year olds will be enthused about it? If they do go vote, it will be because their parents dragged them along to the polling stations and told them who to vote for.

What exactly do all law abiding (even this qualifier isn't universal among US states) American citizens over 18, young and old, rich or poor, smart and dumb have; but which no non-citizen or child posseses?

Ignoring the non-sequitor and entirely separate issue of citizenship, one answer is legal independence from their parents. If you give children the right to vote, the majority of them are just going to vote for whoever their parents tell them to. This is not universal, some rebellious teenagers will stray and choose the other party, but most will not. Even if they vote in secret, they could be pressured and interrogated by bad-faith parents afterwards and punished if the parent believes they voted incorrectly. Children do not have the freedom or authority to decide when they go to bed, how can they be expected to run the country?

Additionally, age is the only fair and equal way of addressing intelligence while still weighting the vote of all people approximately equally over the course of their lives. That is, it would be nice if smarter and more mature people voted while less intelligent people did not. But if you implement IQ tests or something comparable as requirements to vote then some people would be permanently disenfranchized, reducing their ability to have their voices and concerns weighed appropriately by politicians (especially when IQ correlates with other traits and demographics), and massively decreasing their loyalty to the nation. But everyone ages, so if you disenfranchize children, they eventually become adults and get to vote just like everyone else. Every person has an equal amount of time not voting before they get old enough and then vote, so nobody is unfairly treated. The only people who never get to vote are people who die before they turn 18, which is a tragedy we already attempt to prevent for other reasons. As such, we accomplish part of the goal of preventing unintelligent votes, with very few of the moral or practical costs that a more restrictive policy would entail.

I am curious, in such arguments, whether you refer to Gf or Gc as the relevant factor in determining whether somebody ought to run the country?

In the context of voters deciding who to vote for, Gc is probably the most relevant, though Gf may play a smaller but nontrivial role. You need knowledge of stuff like what problems does society face that are amenable to political solutions? Which solutions are viable or not, what similar circumstances have been faced historically, what solutions were tried then and what were the results? Which promises that politicians make are plausible and which are blatantly unrealistic? When one politician promises criminal justice reform to protect oppressed people from police and the other attacks counters that this is soft on crime and will increase murder rates, Gc is going to be more useful for comparing the truth value of each side. It doesn't really matter if the voter has high Gf can think up a clever and creative solution to the problem that addresses both issues, because they're not the one running for office and the politicians aren't going to listen to them. It might help a little, but it will help less than Gc. And Gc is also more likely to increase with age as someone goes through the education system and their brain matures, so it correlates more strongly with age.

Again, I wouldn't advocate an actual hard test for Gc as a requirement to vote, since that permanently disenfranchizes people who fall below it. But a mostly fair system which correlates with Gc is preferential to a fair system which doesn't.

If you give children the right to vote, the majority of them are just going to vote for whoever their parents tell them to.

What justification do you have for believing this? An 18-year old's vote is going to be heavily left-leaning pretty much no matter where you go in the democratic world, but you think the 16-year old vote would instead track the 45-year old demographic? Why?

Because the 5 year old would (and usually should) do what their parents tell them to, and 16 year olds are somewhere in between 5 and 18. It's a continuum, and there has to be a cutoff somewhere (unless you think 5 year olds should vote too). The distinction between 18 and 16 isn't much different from the one from 16 to 14, or 14 to 12, etc. It has to be somewhere.

More importantly, as I state, 16 year olds are not legally independent from their parents. I'm not just relying on the argument that 16 year olds are simpletons who do whatever they're told like 5 year olds do, but also that the relationship is inherently coercive. It is relatively easy for a parent to apply soft punishments to their kid that sway their behavior while falling short of legal child abuse or any feasible law against parents punishing their children for their voting choices. And while the majority of parents would not do this, especially if it were illegal, some would. And if one political tribe were more likely to do this it would give that side a direct reward for doing so, influencing politics in favor of people who are better at manipulating their children. It's not that I'm afraid children forming actual political opinions will tend to agree with their parents, it's that children will vote how their parents want without actually following their own political opinions (or even forming genuine ones in the first place).

If we were to simultaneously lower the age of majority and the age of voting to 16, I wouldn't take issue with the voting component of this change, though I would have qualms about the age of majority changing. That is, the minimum age of voting should be equal to the age where children get legal independence from their parents, regardless of where that limit is, because that's when they simultaneously gain the freedom to make their own decisions with significantly less coercion, and (at least in theory) become productive members of society who participate in it directly instead of through their parents. I think I'd be in favor of exceptions where minors who are legally emancipated from their parents and taking care of themselves (rather than being wards of the state in a shelter or foster home or something) can vote. But not kids with parents: their parents can vote and act to uphold their interests politically, just as they uphold their interests in other areas.

I like this post, but I'd like to also note that legal independence is only a component of this; given extended childhoods and more young adults living with their parents and so on, we honestly can't use this as the Only True Standard for legal propriety(?). I've seen, for example, trans adults stuck at home with lower-income families whose parents are pretty much the polar opposite of them politically, having to conceal their voting records and other non-political activities, trapped either for want of their own home or to ensure their parents are still taken care of.

So, this is to say that legal independence is a good measure (and as you allude to, we determine voting age from age of majority/adulthood, which we in turn derive from a mixture of vague socio-cultural ideas and neurobiological evidence), but if you're really concerned about the "parents coercing their kids" angle, turning 18 doesn't magically free the new voter from social pressure.

It's not magic, it doesn't fulfill the task perfectly, but again, the cutoff has to be somewhere. Having a predefined, unambiguous, and fair method for the cutoff is better than tests which might correlate better with some things but open up others to accusations of or actual corruption and bias that unfairly disenfranchises some groups more than others. So having a single age at which people get to vote is a good method to accomplish this, and among all of the ages, 18 seems like the logical choice. If we somehow came up with a reasonable measure for social coercion on someone's vote, and averaged it over people at each age, there would be a discontinuous jump around the 18th birthday, maybe slightly afterwards when people leave home for college. It would not be absolute, it might even show that the jump would even be smaller than the total increase summed through ages 12 to 16, but age 18 would have the highest derivative on average because of the legal rights it represents. An 18 year old might still live with their parents and face social coercion, or they might not, and if the coercion gets too bad they can leave. A 16 year old is legally stuck with very few exceptions.

Because few 16 year olds are going to be interested in politics or politically aware. They may be interested in causes but when it comes to voting in the local election for Tweedledum versus Tweedledee, neither of whom has a strong position on "save the planet from climate change" or "should I have to be in by eleven on a school night when Susie can stay out until one?", then they won't see any very strong reason to pick "white person same age as my parents over other white person same age as my parents".

So unless their parents are going to the polls, and drag Junior along, there's not much likelihood Junior will bother to vote of their own accord. And if Junior is all "Ugh, I hate this, why are you making me do it?", then it's just as likely they'll vote for whomever their parents said "Oh for heaven's sake, just put X beside John Johnson's name" in order to get this done fast so they can go back to doing stuff they enjoy and care about.

See the quote from that deleted Sequoia article about Sam Bankman-Fried:

One of SBF’s formative moments came at age 12, when he was weighing arguments, pro and con, around the abortion debate. A rights-based theorist might argue that there aren’t really any discontinuous differences as a fetus becomes a child (and thus fetus murder is essentially child murder). The utilitarian argument compares the consequences of each. The loss of an actual child’s life—a life in which a great deal of parental and societal resources have been invested—is much more consequential than the loss of a potential life, in utero. And thus, to a utilitarian, abortion looks more like birth control than like murder. SBF’s application of utilitarianism helped him resolve some nagging doubts he had about the ethics of abortion. It made him comfortable being pro-choice—as his friends, family, and peers were. He saw the essential rightness of his philosophical faith.

Yes, wasn't it so coincidental that he managed to come all on his own to the same conclusion on the same topic as the view everyone else around him held, including his parents who had brought him up to hold those views? "His parents raised him and his siblings utilitarian—in the same way one might be brought up Unitarian—amid dinner-table debates about the greatest good for the greatest number."

Do you really imagine if 16 year old Sam was going to vote in a local or national election, he'd vote for a different candidate than the Democrat his parents were going to vote for?

Do you really imagine if 16 year old Sam was going to vote in a local or national election, he'd vote for a different candidate than the Democrat his parents were going to vote for?

I imagine most 16-year olds would vote Democrat because they're in roughly the same environments as 18-year olds and would therefore vote similarly. The fact that their environments encourage voting Democrat and not Republican is ultimately downstream of the Democrats being more effective at messaging to young people. That's just politics.

I'm not really sold on lowering the voting age, mind you, as the same-age-for-everything idea is very appealing. But I'm completely unconvinced by this idea that 16-year olds in particular would just ape after their parents and completely disregard all the other pressures around them.

You have to have age related brightlines for a wide variety of tasks, voting is one of those tasks. And personally, I don’t care if that brightline is 16 or 18 or 21. It doesn’t really matter- they’re all roughly as good as each other.

As with the COVID stuff, NZ used for testing out ultra-left policies. There aren't any right-wing parties to vote for anyway, so who cares.

Well, historically, in the US the voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War, when 18-year-olds were being drafted, yet could not vote for the officials deciding whether to wage the war at all.

More broadly, it might be helpful to contemplate how the US Supreme Court addresses issues of discrimination. All laws discriminate somehow, whether they say "18-year-olds can't buy alcohol" or "felons can't own guns" or "no trucks allowed in tunnel." How to distinguish between discriminatory laws that are permitted and discriminatory laws that are not? Well, for laws which discriminate based on some criteria (eg, race) or which deprive someone of a fundamental right (eg, voting), laws are OK only if they are necessary to achieve a compelling govt interest. OTOH, run of the mill laws which don't involve such groups, or fundamental rights (no trucks in tunnel) are OK if they are somehow rationally related to a legitimate govt objective. And then there are some in-between categories (eg: gender discrimination) that have to meet an intermediate test.

This is not to say that the Court is correct in its conclusion, but its approach does seem to me to make sense, because it considers relevant factors such as the weight of the govt interest involved, the weight of the private interest involved, and the nature of the classification being made by the government, i.e., whether it is one which arouses suspicion of an invidious purpose.

With regards to age, @Tarnstellung said it best—there isn’t a universal law, it’s just very practical to have a bright line. The specific placement of that line doesn’t really matter. After all, everyone started out on one side of it, and everyone will end up on the other. That sort of transience makes the point somewhat moot.

Citizenship, on the other hand, represents a certain investment in the state. This is a (weak) proxy for shared values, but more importantly, it’s skin in the game. There’s next to no reason for a post-Soviet peasant to vote in the best interests of the US; ask him again five years of continuous residence and learning English.

There’s next to no reason for a post-Soviet peasant to vote in the best interests of the US; ask him again five years of continuous residence and learning English.

Is he capable of being arrested before those five years are up? Is he required to pay taxes?

Everyone has skin in the game.

Yes and yes.

I get to fall back on the “bright line” argument here. In the absence of an obvious test for sufficient investment in the state, picking a five-year criterion seems alright. Plus—this is discrimination based on choices, unlike age or race. That makes it kosher.

I think it's fair to say "an immigrant has skin in the game, but we're not letting him vote anyway until he becomes a citizen". But this is one of those cases where you need to get the reason right. Because I've seriously seen "he doesn't have skin in the game" used to justify not having citizens vote.

Any person in the entire world probably has some stake in what the US does, if nothing else at least in our foreign policy and immigration laws. You have to draw the line somewhere

What exactly do all law abiding (even this qualifier isn't universal among US states) American citizens over 18, young and old, rich or poor, smart and dumb have; but which no non-citizen or child posseses?

Nothing, age is just a heuristic. This applies to other age-restricted activities, too, like alcohol consumption or sex. Whatever age requirement you set, there will be people who meet it but are still not mature enough, and people who are mature enough but don't meet it. An age requirement is imperfect, but it's usually good enough. Conducting a detailed psychological assessment of every potential voter (or alcohol drinker or sex haver) is infeasible and is open to abuse.

Voting rights for citizens and non-citizens are a separate question.

What’s with the Aotearoa affectation?

It's anti-White hate speech meant to erase White New Zealander's claims of a homeland. It is a linguistic pre-cursor to genocidal dispossession.

This comment has drawn an impressive 14 reports for antagonism/boo-outgroup/inflammatory claims.

I'm reasonably confident that Westerly's question was a troll. So for starters, please don't feed the trolls.

But also, you should know that accusing someone of pre-genocide is going to be taken as inflammatory, so if you're going to do that, you really must bring evidence. Insisting on referring to New Zealand as "Aotearoa" does seem like it could be subtly consensus-building--is the Romanized pronunciation of a Maori name for a land mass really interchangable with the name of the nation state, unquestionably called "New Zealand," that implemented the legislative Act in question? Do New Zealanders use these words interchangably? Or do any of their legal documents do so? I don't know much about New Zealand, so there are all sorts of ways you could have made your point that might have served to impart information or insight.

In the future, please do that instead.

EDIT: @cjet79 beat me to it, but I admit it is often helpful to accidentally see that the mod team is in fact on the same page about this stuff!

Thank you for your constructive feedback.

This comment has drawn an impressive 14 reports for antagonism/boo-outgroup/inflammatory claims.

Wow! That is impressive. Can you give a sense of where this is relative to some of your top-reported posts? Can you provide a ranking?

Can you give a sense of where this is relative to some of your top-reported posts?

Most reported posts only get a single report (and often generate no moderator activity--some people just use reporting as a super-downvote, and we ignore them). A genuinely bad post will tend to get 3-5 reports. A post that is both bad and expresses an unpopular view can easily garner 10+ reports even in a slow week. I think the highest I've ever seen is... maybe 22 reports?

Can you provide a ranking?

It's definitely not in the top ten. It might well be in the top 100, though.

That is a partisan and inflammatory assertion and needs more evidence to back it up.

Yeah I'd like to hear @Syo explain his reasoning.

I'm not fussed either way on Aotearoa, but who says "Aotearoans"?! Kiwis or riot!

more Maori would far rather a stop to most immigration than a name change when speaking English

You're correct that surveys have shown that Māori are more opposed to immigration than most New Zealanders. I'd be surprised to learn of significant Māori opposition to a name change to Aotearoa, though, given that the name change is advocated in a petition from Te Pati Māori.

There's a long tradition of Māori activism in favour of using Māori place names. I see some of the greatest passion when it comes to names for mountains in particular, whether we're talking Maungawhau/Mt Eden (small hill in Auckland) or Taranaki (beautiful isolated volcanic peak, formerly also Mt Egmont, but no longer). This makes sense, given that Māori identity declarations generally start with the mountain you belong to. Contrary to what you have implied, there is often fierce opposition, among Māori activists, for using English place names when speaking English. The land is an important part of Māori culture, as are the names given to the land.

I don't think you can solve the "putting the pussy on the pedestal" view with a purely social or perspective-based solution. It can help your mentality and with avoiding the extremes of cringe beta pushover behavior, but it can't change the basic biological fact that, in terms of having greater reproductive value and necessity, pussy really is on an objective pedestal.

Of course nature did anyway give us men a solution that our ancestors readily applied: because we are stronger, we can simply forcefully control women and set the value of any given pussy (or pussy in general) at what we prefer, irrespective of its value to our reproductive instinct masters.

I do believe modern men should consider reimplementing this solution again. It's the only solution as far as I know that's actually ever worked to comprehensively keep the problem under control.

I think your book is wrong. I recommend more science and less Freudianism. You say:

"There are five conditions which enable women to get what they want

from men: women's control of the womb; women's control of the

kitchen; women's control of the cradle; the psychological immaturity of

man relative to woman; and man's tendency to be deranged by his own excited penis."

All of this reifies modern Western consent-centered sex norms. For all of human history until 1960, sex did not work this way. A woman who is considered a minor by law, with her father as her guardian and then her husband, in a society with no concept of "marital rape", has basically none of the power you describe -- she, in fact, has about as much power as a contemporary 13 year old boy, which is nothing.

You kind of recognize that you're reifying the unnatural:

"That man abandons the kitchen to woman, and grovels for access to

a womb, are not ordained by nature or by god, but result from how

woman, who controls the cradle, has chosen to condition boys and girls."

But, scientifically speaking, people don't work like this, so your premise is wrong. Your book contains no science or statistics, which is an epistemic issue that made you vulnerable to this flawed premise, upon which the entire verbal screed seems to be based.

When I initially saw this post I misread it, and though you were promoting the work of the one and great F. Roger Devlin. I'm getting old.

This isn't the place to shill your own book. We do allow people to post links to their blogs and substacks, etc., within reason, but for something like this, you need to write more than some ad copy.

In an effortpost with something interesting to discuss, in which you put forward your views, maybe we'll allow you to include a link saying "Hey, here's this thing I wrote about it."

ETA: Misunderstanding based on mod logs. I reapproved the post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinweizu?wprov=sfti1

Nah dude, the book is not The posters work. Unless that is him, in which case that's hilarious and awesome and we should welcome him with open arms.

Yes, plus one on adding an exception for 80 year old Nigerian poets peddling their books!

EDIT: Oh god, now I have the visual of the guy's face reacting to getting banned...

I didn't ban him, I just removed the post. It's been restored.

Don't you want to see the regulars argue with an elderly pan African PhD so badly? I'd settle for a high effort impersonator.

Almost like the good old days, back when that enlightened guy wanted to throw down with Deiseach.

The author's name is the same as your username, did you write this?

Can you provide some more information? You give the main point, which is certainly a big problem that a lot of guys have, but what more does it provide?

If it’s not in the AppStore does that mean you can use the twitter app on an apple device?

Apple won’t drop it unless the service collapses. That would probably force me out of the apple ecosystem if they dropped twitter. Browser sucks and I admittedly spend enough time on twitter and it’s work related.

A quick google suggests you can sideload iOS apps by toggling into developer mode (although this apparently doesn't work if Apple revokes Twitter's dev certificate, as they did with Epic & Fortnite). This is actually better than I expected: I had the impression iOS was totally locked down -- looks like it's only mostly locked down and subject to Apple's whims.

I guess too late now. Oops.

Heads-up, you posted this as a top-level comment rather than a reply.

If it’s not in the AppStore does that mean you can use the twitter app on an apple device?

Yes, by using a service like this, but you ultimately need to connect the device to an actual computer once a week such that the certificate can be renewed.

Anything you side-load stops working after 7 days unless you refresh it.

Two leftist policies where I can understand the power dynamics but not the attitude: open borders for military-aged third-world men, relaxed (or none at all) prosecution on criminals, especially military-aged minorities who commit brazen acts of murder/assault/robbery.

As is always the case, these policies exist because a lot of parties benefit. Open borders is supported by capital, homeowners (keeps housing prices pumping), and leftists who gain the patronage of the newcomers. Criminals also help various parties. They drive out right-wingers (i.e. families). They use a huge amount of services that employ leftists. Like immigrants they become patrons to the left, to some degree.

I can see why these things are allowed to continue, but the above analysis is missing the source of intense passion that these issues receive. I don't think Amazon ever pushed for open borders, they just didn't complain end enjoyed the cheap labour. Homeowners don't go to open borders rallies because they want another point of appreciation. Chesa Boudin wants prisoners released because it's strategic. On these two issues specifically, there is only one source of intense passion: single, college-educated women.

This is confusing. Women are more risk-averse and place a higher value on safety, but at the same time they are advocating for violent criminals and random foreigners. There is also a strong element of hatred towards their own countrymen present in this, which makes sense given the policy but does not make sense given that they're ladies. It's similar to the pit bull owner thing. What's up with this? I've seen the meme around pseudopregnancy before and it fits OK, but it's not clear why criminals and foreigners would be the subject of this affection over anything else.

Maybe if a women feel rejected by or reject their own tribe themselves, they attempt to undermine it in the hopes of getting conquered by a different tribe? That seems overly complicated though, the answer to this should feel simple because it's emotional. Help me out here.

Maybe if a women feel rejected by or reject their own tribe themselves, they attempt to undermine it in the hopes of getting conquered by a different tribe? That seems overly complicated though, the answer to this should feel simple because it's emotional. Help me out here.

If you actually believe that then Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be. Otherwise consider being kind and charitable rather than tarring an entire group.

What evidence would you expect there to be, for or against, for that idea? If he’s alleging such an idea, in order to get evidence he would need to be employed as the head of a social science lab. Otherwise, he has to rely on the research already down, but that doesn’t exist on this topic. Requiring him to supply evidence for this kind of idea is saying he can never have the idea at all.

We have social norms and rules against saying shitty things about groups because there are costs to saying them. I like diverse opinions and I like evidence-based arguments, and these are ostensibly the goal of this site. People going on bitter tirades against women and leftists and PMCs goes against that goal.

If you want to say shitty things about people you should bring evidence. If you have no evidence then don't say shitty things.

It's true that this makes it more difficult to levy true accusations. But the point of these norms is to craft asymmetric weapons to guide us to the truth, and part of that is having standards before you're allowed to say that black people are inherently violent or that Jews secretly want to sacrifice Christian girls to the devil or that women secretly want to be conquered by the Turks.

What exactly in this analysis is "shitty"? It looks to me only like people using power to further their goals.

Moreover this kind of analysis is so routinely done publically for groups that are acceptable to criticize it seems at best unprincipled to refuse to engage with it because it's impolite.

Your norms are quite literally manufactured to pick winners and losers.

Leave the rest of the internet at the door. "People other places talk about how bad my in-group is all the time, so I'm allowed to do the same thing here" is supposedly not allowed here.

The shitty part would be the implication -- present here and more explicit downthread -- that women support immigration and lenient crime policies because they want to be raped. That's a shitty thing to say about people. It doubles as both an uncharitable imputation of an unsympathetic motive and as an implicit threat. It might as well be custom-designed for heat rather than light. There are good reasons to deprecate it, above and beyond other kinds of largely-unsupported speculative edgeposting.

The norms around here about not going out of your way to impute inflammatory, unsupported motives to your outgroup also apply to outgroups that it might be "acceptable to criticize" in other contexts. Just because it's acceptable in other places doesn't mean it should be acceptable here.

That wasn't the implication. Sometimes women make demands in the hopes they are refused. Consider a lame husband with a nagging wife. She would much prefer that he stands up to her and asserts himself, to her and also in a broader context.

"Women secretly want to be conquered" is marginally less inflammatory than "women secretly want to be raped," but this isn't saying much. I remain unimpressed.

If there's no evidence to back the idea, why is it worth posting about? It's trivial to generate an arbitrary number of unfalsifiable, ugly hypotheses against one's outgroup, but that's not what this space is for.

If a professor in a relevant field were to attempt to answer this question, in what journal would it be published? And what would be the expected half life of their job?

Why are you using the term "military-aged"? For whose military? If I look up the USA, the age range for conscription is 17-45. Are we to be concerned about all these 45 year old men?

Ah, but wait: apparently there is a thing called the Selective Service System for men - included illegal immigrants - in the age range 18-25.

So let us say you mean "men aged 18-25". Why then not say "young men", "young adults" or a similar term?

I think there is meant to be an effect here with word choice: "military aged" has the connotations of the military. Soldiers. Active fighting men. Violence.

Hence, "military-aged third world men/military-aged minorities" is meant to evoke immediately, bypassing the brain and getting the limbic system riled-up, the image of "violence-prone, aggressive, fit and capable of fighting and hurting you" non-white men who are involved, or likely to be involved, in crime and violence. Not alone will they take er jerbs, they will take er wimmin too! And beat you up, then laugh and call you a cuck as they leave you bleeding on the ground and steal your car to drive off in with your kidnapped daughter. Or even worse, not kidnapped, she goes with him voluntarily. As does your wife, because they both want bad-boy young alpha cock.

Can you be a little less obvious about trying to put up a scare? Maybe this age cohort of men are something to be worried about maybe they are involved in crime and fraudulent use of resources, but making it sound like "wink wink, they are actually an army you know or at least a militia" is not the way to discuss the topic of immigration (I do think the US should be cracking down hard on it, but "the brown men army is coming for our wimminfolks!" is not a good angle).

I think this opens up a whole 'nother discussion: are able-bodied young men fleeing a country under war a potential source of civil unrest, or just a horde of chickenshits who probably don't pose any threat, as evidenced by them not staying to fight for what they thought was right?

The only thing is, you'd have to examine the various waves and people who've come to the US, from Chinese fleeing the Communists, Vietnamese fleeing the Communists, Cubans fleeing the Communists, Venezuelans fleeing the Commun Socialists...

Okay, okay, dark-hinting aside, I think most people who immigrate and have at least a half-good excuse are mostly just there for the paycheck and little else. Sometimes, they can organize and be a potentially-good source of violence, but the one example I can think of are the Rwandan tutsis of the RPF, who may have raised some hell in Uganda(?), but their most (in)famous hell-raising was done inside the borders of Rwanda, under the leadership of the Western-educated Kagame.

Some people do just get along with the American program better than others, that's for sure.

Men in the 17-45 range are responsible for like literally all violent crime. I'd wager 18-25 is the heaviest represented too.

Clearly OP is bringing up "military-aged" because they have the highest propensity for crime and likely least beneficial for society to import. I don't know how this is some kind of gotcha. It's literally the whole point.

If we look at the Ukrainian war (both sides), in practice current "military age" seems to be somewhere around 18-60, though I wouldn't be surprised if a number of cases younger or older than that could also be found from the armies of both sides.

Because the common rhetoric surrounding asylum seekers and refugees is that they are almost all fleeing women and children, when this is demonstrably untrue. Additionally, if their home countries are at war and they are military aged men, should they not be fighting, as in Ukraine?

Leave the rest of the internet at the door

Somebody, somewhere, resorting to dishonest rhetoric is not a license to retaliate here.

Any thesis about ideological groups requires an array of opinions wider and more numerous than themotte posters. Allowing oneself to only have opinions about groups represented on themotte and have those opinions shaped exclusively by these representatives, would miss most and misperceive any.

I don't have a problem with reporting other people's opinions. It's saying "it's okay for me to portray my side in the most slanted terms possible here because I saw my opponents do it on Twitter" that I object to.

That the pro-immigration faction doesn't put the majority demographic of asylum seekers, young men, in a role in their public messaging commensurate to their numbers, is true. Not a weakman.

The picture of a dead kid on the Turkish? coast wasn't twitter it was mainstream newspapers.

No, it's not reasonable to do that.

Not every man is a steelman. If the vast majority of people believe something for stupid and ill-founded reasons, then when talking about the discourse surrounding the subject, it's simply not representative of reality to behave as if everyone has only the most ironclad reasoning for their beliefs. Even in this space it's rational to acknowledge reality as it is, not only as it could be. Else all we're doing here is making hypothetical arguments that don't actually relate to the real world in any meaningful way.

I have nothing against talking about other people. I'm against using their behavior elsewhere as an excuse to be rhetorically dishonest here.

OP was specifically asking about people who are not in this space, and I was talking about them and their reasoning. I fail to see the nature of your problem.

I would have gotten the fuck out if I was Ukrainian, tbh

No. The sorts of was as the Syrians had, or the Lybians, or even just the Yugoslavs thirty years back, is not the sorts of war where more men on any one side would've made anything better.

I do not fault military aged men for GTFOing along with their family if they do not believe there is anything good left to defend. (Or if there is hardly any defending required of them, as is the case in Russia).

Yes. Immigration's strongest proponents would never accept titanic rules (i.e. only women and children can come). Why not? Why do they want men? It's certainly not employment.

Why do they want men

Perhaps they don't "want" anyone. Astrahagant was referring to asylum seekers and refugees; perhaps they think that men, too, have a right to seek asylum, which should not be a surprising belief to hold, given that it is true. More broadly, perhaps they believe that keeping families united, rather than excluding husbands/fathers, is good policy.

men, too, have a right to seek asylum

It isn't "men, too" it's "men, almost exclusively".

Assuming it is true -- the UNHCR says that 40% of refugees are children -- why does that matter to the question of why proponents of admitting refugees hold that view? If Fred says, "we have a moral obligation to help refugees," how would the gender breakdown be relevant?

Since the story of the fired swedish dentist I don't take any official data regarding Assylum Seekers at face value. Do you have reason to do so (like the dentist was lying or something)?

I don't know if he is lying, but I note that he is actually a dental hygienist, not a dentist, so I wonder about his expertise. And RT is hardly the most reliable source. But, regardless, as as I noted elsewhere, the data I linked to is not about asylum seekers. It is about refugees and internally displaced persons. And, as I also noted elsewhere, the EU says that most of the asylum seekers it lists as under 18 are under 13; it is pretty tough to pass off someone that young as an adult.

More comments

We're talking about refugees in the west. The 40% stat on that page is of all displaced people everywhere. Most of the displaced people are displaced in their own country according to that website. And of refugees most don't end up in the West. So it could be totally true that 40% of people displaced globally are children and that the vast majority of people arriving in Europe are military aged men. I think that's the case based on videos of them arriving, and of the ones who are classified as children I think many are lying.

Yes, it is possible -- despite some of the rhetoric, I am pretty sure that males are more likely to be the victims of the sort of violence, etc, which tends to engender flight, and re those who exit looking for work, it is often young men who go out to earn money to send back -- but Pew found in 2015 that 29% of asylum seekers in Europe were under 18. Forty-two percent were males 18-34. So, overrepresented, yes, but not the majority, let alone the vast majority. And this estimates that 46% of illegal immigrants in the US are female. The DHS estimate for 2015-2018 is similar: 5.54 million female out of 11.39 million.

More comments

I don't see any reason to believe that stat when pro-refugee people prove themselves to be so wilfully ignorant as to do things like this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/asylum-seeker-uk-age-school-boy-ipswich-school-stoke-home-office-a8649696.html

Fact is, if you wash up without documents, you can say just about anything to make an asylum claim and these NGO types will nod and believe you wholly. At no point in the process is there any skepticism. Claim to be gay or have undergone a flash conversion to Christianity (right after your application was rejected, curiously!) and they will not nod and smile and submit appeals forms for you. There's no reason to suspect any kind of diligence is done at all.

You clearly don't understand what the data refers to. It is simply a count of people who are displaced (btw, mostly refugees, rather than the asylees to whom you refer). It has nothing to do with whether or not they are entitled to asylum. And btw the majority of asylum claims are, of course, rejected. See data here

Who, if you ask them why they didn't bring their family along, say the road was too dangerous, and it was better for them to stay where they were.

This all seems a bit overdone to me. I'd say women and the left probably don't think that they are letting in primarily criminals, and even if they do let in a few, it's not their fault/they can fix them/it's because of their unfair environment. So they see themselves mainly as helping some poor oppressed folk, which to some degree they actually are.

Immigants and domestic criminals, two separate categories. Some overlap.

it's not their fault/they can fix them/it's because of their unfair environment

This is what they say, but you only say this stuff of someone if you're already on their side. You'd say this about a family member, for example. Why are they on side at all is my question.

Maybe if a women feel rejected by or reject their own tribe themselves, they attempt to undermine it in the hopes of getting conquered by a different tribe? That seems overly complicated though, the answer to this should feel simple because it's emotional. Help me out here.

That would be the final nail in the coffin for feminism though - decades of ever increasing support and appreciation for women just makes your society a beta cuck who women feel compelled to undermine.

Maybe it's a far group/near group thing? Or, constantly on the look out for ways to demonstrate their virtue, women are forced to search further and further to find a victim who hasn't been rescued already and is therefore passe.

Women do feel compelled to undermine weaklings they are romantically involved with.

I don't think this is a virtue thing, these women really do passionately care for these crims and immigrants.

I don't think you can cleave it so neatly. A lot of the time if someone thinks caring about criminals will improve their status they will find a reason to care about them. At first they might only care on a superficial level, but as they see it improve their status they find reasons to justify it and can even end up being more enthusiastic than the people who are actually affected.

(I'm obviously speaking from an European perspective. American perspective may have differences)

There are no "open borders for military-aged third-world men", and apart from some groups of committed anarchists and other subject-oriented activists, it's not a real thing that is advocated. There are refugee and asylum programs, sure and these enjoy support from the Left, but these are not "open borders", any more than, say, any nightclub that lets in some people but also applies selectiveness as to who it lets in and for how long has "open doors". It should be noted that by far the largest and the most popular entry of refugees to Europe in recent years has not been military-aged third-world men - it has been Ukrainian women, of all ages, and children. Insofar as I've observed, the same peolple advocating for refugee/asylum policies have advocated for that entry just as eagerly.

Furthermore, in my experience, for an average left-winger (again, in Europe), this is really not a major issue. Right-wingers get far more fervent than immigration and borders than left-wingers at any time, and also seem to assume that the opposite side must by its nature share that same fervor, expect in opposite direction. This has frequently caused some consternation and bafflement amongst the left, especially when right-wingers bring the immigration issue to random other topics and then accuse the left of wishing to dodge the issue when the left wants to continue discussing the topic itself, not the immigration sidetrack.

What's the reason for supporting refugee and asylum programs? Again, in my experience, it's a belief that they're an essential part of the framework of human rights treaties that underpins democracy and the entire international system and would cause considerable danger of backsliding on these fronts if it comes down. The concept of "human rights" is etched in the minds of the modern Left very firmly indeed, and once something's written in a treaty, well, it's a part of the system now and must be defended among the other parts. However, as said, in this view it's just one issue among many others, not (generally) the central part of this worldview.

open borders for military-aged third-world men

Seems to me that the powers that be and their supporters (news, NGOs, etc) are pursuing a policy of "as many immigrants as possible". When do they ever work to decrease numbers coming in?

What's the reason for supporting refugee and asylum programs? Again, in my experience, it's a belief that they're an essential part of the framework of human rights treaties that underpins democracy and the entire international system

This type of immigration has never happened in human history absent conquest or slavery, so it's weird that it's now essential. However, I would like to bring this to your attention. It's kept from the public as well as possible, but immigrants are a huge drain on Euro countries. Politicians know this. Why do they keep adding more?

Okay, now you’re just throwing shit at the wall. “Seems to me”? Give some actual numbers.

Tell me, in which years did the US send the most migrants back?

Seems to me that the powers that be and their supporters (news, NGOs, etc) are pursuing a policy of "as many immigrants as possible". When do they ever work to decrease numbers coming in?

Again, context being Europe... constantly? Continuously? In a great variety of ways? At the very least since 2015, the constant trend in European (at least continental) migration policy has been how to prevent the events of 2014-2015 happening again in the same way, and thus we got the 2016 EU-Turkey deal, 2020 Greek border crisis solved by EU-supported border closure and 2021 Lithuania/Poland border crisis solved the same way. If the powers that be were pursuing a policy of "as many immigrants as possible", they obviously wouldn't have done that.

This type of immigration has never happened in human history absent conquest or slavery

United States has certainly taken in a lot of people fleeing religious or national oppression, even if it hasn't happened under formal refugee/asylum status, no?

However, I would like to bring this to your attention. It's kept from the public as well as possible, but immigrants are a huge drain on Euro countries.

It's not being kept from the public very well, I'm pretty sure anyone who has spent even a bit of time on immigration issues (which admittedly isn't even everyone politically oriented - as I said, not everyone simply considers immigration that big an issue) is aware of the costs of immigration, a drum the European nationalist parties keep banging on constantly. However, if your point for the maintenance of refugee/asylum system is the one I mentioned, ie the maintenance of the international human rights treaty framework, it follows that the costs alone are generally not a sufficient reason to stop doing so.

If the powers that be were pursuing a policy of "as many immigrants as possible", they obviously wouldn't have done that.

That's not true. They'd do it if they had no other choice, and had to wait for a better opportunity.

What they want to do is clear from messaging sent to the public, which is still: immigration good, and skepticism of it is racist.

That's not true. They'd do it if they had no other choice, and had to wait for a better opportunity.

So how is this supposed to be falsifiable then?

What they want to do is clear from messaging sent to the public, which is still: immigration good, and skepticism of it is racist.

Literally the messaging sent to the public by EU is this:

Migration is a complex issue. The safety of people who seek international protection or a better life has to be taken into account, as do the concerns of countries who worry that migratory pressures will exceed their capacities.

To address the interdependence between Member States’ policies and decisions, the European Commission proposes a new EU framework that manages and normalises migration for the long term. This new system should provide certainty, clarity and decent conditions for the women, children and men arriving in the EU. It also allows Europeans to trust that migration is managed in an effective and humane way, fully in line with our values and with international laws.

Migration is context, you have to balance a bunch of stuff, the top message is that immigration must be managed - which by necessity means that the borders won't be open, which was the question being discussed.

So how is this supposed to be falsifiable then?

Like I said, public messaging. What you quoted actually goes some way towards it, but what's missing for me is public awareness.

top message is that immigration must be managed

I'd say the top message is what actually reaches the public. I don't think, it's more than single-digits of voters who know the refugee crisis ended because they're paying Turkey to enforce their borders, or that there is a border wall in Poland and Lithuania. Then you also have the NGOs (which were specifically mentioned in this conversation), and last I heard from them about that, was that Polish border wall is racist.

There are refugee and asylum programs, sure and these enjoy support from the Left, but these are not "open borders",

What do you call policies that:

-let them in (let the human smuggler boats land),

-let them move around (do not take them into detention until their claim asylum is processed), and once that fails

-do not enforce evictions ? There's 700k people in France with a 'please leave France' order. No doubt a similar number in Germany, too.

These are open-border policies, de facto.

There are no "open borders for military-aged third-world men"

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2022/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned

25,282 people entered immigration detention in the year ending March 2022, almost double the previous year

In 2021, enforced returns from the UK decreased to 2,761, 18% fewer than the previous year and 62% fewer than in 2019.

So if you illegally cross the border, there is a 90% chance that you get to stay. Even if you are removed, nothing stops you just... trying again. What can that possibly be but de facto open borders?

I'm not sure how you guys do your statistics, but it seems to me that "the number of people who enter the UK illegally" is not necessarily the same as "the number of people who are detained for entering the UK illegally." Presumably some number are not detected.

Also true, but I can only use the numbers we have. You don't know what you don't know, after all.

What can that possibly be but de facto open borders?

If the UK were to implement an official policy of open borders (i.e. no legal restraints on the freedom of non-citizens to live and work within the borders of the UK), do you think the immigration would rise, fall, or remain the same compared to the current "de facto open borders"?

It would assumedly rise, as some number of people will be law-abiding even when it's widely known that breaking said law is never punished (and in fact rewarded with 4-star hotel stays at the taxpayer's expense.) In the same way that smoking weed is, in many ways, de facto legal, in that the police don't generally bother to arrest people for possession of it. But still a lot of people won't partake just because of the fact that it's illegal.

But the fact remains that there is no serious effort made to remove illegals from our borders. If you can come here illegally and most likely never be removed, what else can I possibly call it?

Salutary neglect? The outcome of the tension between competing priorities? The point remains that calling the status quo 'open borders' is Frankfurtian bullshit, a rhetorical flourish meant to provoke an emotional response, not an accurate description.

In the same way that smoking weed is, in many ways, de facto legal, in that the police don't generally bother to arrest people for possession of it. But still a lot of people won't partake just because of the fact that it's illegal.

I find this analogy apposite, in that formal legalization of marijuana has led to a dramatic uptick in usage. It wasn't just that people were deterred by the illegality (though that was certainly a part of it); marijuana became significantly more accessible. Similarly, an actual open borders policy would lead to far more immigration than what you see under a regime of half-assed immigration enforcement. Being an illegal immigrant puts you in a precarious position - not only are you effectively barred from all but the lowest rungs of the employment ladder, you are perpetually concerned with the threat of deportation. It's not particularly likely, but it is non-trivial (again, the marijuana analogy is somewhat apt). Legal immigration is a lot more secure and appealing. Making access to that status unqualified would draw far more people.

How many NGOs operating boats from Africa have been shut down, leaders arrested, assets seized?

The Greeks have arrested a few people but I'm not sure how that turned out. Don't think any other countries have.

This isn't my idea and I'm not entirely endorsing it...

I've heard it discussed as "the morality of Eve" or "snakes and babies morality". The idea is that women tend to classify things as snakes -- which are always dangerous and never to be trusted, or babies -- which are innocent and mean well, their transgressions should be forgiven.

Modern leftism encourages them to see "marginalized people" as babies that are innocent and need protection from the snakes, which are white men. The patriarchy is cast as the evil oppressor instead of the well intentioned protector.

One of the ways women protect their safety is higher levels of conformity with groups of women. Instinctively being excluded is very dangerous.

So women see defending criminals as a key part of being a good college educated liberal woman, and won't give that up.

edit: Not sure how to work this in, but I remember a study on the death penalty. When asked how they felt about an execution, the first question men had was usually "was he guilty"? Women didn't ask that.

if you start with a strawman (really, the people you reference especially want no prosecution of brazen murderers?), and then assume that people only value policies for instrumental reasons, it is no wonder you are perplexed.

But, people are not only motivated instrumentally, and in fact there might well be a reasonable argument that the status quo re border policies and re criminal justice are wrong or suboptimal. When CA law allows 70+-year sentences for gang-related murders using guns, it does not seem THAT incomprehensible that someone might vote for a DA like Boudin so that those murders get "only" 25 years instead. And, maybe those people know more about the status quo than you do, and you might be open to the idea that, if you knew what they did, you might think somewhat similarly to them.

When CA law allows 70+-year sentences for gang-related murders using guns,

While the article omits the reason, the man order to live 70 years behind bars, was on parole at the time of the murder. But perhaps being on parole while commiting a crime shouldn't extend ones sentence, but in that case I don't see why it should exist at all.

As it happens, that did not factor in the sentence. Though of course he also has his parole revoked and has to serve that sentence as well. Such sentences are quite common in CA

Homeowners really support open borders because of the effect on their house price? This is just beyond belief to me that any appreciable number of homeowners are thinking this way. In fact, I would imagine that homeowners probably skew republican (older, less urban, more married) and are likely overwhelmingly opposed to open borders.

I'm in Canada so maybe things are a bit different, but all these homeowners watching their single biggest asset 10x in their lifetime definitely softens the blow on immigration.

Any theory which relies on “my outgroup is evil and wants to make things worse” deserves stricter scrutiny. As you point out, the various boring incentives are enough to explain how immigration actually gets advanced; the shots at leftists are unnecessary.

Literally unnecessary: you are overcomplicating this!

Compassion for outsiders is left-coded. This is probably downstream of LBJ or maybe FDR, but it’s not new. Support for immigration thus signals tribal allegiance, potentially at a very low cost to middle-class individuals. The rest is just the signaling ladder in action.

This is leaving out the gender differences. Women are much more passionate advocates for both criminals and immigrants. Given that they also demand safety, this is not adding up.

If your model is producing nonsensical results it's probably broken.

Left-of-center voters and activists in the US tend to conceive of both immigration and CJR in empathetic and humanitarian terms. If they're making different risk tradeoffs than you expect then they probably either have made a different risk assessment than you or they don't have the priorities you think they do.

Any theory which relies on “my outgroup is evil and wants to make things worse [for me]” deserves stricter scrutiny.

Sometimes it do be like that. Sometimes it's actually that simple.

t. conflict theorist

OP is, elsewhere in this thread, arguing that women literally want to be raped.

I don't think it's as simple as conflict theory.

Women don't "want to be raped" but they do want someone passionate about them to that same degree. Bringing in foreigners to battle with domestic men they feel have lost their edge is sort of a win-win for them in this frame.

yeah, just countering the assertion in general.

Not exactly related, but when Chuck Shumer said last week:

We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to. The only way we’re going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the Dreamers and all of them, because our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers but to get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here.

It do be like that. This guy is the enemy

maybe FDR,

Man who imprisoned an entire ethnic minority? He makes even Trumps immigration policy look welcoming.

No, I don’t think he scores points for racial equity, but like it or not, the New Deal was the face of welfare. And big on Americana to boot!

I’m a little hazy on the relationship between pre-WWI Democrats and Progressives, so it’s possible that uplifting your fellow man was a party plank for longer. The New Deal definitely nailed it into place.

FDR's years literally had the lowest amount of immigrants arriving to US per year in almost the entire US history, at least the US history after the first decades.

I’m not arguing that he was responsible for adding immigration to the party platform. The New Deal deserves a lot of credit for making welfare a Democratic position, and I think that laid the groundwork for later rhetoric about compassion. If a voter perceives herself as compassionate, she’s going to be more receptive to Democrat branding. This includes immigration even if the DNC has adopted it for strategic or fiscal reasons.

The idea that left-wingers want to open borders because they expect immigrants to be criminals who will drive out right-wing families (drive out to where? The right-wingers aren't going to leave the country altogether, and I doubt many left-wingers live in a neighbourhood that both contains many right-wing families and will accommodate a significant number of the immigrants who come in through hypothetical open borders) seems very contrived and conspiratorial, especially in combination with the "homeowners wanting to keep prices pumping" (the small segment of homeowners who are left-wing, unconcerned about crime and do not have families?) statement. A far simpler theory would be to take people at their word when they say they are motivated by a desire to help the people who would come in. This would also explain the excess of support among women, who are known to be more caring.

they expect immigrants to be criminals who will drive out right-wing families

Not quite. On the criminals topic, I don't think anyone wants families gone as an explicit goal. But integration caused all of the white families in a lot of places to leave for good. These places now suck, but the good news is that they only ever elect Democrats. Democrats only ever (now) advocate for lax on crime policies. It's a feedback loop.

BLM was very frank about wanting to destroy the nuclear family. They had it on their website back in 2020 though I think they have since removed it.

This is confusing. Women are more risk-averse and place a higher value on safety, but at the same time they are advocating for violent criminals and random foreigners.

I briefly worked with a woman who quite vocally (in meetings about spreadsheets) would opine about this sort of thing. When the pandemic hit she moved to one of her parent's vacation houses in Aspen Vineyard Beach. She complained vocally about how the vacation house wasn't big enough for her + her husband to WFH.

She had great sympathy for all the BLM rioters in the place she fled from.

Recall that when people of her social strata faced the prospect of 50 or so illegal immigrants in their town, Biden sent 100 soldiers to take them away. Women's risk aversion is irrelevant because PMC women are not at risk.

Was her husband a nerd?

A salient data point here is that this effect is seen most prominently in single women as well as women with cucks for partners.

  • -11

Was her husband a nerd?

A salient data point here is that this effect is seen most prominently in single women as well as women with cucks for partners.

Please explain the data source from which you are getting these "data points."

I've told you repeatedly to knock it off with the low-effort dunking on your outgroup. Next time you get a ban.

Agree that these women aren’t at any personal risk for a while, but these beliefs are by and large not rooted in consequences in any way whatsoever. It’s pure signaling because elite women are orthodoxy enforcers, and ‘de facto open borders’ is the politically correct belief. Consequences don’t enter into it because these women mostly don’t think about them to begin with- they don’t think 200,000 Guatemalans a month will enrich their country or whatever, and realistically don’t know what a guatemalan is(nor do they care). They just know that the acceptable belief is to support letting in as many Guatemalans as want to come in.

Lol, the motte is weird af

  • -10

Don't post like this, please. You are not stuck in traffic--you are traffic.

Any key takeaways?

I've seen this course recommended a whole lot and I generally respect Sapolsky's insight, but I don't have time to watch an entire course.

Yeah, haha you’ll have to excuse me.

I took a break from this place for a bit and it was comedic for me to gawk at the take that young women are liberal because they want big strong immigrants to come mate with them.

It might not be wrong btw. I’m pro immigration and I tend to find foreign women really hot. Who knows if deep down that’s my real motivation?

Carry on, as you were!

immigrants are seen as "big strong" when actually they are often presented as helpless victims

If we switch to the violent criminals example, everyone agrees they are closer to "big strong". The most violent criminals tend to receive huge amounts of fan letters from women, so that's weird. I think in the case women did agree that the foreigners are big and strong, they would sell them as helpless.

The most violent criminals tend to receive huge amounts of fan letters from women

Violent crime leans heavily male. The few violent female criminals that got big amounts of publicity get a ton of fanmail, too; adoring this sorts of celebrity, even the vile kind, seems more human than it does feminine.

Personally I think it’s partly just that young women are more empathetic and so they tend to put themselves into the perspective of someone who is facing difficult circumstances.

My tendency is to be in their camp, so I feel like I kind of understand, but also I do think there are other deeper motivators in my psychology too, and maybe listing these out might be helpful here. Here’s my theory. Young unmarried women have:

  1. High empathy with a wide circle. Ease of which you put yourself in someone else’s shoes when hearing about hardship. The opposite of this is “I got mine”, which not at all to vilify that, I think there’s a relationship with maturity here, where young people have a starry eyed “help everyone in the world” attitude, and mature people with families have a “help my immediate circle who I’m deeply connected to” attitude.

  2. High exploration and openness. Personally, my exploration and openness settings are dialed all the way up. Like, I’m not content in one place, I want to see and experience everything the world has to offer, my friends settle in with work that’s well paid and meanwhile I choose things that are less stable and lower paid but have more possibility for excitement. This is aligned with a sort of interest and fascination with experiencing other cultures than my own, which in turn fuels the attitude of “more languages being spoken in my city? More exotic foods? Heck yeah”. In fact this is my theory for part of why cities are liberal and rural areas are conservative. The kids who have high openness and exploration drive leave rural areas, they’d never be content there. Whereas the people who want more stability and predictability can withstand the life of being a rural farmer or living in a small town. And again, young and unmarried people want to explore, whereas older and/or married people want stability and predictability.

  3. Naiveness. I’ll admit I learned over time that I do think right wingers have a point when they point out specific dangers in completely open immigration. Having large influxes of people from countries with different cultures can fuel problems. There can be value clashes, you can wipe out the character of a place, you can import approaches to governance that are not compatible. I’ve grown to recognize that, and of course, it’s the classic thing about having a “bleeding heart” kind of attitude. You think empathetically and other calculations don’t enter the picture as much. This is also something which changes with maturity.

In all three cases, I think these are points which both women and young people tend to have more than men and older people. And I think the psychological changes that come from having children and starting a family dampen all three.

Having children narrows your circle of concern, lowers your exploration drive while heightening your stability drive, and cuts naivety in favor of colder calculus of what will best benefit your offspring.

Thus, young unmarried women prefer immigration, followed by young unmarried men, then those who prefer less immigration are married men followed by married women.

Addendum: people with the attributes above probably are often sexually attracted to foreign people, so your earlier comment likely has a good point embedded in it.

Well, something has to explain the sex difference in these attitudes.

Maybe that difference is fake, and so nothing is needed to explain it. American polling on immigration from 2022

68% of women say immigration is a good thing, which is both a lot, and probably not enough to meet the idea of a biological imperative. Which compares to...71% of men who think immigration is a good thing. There is no gender split on this issue.

Or take the Trump elections as a referendum on immigration. Looking at exit polls in 2016 and 2020. That gives us a split of 54% and 57% females voting for the democrats, which even if we take that as equivalent to support for more immigration, is so so far away from pointing to a biological imperative to import young men or something.

This whole idea that immigration policy is driven by gender differences is made up bullshit, somewhere between (as @daseindustriesltd above) a cuckold fantasy and simply being so online that you assume that your enemies entirely consist of the women of twitter or whatever. It's getting tougher and tougher not to see this femoid-posting as a bit of of "What no pussy does to a motherfucker."

68% of women say immigration is a good thing, which is both a lot, and probably not enough to meet the idea of a biological imperative. Which compares to...71% of men who think immigration is a good thing. There is no gender split on this issue.

Eh, that's just asking about "immigration on the whole". I don't think OP is asking about H1Bs, but instead obviously about the illegal crossings at the southern border. Anecdotally, the news coverage of that is very much in the style of heart-string tugging that is traditionally aimed at women. If such a gender gap exists in this narrower area, I would bet that's a major cause.

Hey, someone find the data, I couldn't in a few minutes of cursory googling.

But even if women are 99% "concerned" about illegal immigrants and men are 99% concerned about illegal immigration; that still isn't going to be causally related to our policies. Because 40+% of women are still voting Republican and 40+% of men are still voting Democrat, so the split isn't being reflected in the political split. Regardless of how women feel about illegal immigrants, their actions are split nearly evenly, much too evenly to talk about it as a primarily gender driven issue.

Highly recommend that Sapolsky course. If you watch it you'll probably learn a thing or two about yourself, I know I did...

Good writeup.

pro-immigrant women don't really seem to act on such impulses, they wouldn't run from home to the arms of the supposed outsiders/newcomers.

You'd expect this to be the case given the dynamic at the start - they have to earn it.

To falsify, you'd check to see how many historical examples there are of women having political power and not using it to start a worldwide battle royale for themselves. I am not aware of this ever happening, but women have never had political power in a civilization I know about. There are quite a few examples of men taking women through conquest, but I haven't seen any texts that explore the dynamic between the women and their new tribe. Historically did the single ladies put up lot of meaningful resistance during a skirmish? Was it typical that they would switch sides as soon as an obvious victor becomes apparent? And if they were in a situation that seemed not so good, are there examples of women of a tribe undermining their own to help a conquest along?

I wouldn't even know where to start researching this stuff.

To falsify, you'd check to see how many historical examples there are of women having political power and not using it to start a worldwide battle royale for themselves. I am not aware of this ever happening, but women have never had political power in a civilization I know about.

I know that back in the 1860's there was a random Swiss dude, Johann Jakob Bachofen, who did all sorts of theorizing about matriarchal societies, and may have claimed to be doing some anthropology...but I haven't read his stuff directly. Engels' work on the family references it a few times. As such I'd tread carefully, 19th-century Germans were on some weird shit.

The myth you're looking for is the Sabine women at the foundation of Rome.

The archetypal male dream is to conquer the pristine: to get a chaste/shy/coy/innocent girl to become a naughty freak in the sheets just for him. The female dream is to tame the beast: to change the wild ballsy bad boy to become tender, prosocial, supportive, vulnerable creature but only for her.

I think I'm broken somehow - I've literally never found this a sexy or attractive idea at all, and I cannot grok people who say they do. Not in the slightest. I'm plenty attracted to women, just not the idea of changing their external presentation, or unlocking something "hidden" in them, or "mastering" them. shrug Just completely soycucked I guess.

How many and what variety of women have you dated?

I used to be skeptical of the ideas presented in GP's post until I started dating a lot and experiencing all of these dynamics for myself - from the "losing interest quickly in women that are too open to having sex" to the mad, head-over-heels attraction to excessively coy women that nonetheless give off ever so slight hints of their sexuality. I can wholeheartedly agree with this characterization of gender roles and human sexuality.

Hell, even the women I speak to about these topics basically confirm the picture: their dream man, overwhelmingly, seems to be a high-status, independent and adventurous psychopath who turns into a sophisticated poet and lover in their arms. But you have to sell that image to maintain their interest. The moment you actually give them too much affection, they genuinely lose interest - a prize easily obtained is a prize worth little. (This goes for both sides, of course)

The net result is that the only relationships which end up lasting for a long time is one in which neither party is too interested in the other person, only just enough to be worth the effort. (And also why I think the best on-ramp to a relationship is a friendship with somebody you didn't particularly plan on fucking)

Modern/civilized romantic life is quite a few steps removed from Vikings plundering women from Ireland and then sailing to an arctic island to start a country. That being said, the dynamic isn't that much different.

While the notable difference is that nobody is forcibly capturing women, that was only part of it. You still had to be able to conquer space to keep it going. Hunting, building a homestead, fighting off enemies and animals requires skill, toughness and drive.

A modern analogy would be professional contact sports. They have to be skilled and driven to get where they are (and get the woman), but also civilized enough to keep her happy. On a more normal person scale, you just need to have some kind of drive. Maybe you're an accountant, but if you go in there and do your job well and are assertive enough to rise, she will be happy. You just need to show that you have some sort of life force willing to overcome external resistance and take care of her.

It's easier to illustrate the wrong way to do it. Not caring about stuff, being lazy/apathetic, being a pushover both to her and to others, lacking ambition, not really being good at anything, that is how you lose. It's not about chasing virgins because they're sexy or whatever, it's a desire to master space.

A good friend's been a kept woman for years. We once had a short fling. Years later she opined we were too different as I yearnt to conquer the world, while she wanted to comfortably be, so it's easier for her to be with the malaised. It always seemed very aberrant to me in a modern way.

Do you find chaste/shy/coy/innocent girls attractive at all? It's definitely a fetish of mine, but not for the reason that I want to "conquer" or change them in any way to be more sexual. I just like them as is. So basically, I have half of the fetish that OP describes.

Sometimes - depends on the person.

None of the leftist women I know are sleeping with 5 foot 2 Nicaraguan day laborers so I'm skeptical of this theory.

What if they're bringing in the 5'2 Nicaraguans so that the local men will reassert their dominance? Warmup fight, easy win

And rich leftist women bring in the army when the Guatemalans are on their front lawn to intern them on a military base while arguing that Texas should have open borders.

The poor democrat women in south Texas voted far more Republican than usual on the strength of… sending in the army to try to seal the border and declaring migration to be an invasion.

Neither of these reactions indicate secretly wanting to get raped by brown people. I mean it’s possible, but honestly ‘we hate Texas’ is a more plausible motive for the former’s insistence on the border being open than that. Not that that’s saying much.

Neither of these reactions indicate secretly wanting to get raped by brown people.

In the realm of the sexual, I think it is very much possible to both want something and not want it at the same time, as little as that makes sense.

In the online realm, for example, I have observed both many dedicated fans of BLACKED fetishism admitting themselves to actually be right-wing, even White nationalists and adjacent, and many dedicated fans of the opposing BLEACHED fetish (dedicated to sexualizing (usually right-wing) White men, often with more explicit elements like being raped by Proud Boys, Nazis, Republicans, etc. for being too woke or feminist or whatever, politically-oriented degradation) admitting to being left-wing, normally opposed to "White privilege", etc.

Similarly, on forums dedicated to discussing rape it isn't uncommon to find rape victims declare that they ended up being turned on by how unattractive their rapist was (that is, I suppose the humiliating element of being forcefully subjugated by someone you would never voluntarily offer yourself to) and subsequently developing a somewhat paradoxical "fetish" for men they find unattractive, or at least the thought of being raped by them.

(But it seems to me that the real perplexing element is that their bizarre "attractiveness" is contingent on their perceived willingness to rape: The women still will still not offer themselves to these newly attractive-in-their-unattractiveness men voluntarily in the manner that they would to purely attractive men; they might develop a habit of attempting to tease them and entice them into rape for the thrill of it, but these men must still must take the bait and choose to rape to be sexually desirable and have a chance of sexual conquest with these women.)

The erotic element of the human mind can be a bizarre thing, perhaps particularly in an age of widespread exposure to any kind of pornography.

Interesting post. It reminds me of the concept of reaction formation.

Yeah that seems to be about it.

"Why does my outgroup push for obviously terrible things when we all know they don't actually believe the things they say they do?" Bonus: "Let me ask a leading question suggesting the uncharitable answer."

(Before you get indignant at my steelmanning the other side, I'll stipulate that I am not personally in favor of either open borders or lax criminal prosecution. Policy-wise, and probably even politically, I am probably much closer to you than the single college-educated women you so despise.)

Here's the actual answer: people in favor of open borders actually believe open borders are good. They are not nationalists and largely regard nationalism with distrust if not contempt; they believe freedom of movement, and particularly the freedom of people to seek better economic opportunities in wealthier countries, should not be hindered. They largely see Westerners living in wealthy nations as benefiting from a manifestly unfair birthplace luck-of-the-draw, and don't see why Guatemalans or Bangladeshis or Nigerians or Syrians should have to suffer just because they were not so lucky.

They (including even the women) do not think in terms of "military-aged men" (and definitely not in terms of "third-world men") and its implications.

They support lax prosecution of criminals for similar bleeding-heart reasons: they really do believe the rhetoric that fuels "defund the police" and BLM and "disproportionate impact on marginalized communities." They think they are being compassionate to the oppressed.

Stated more bluntly, you are asking "Why do they want to unleash hordes of violent rapists upon themselves?" You are "confused" because you don't believe that their motives are actually what they say they are, and you don't believe that they don't perceive the same outcome (hordes of violent rapists) that you do. Even if what you believe is actually correct, they don't believe that. They aren't endorsing it for some secret unstated reason they won't admit to.

This sounds pretty good: women are more caring than men, and all they're doing here is caring.

However, and this is related to the 4chan poster who claims this is pseudopregnancy, is that these things are advocated for in a way that doesn't strike me as coming from a place of compassion. It looks a lot more like hysteria. When I see these ladies get on the mic they are always speaking in terms of how much they hate the patriarchy (i.e. their own men), not how great Haitians are. Let's also remember that these are the same women who have done their best to eradicate any trace of all-male space on at university because masculinity is toxic and men are rapers. They say that even one woman assaulted on campus is too many, while offering complete foreigners a huge amount of leeway on the same topic. It makes sense: they're on the side of the foreigners. But why?

"Why do they want to unleash hordes of violent rapists upon themselves?"

To feel something besides alone?

'compassion' and 'hysteria' of sorts can totally coexist though. Like, let's say you saw a brutalizing a , or your enemy saw a brutalizing a - they'd be both motivated by 'helping the innocent person not be harmed' but also hysteric about it.

People, and especially women, are good at self-deception.

To that end, we can see that they most likely really do believe that they believe all of the things amadan says they do as reasons for their actions.

To feel something besides alone?

At the same time, we can also acknowledge that there's probably something to your guess here.

I observe that their support for immigration is related more to hating their own men than it is loving these other men, which really changes the whole thing.

“Women want to be raped rather than be alone” is a spicy enough take to demand some fucking strong evidence. I’ll settle for literally any, though.

Women love rape. There’s nothing that gets a woman’s motor going like forcibly holding them down and having your way with them. Degrade her verbally, pull her hair, smack her ass, choke her.

If you’d spent much time with women you’d know this.

https://twitter.com/extradeadjcb/status/1443219177733607432

https://extradeadjcb.substack.com/p/10-you-can-save-her

Not exactly what you said, but closer than the other guy

“My angel wife is gonna drag me to heaven, I just do whatever she tells me”. It’s miserable to listen to, you can tell it absolutely desiccates their poor wives

This gender dynamic stuff is really difficult (and cringe) to discuss properly because it's a game where talking about the rules is an instant loss.

First of all, she specifically wants to make breakfast & wear heels & tidy up for Christian Grey, a charming chiseled bazillionaire. And this is perfectly understandable: if she’s going to surrender, it should be to someone worthy, who will take her somewhere worth going. It would be humiliating to do this for some pothead, some clown who just wants her to scrub his unrinsed dishes. There’s dignity (for men & women) in swearing fealty to a righteous King, but not a petty bureaucrat.

So while your statement is correct for a certain type of person, talking about it is disqualifying because now there's a chance you're just miming something that's support to be natural. Or you're not that type of person at all, in which case it's revolting for you to be thinking about this at all.

This gender dynamic stuff is really difficult (and cringe) to discuss properly because it's a game where talking about the rules is an instant loss.

You can talk about it here! You just need to be very precise, write lots of long sentences, etc. See ilforte's posts about jews - lots of detail, context, arguments, etc.

I think the implication is that would still count as an instant loss--from the perspective of a woman reading it. Talking about the game is unsexy.

Boring troll is boring. Banned for a week, probably permaban next time.

ETA: Threw flaming shitfit in DMs. Permabanned.

The "hysterical" component is simply the zeal that accompanies a conviction in one's own righteousness and the evil of one's enemies. Radfems screeching about the patriarchy are not much different than Puritans screeching about witches. MAGAs and wokes suffer from the same malady, however much you want to ascribe it to some particular component of female psychology.

To feel something besides alone?

That would be the uncharitable projection I was alluding to. I know Dread Jim and Vox Day and their ilk write a lot about how deep down, women are turned on by the idea of being raped by alpha males, but consider the possibility that when women "care" they are actually caring (however misguided you think they are) and not just following some opaque hypergamous programming subroutine.

MAGAs and wokes suffer from the same malady

Disagree. One prefers hostile foreigners to their own, both want to make it illegal for the other to be in power. Not symmetric.

Radfems screeching about the patriarchy

Here's where it's weird. I wrote in another comment that women making excuses for rapey immigrants is in heavy contrast to the decidedly less rapey white men they've given no quarter at university for the last several decades. What gives besides friend and enemy distinction?

The simplest answer is that they are wrong about relative prevalence of rape.

Or that you are. From NIJ

About 85 to 90 percent of sexual assaults reported by college women are perpetrated by someone known to the victim; about half occur on a date.

If a college woman doesn't know or interact with any illegal immigrants, then she is exceedingly unlikely to be raped by one. Even taking your assumption that those men are more likely to rape, the base rate of interaction is so low as to make it practically irrelevant. [Rainn tells us](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence#:~:text=Male%20college%2Daged%20students%20(18,of%20rape%20or%20sexual%20assault.&text=Female%20college%2Daged%20students%20(18,of%20rape%20or%20sexual%20assault.) that college women are less likely to be raped than similarly aged women who aren't in college. Those women who aren't in college, in turn, are probably exceedingly unlikely to be raped by a college student.

So this is closer to a class issue than a race or a gender issue, even if we accept your framing.

Sure, that’s possible too- I wasn’t trying to address the issue of who’s doing the raping. Just pointing out that the possible solutions to ‘feminists are really attached to importing rapists’ include ‘they believe what they say they believe, including incorrect statistics about the prevalence of rape’, and that this is a more likely explanation than ‘they all want to get raped’.

Near group/far group

What is the analogous far group for red?

Apparently women.

You seem quite confident that women feel the exact same fear or distaste as you, but channel it into completely different policy. This might have something to do with taking gender studies on 4chan.

Consider the the possibility that women frame the issue differently than you. They are not afraid or threatened, and think of sympathetic migrants and unjust sentencing rather than drug trafficking or recidivism.

Red uses women against blue?

More comments

Here's where it's weird. I wrote in another comment that women making excuses for rapey immigrants is in heavy contrast to the decidedly less rapey white men they've given no quarter at university for the last several decades. What gives besides friend and enemy distinction?

I'm not sure if you're being insincere or if you just have a very broken theory of mind for your outgroup. It's not complicated; I'll say it again. They actually believe what they say they believe. They do not believe immigrants are "rapey"; they believe immigrants are oppressed marginalized refugees. They actually believe white men at their university are privileged and rapey. It's not some secret code you have to crack to figure out why they treat one differently than the other: they told you. Your interpretation ("You know immigrants are more likely to rape you than your white classmates, right?") might or might not be correct, but that is not their interpretation. They aren't just pretending not to understand and hiding their motives: they believe different things.

Then the question is why do they choose to believe things that aren't true and are trivially easy to disprove.

No, the question, or rather the offer is: then disprove them. "My enemies are wrong and believe untruths" is what everyone believes and carries no information.

Agreed, but my OP focused on a subgroup:

there is only one source of intense passion: single, college-educated women

Married women from the same demographic, especially with kids, believe these things to a much lesser degree. Do you think that being single makes a woman more likely to buy into this stuff, and why might that be?

From election polling, and - 'married men: 39% D, married women: 42% D, nonmarried men: 45% D, nonmarried women: 68% D'. (I'd argue a lot of that is just women being more influenced by social ideas, and 'progressive ideas' are the background and are winning, so younger women adopt those)

Your explanation seems wrong though

I'm not married to my explanation, but "women more easily convinced" doesn't seem right. Why aren't they convinced by strong borders? Pretty good arguments for that.

More comments

Married women from the same demographic, especially with kids, believe these things to a much lesser degree. Do you think that being single makes a woman more likely to buy into this stuff, and why might that be?

You're asking why college students are more radical than older, married people with children, and yet somehow making it a question about women.

To be fair, the polling (sibling comment) shows a much stronger difference in party voted for than married vs unmarried women (26% absolute) than married vs unmarried men (6% absolute), although op's explanation still seems wrong

Here's the actual answer: people in favor of open borders actually believe open borders are good. They are not nationalists and largely regard nationalism with distrust if not contempt; they believe freedom of movement, and particularly the freedom of people to seek better economic opportunities in wealthier countries, should not be hindered. They largely see Westerners living in wealthy nations as benefiting from a manifestly unfair birthplace luck-of-the-draw, and don't see why Guatemalans or Bangladeshis or Nigerians or Syrians should have to suffer just because they were not so lucky.

I agree the OP post did seem like begging the question, but I think there is also the possibility of ulterior motives. Some principled leftists and libertarians may think open borders are good for humanity , but probably others see immigration as necessary for displacing white America. If the outcome is the same does the intent matter that much? Maybe but probably not that much.

How many regular people do you think are walking around with an internal plot to “displace white America”?

Everyone who professes a belief in social justice, for one. Among people who control the levers of power, a lot.

I think I believe in social justice as much as anyone and my subjective experience does not include "an internal plot to displace white America."

Do you not think it is desirable for white to become a minority?

As a leftist mostly open borders, we mostly just don't care, dude.

Like, by the standards of the supposed secret left-wing plan to import a new citizenry to outvote the Old Stock, or whatever, because of the drop in support for the Democrat's among Hispanic voters, there should be some shift in support for amnesty, immigration reform, refugee status, etc., but there hasn't been.

Outside of a few jokes about since Florida is gone, Biden should reverse the Cuban import ban and invited Raul Castro to a state dinner next year, there's been no shift in elected or non-elected support, which seems odd if we're all in on a plan to get rid of whitey.

OTOH, if it turns out we're all bleeding-heart lefties who think America is, has, and always been a land of immigrants where the Old Stock freaked out over being "replaced" since approximately 1776, then there should be no surprise. The Anglo Stock got replaced by the Germans, Swedes, and such who came over. Then those people got scared of the Irish and Italians. Then, those people are currently scared of the Hispanic's and Asian's. In another 40 years, there will be El Savadoran's and Hmong Republican's scaring people about I don't know, Bangladeshi and Cameroonian immigrants taking their jobs, or whatever. As is tradition.

As a leftist mostly open borders, we mostly just don't care, dude.

Then, uh, why is it a flagpole issue? You can take the wind out of the right wing sails by not contesting it. If you don't care and still prevent the conservative position what could the justification be besides spite? And why should people respect someone spiting them?

The question is whether the Salvadoran or Hmong Republicans will be similar in their beliefs, both explicit (e.g. policy proposals) and implicit (values or behavioral traits), to today's Republicans or whether the term Republican will come to mean something different. Someone recently posted this analysis by a user from the old forum (don't know if he's on here), and if this is accurate it suggest that even the additional European immigration from outside a vague Northern European cultural sphere already greatly shifted political leanings in the general population, and the Hmong and Salvadorans did and will shift it even further.

In light of this, I don't think the assumption of your argument, i.e. that we shouldn't care about demographic change because incoming populations will politically assimilate, is broadly false: the trappings and names of the past might be kept, there will be probably continue to be Republicans and Democrats well into the future, but the actual content underneath these labels has shifted in patterns largely dependent on the underlying demographics.

As a leftist mostly open borders, we mostly just don't care, dude.

Maybe you mostly don't but the influential people driving policy do. Biden said that it's a wonderful thing that white people will be a minority in the US and he's one of the (comparative) moderates. Or Jimmy Fallon's audience cheering when he says that the census shows the number of white people declining. Obviously your views are your own but to say that most leftists "don't care" is just false. They say that they care and the policies that they implement back that up.

because of the drop in support for the Democrat's among Hispanic voters

They favored Democrats by a 20 point margin in 2022. The idea that Hispanics will ever favor Republicans is a cope and Democrats are too smart to think that could happen, though I'm sure they're happy that Republicans think so.

No.

I don’t think there’s anything special about whiteness. Certainly not anything that makes us the only valid users of American culture. And that’s what really matters.

Does essentially entirely creating that "American culture" not automatically make them "anything special" in it? Do you also entirely deny HBD and thus believe that solely culture determines destiny?

More comments

I do not. I do not have any particular opinions regarding the ideal racial composition of any country, except that attempts to manage it deliberately are often pernicious.

Well, important people like Biden and Washington Post Reporters think it is good, and while that makes you (in my opinion) a amoderate instead of "I think I believe in social justice as much as anyone" as you wrote, they have the levers of power.

Judging by all the cheering at it, possibly the majority of people who would go to see John Stewart live? Or maybe they just had a freakishly unusual audience the day they did the "census says less whites! applaude now" bit.

It's one of the favorite recreational gaslighting tricks they pull. Ever been in one of those Reddit threads asking "what's with all the hate towards white people in this sub", where half the answers are sneering that it's not happening and the other half are saying it's justified because whites are disgusting?

During my over-a-decade experience in left-wing politics, I have in fact never, ever seen anone advocate for immigration for "displacing whites" in their own country. For full disclosure, over a ten years ago I was in a British Trot conference (SWP); apart from the whole business giving a good education on what Trotskyism is and why it absolutely is good there are almost no Trots in Finland, I listened to a speech by Tariq Ali where Ali offhandedly mentioned that white people are predicted to become a minority in US in the coming decades and the young British Trots cheered and clapped; then again, even in this instance, it was (at least for the clear majority) not their country that was being spoken of. (I'm not even sure if I should mention this anecdote since it feels like the sort of a thing where most of the replies to this comment inevitably would end up revolving around it.)

In a domestic context, though? Never, and I've had conversations on a wide variety of topics with people at all local levels, really, often with alcohol involved. The whole idea - and the right-wing obsession with this belief - is considered terminally strange.

I agree with your steelmanning, and think that you're correct in saying it But I also think there may be additional factors at play. We can go a little deeper to examine why they feel the way they do. For example, it's possible that most of the liberal educated bleeding-heart college women don't live in areas which would be impacted by increased crime, increased immigration, etc. They live in a sheltered bubble, and they're happy to believe the rhetoric as long as the chickens never come home to roost on their personal property. It's possible that women who live closer to the border or in urban centers would feel really different on those policies.

If anything liberals as a demographic are far more exposed to crime than conservatives are.

Conservatives are the more dominant demographic in suburbs and rural areas.

That's also why the crime dog didn't really hunt in the midterms - in actual urban areas, yes crime rose, but it's not 1989 out there. It's closer to the apocalyptic year of...1997. Which I thought there was nostalgia among the non-woke since it was the decade racism was killed before SJWs reignited it, so if it was such a great time, why are VC's on Twitter freaking out about it being as violent as it was when it was the time they have nostalgia for?

Friendly reminder that Twitter—be it bluechecks, randos, or “VC’s”—is a miserable site which doesn’t track the midterms. Or even realistic opinions.

Leftists pine for the days with high union membership, but ignore that paucity of women in the workforce in those days.

Which ideology would, from an era it idealizes, want only things they consider bad and no things they like?

or example, it's possible that most of the liberal educated bleeding-heart college women don't live in areas which would be impacted by increased crime,

Seems unlikely, given how blue white people in urban areas are, and how red white people in rural areas are. Look at NYC: All of those white liberal women ride the subway, I guarantee it. And there are plenty of projects mere blocks from all sorts of affluent or hip areas. If anything, the correlation seems to be the opposite of the one you propose.

The people of whom you speak simply do not see non-whites, as a group, as a threat.

deleted

They’ve told us why they believe it

That explains why some hold the beliefs, it does not explain why these beliefs are heavily correlated with martial status.

Because people from conservative backgrounds are more likely to prioritize marriage and more likely to marry young?

What else would be the explanation?

Also, married people will probably just tend to be older than younger ones, and people tend to get more (socially) conservative as they age.

Changing social roles have been known to change peoples thoughts, values, and behaviors. I’d wager there’s a pretty substantial difference between the truly single and the long term cohabiting as well, it’s just hard to track.

Yes, your analogy to Democrats and rural whites is exactly correct, though I don't know for sure what their precise thinking is. I would add abortion as well; if you think abortion is wrong, you will vote for the anti-abortion party, even if the other side will better serve your economic interests, because only an asshole would do the opposite. And see article I linked earlier re value rationality.

most of the liberal educated bleeding-heart college women don't live in areas which would be impacted by increased crime, increased immigration, etc.

Given that they disproportionately live in lower-to-mid-income parts of eastern megalopolitan cities which have seen disproportionate increases in crime (particularly BOS-WASH), I think we can safely say that this is somewhat disproven, or at least complicated.

Well, if anything, that says something about the criminals issue, not immigration. Or, the criminals issue could be complicated by neighborhoods. I could easily see it being the case that these white women are not living in predominantly black neighborhoods where it's likely the bulk of the crime would be (the true "urban" areas as opposed to the "metropolitan" or up and coming gentrifying areas). Or they simply don't know how bad things might get if their activism achieves it's goal, out of sight out of mind.

Another thought comes to mind as well. What if they DO complain about such populations, but the complaints are coded in a blue tribe fashion. I.e, they don't complain about "crime" and "criminals", they complain about "patriarchy" and "men". They dislike being victimized, cat called, robbed, but they blame their own causes.

Once in a while a nice affluent white lady does end up the victim of these policies, but the response from media and activists is qualitatively different than frat sexual assaults. I would think activist ladies don't even discuss this privately.

Outsiders draw no special condemnation because trouble is expected from outsiders. Those of native culture are held to a higher standard.

Perhaps I'm too misogynistic, but this story of wishing to get conquered seems ridiculous (and reeks of second-hand cuckold fantasies, sorry). I don't believe we need any deep analysis of female support for liberal immigration policies, there isn't that much agency here.

Women usually commit to ideological positions that are endorsed by the distributed moral authority of the reference group, and rationalize it with readily available arguments; they are more conformist, more agreeable and, thanks to the incentive structure in education-to-early-career pipeline and their success there, more advanced in their addiction to teacher's praise and fellow user's like and retweet. The reference group being largely made up of fellow women, background social network radiation, media characters, Dem politicians, microcelebrities and such, women arrive at supporting liberalism, unless insulated in deep red bubbles. Liberalism of the sort endorsed by DNC, aka the current thing, feels like common sense, just what decent sane people vote for as a matter of course; indecent, insane, deplorable, mean people, racist grandpas who've regrettably survived COVID, and their ilk support the opposite of the current thing, and associating with them lowers one's intuitively calculated social credit score. On top of that, there is simple political power.

Power is based, powerlessness, meekness, nebbishness is cringe. Based thing is based, cringe thing is cringe, the evolution of society is guided via cringe policing and the side that can inject cringe/based connotations into the discourse better wins. We've seen this analyzed and practically applied countless times, starting with Torches of Freedom, or perhaps much earlier, at the dawn of universal suffrage.

Another is that I read that women often support FGM in societies that practice it, which is quite shocking if you come from the narrative that it's always specifically men who are imposing such abhorrent practices.

I mean, surely moms go along with that program, not unlike (and I raise this example merely for the sake of one angle of similarity, not claiming these are the same thing) how progressive moms are the ones who support their kids transitioning in gender? Probably still coerced by the fathers, though.

Women being more susceptible to cults is an obvious example that comes to mind.

Like are women more supportive of "traditional" things in conservative societies?

In the UK the men didn't vote for Thatcher, their wives did. But you could say part of that was because she was going to become the first female PM. But equally that didn't help Meloni recently.

Women tended to vote more for conservative parties than socialist/left-wing parties up until the 70s.

Foot binding was also very much propagated by women. And IIRC, women were more opposed to women's suffrage than men.

Or, you know, young women might just vote for left-wing parties because they feel that right-wing parties are too full of people who view them misogynistically. One might indeed get an impression that such views might exist by reading a thread on this forum full of speculation about how this ineffable mystery can best be explainable by the fact that young women are vapid idiots who don't know their own good, or are fantasizing about being conquered by exotic brown-skinned immigrants, or so on.

Sovereign is she who only fights back.

One of your talking points is that women in the past voted conservative. And I doubt the conservatives then were less "misogynistic" than conservatives today. So mere "misogyny" doesn't repel female voters.

Historically both left-wing and right-wing parties were full of men who would, at least by today's standards, be considered misogynistic.

The approximate reason for women voting more conservative historically was probably their greater religiousness, with the left being associated with secularism and the right-wing parties being more explicitly religious. Nowadays, the whole society has secularised, which has had many effects, one of which has been the replacement of more polite and civil traditional religious conservatism with crude and boorish chest-tumping macho nationalism as one of the mainstays of right-wing politics. The former did have appeal to many women, the latter... not very much so.

More than the macho nationalism, which was very present also in the past, is the Libertarianism that probably makes the women flee.

There is nothing more repelling imho of the freedom-loving men who claim to be the only ones free in our society. Women cares about community, the problem is that the global/left communities appear more stable and welcoming and normal that the libertarian community.