This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've been thinking about why some people are terrified of Trump while others, like me, are more indifferent. I mostly tune out Trump news because I assume much of it involves scare tactics or misleading framing by his detractors. When my wife brings up concerns about his supposedly authoritarian actions, my general response is that if what he's doing is illegal, the governmental process will handle it - and if it's legal, then that's how the system is supposed to work. I have faith that our institutions have the checks and balances to deal with any presidential overreach appropriately.
This reminded me of a mirror situation during 2020-2021 with the BLM movement, where our positions were reversed. I was deeply concerned about social media mobs pressuring corporations, governments, and individuals to conform under threat of job loss, boycotts, and riots, while my wife thought these social pressures were justified and would naturally self-correct if they went too far. The key difference I see is that the government has built-in checks and balances designed to prevent abuse of power, while social movements and mob pressure operate without those same institutional restraints. It seems like we each trust different institutional mechanisms, but I can't help but think that formal governmental processes with built-in restraints are more reliable than grassroots social pressure that operates without those same safeguards. Furthermore, the media seems incentivized to amplify fear about Trump but not about grassroots social movements - Trump generates clicks and outrage regardless of which side you're on, while criticizing social movements risks alienating the platforms' own user base and advertiser-friendly demographics.
I don't like trump because he's made my situation materially worse and is likely to continue to do so. I don't like trump because he profits the outgroup at the expense of the ingroup. I don't like trump because I'm ideologically and morally opposed to his positions. I don't like trump because I think he is, personally, a very immoral individual.
In principle, you could convince me that any particular complaint is overblown. There are plenty of immoral, harmful, outgroup people I don't feel nearly the vitriol for. But Trump is the perfect storm; He's not just a villain, he's a villain that gratuitously kicks puppies. Sure, the media environment contributes to what you call "terror", but that's strictly adaptive. Everyone on my "side" would agree, sober-minded, that Trump is the single most important political figure to oppose. Adding a component of emotional motivation increases the time and pleasure in doing so. Consider any ideological cause leftists and liberals are interested in: creedal citizenship, wealth redistribution, climate change, alphabet people, etcetera. Assuming conflict theory, it's obvious that "Depose Donald Trump" is the first step in promoting any of them. The only reason to do anything else is if you believe in mistake theory instead-- but Donald Trump is congenitally incapable of admitting mistakes (except in the "fifty stalins" sense) which means any attempt to find common ground just gets ran over by his conflict theory instead.
This is off topic but: I am very interested in discussing this issue. I've seen the idea floated, I can grok it, but evey conversation where it's brought up seems to gloss over key details, that I'd really like to hear more about. If you could go into your views on the subject and answer some questions, I'd be much obliged.
Alright, here's my contribution: It sure would be nice if one society could manage to agree to one set of core values and live by them and everyone pulls on the same rope, as we say here, and also that creed turns out to be a really good one and there's nothing wrong with it. Others can come in so long as they comply with this creed. People are kicked out when they don't. But the creed is good, and the nation prospers.
Failure modes:
I'm rambling a little. My core point is this: A creedal nation, if poorly thought out, will just be any western country as it exists right now, or a totalitarian nightmare, or something entirely unlike what we (for a given vaue of we) currently envision or desire.
IMO it's all hot air anyways. The future won't give a shit about what people believe or what ethnicity they might be traced back to. Technological totalitarianism that has full control of each and every individual seems more likely than grand social experiments of the feel-good kind.
The Amish? Depending on your definition of 'prosper'.
Actually a good example, thanks.
But would the Amish work if they weren't embedded inside a larger country?
It's complicated. They can't protect from depredations by more advanced neighbours, so in that sense no. But they aren't necessarily competing for the same type of resources. 'Produces food if you leave them alone' isn't the worst civilisation trait to have in a neighbour but it depends on whether you are Nuclear Gandhi.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. Basically I think the purpose of a state is to be a back-scratching club: designate an ingroup, and then work to benefit them. The question, then, is what makes the ingroup-- and the answer, as with all back-scratching clubs, is people who agree to mutually benefit each other. That shared self-interest creates the first, and deepest, common value, on top of which all others are built on. Nations built on ethnicity, language, region, or skin color, are just Schelling points for applying that self-interest. But while those things can serve as unifying elements, they're not intrinsically helpful for scratching backs. But culture, and religion, are both adaptive-- they're collections of traits that help perpetuate the groups that bear them. Therefore it makes perfect sense to center a nation around them.
To be clear, as a catholic, I disagree pretty heavily with many liberals and virtually every leftist about what "creed" the nation should be based on, and how the government should contribute to its enforcement. But I think by far the bigger threat is a government that excludes people who indisputably share my creed, versus a government that would try and promote another creed. By the very virtue of me believing the things I believe, I should rationally think they're the best beliefs, and that they're guaranteed to eventually win. The benefits of pulling in allies therefore massively outweighs the risk of allowing in enemies.
Here you imply what is the main issue I have with the western liberal's version of this, and why they are unable to apply it in a way that actually functions; an ingroup implies the existence of outgroups, or at least of people not in the ingroup. If extremely illiberal Muslims are supposed to be in our ingroup, who isn't? If people are denied a coherent definition of their ingroup, they cannot believe it will scratch their back, so they fall back on base individualism and all the civilisational gains that were achieved by nationalism slowly decay.
Honestly, I truly believe that the only thing that could potentially unite humanity in the way globalists dream of is the discovery of alien intelligence advanced enough to exclude from our ingroup. Because there is never an us without a them.
That's not what western progressive leftists believe, though. To them, the Muslims aren't actually illiberal themselves but simply conditioned to illiberal habits by the illiberal societies that oppressed them, and having escaped to the liberal West, they are sure to adopt liberal norms if not swiftly then at least certainly over enough time (and any failure to do so is because our own Western societies have too much residual illiberalism).
The temporarily embarassed liberal muslim is supposed to be our ingroup.
The Nazis.
Obviously.
(Where "The Nazis" is anyone who actively rejects the leftist agenda.)
Hence the lack of coherency, as it doesn't escape the public that the average modern "Nazi" has more in common with them and with good western liberals than an average practicing Muslim, and that the practicing Muslim has more in common with the historical Nazi (including strong hatred of Jews, totalizing politics)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
extremely illiberal muslims shouldn't be in our ingroup (by default; I'd make attempts to convert them and bring them in). I'm very pro-coherent-definition. I'm happy with making an us/them distinction. I just want to make it on the basis of adhering to a particular creed, rather than arbitrarily assigning it via ancestry.
Yes, I am too a civic nationalist, and would like for this to work. But I find few liberals are okay with enforcing the clear us/them distinction, because it doesn't "feel" liberal to do so.
Nah, they're 100% okay with it, they just use a distinction that's largely orthogonal to the conservative civic nationalist one. Look at the hysteria about "gentrifiers", for example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And people who lie about it. And people who half-heartedly agree to it just enough to be let in. And people who are born into it and then reject it but there's no mechanism for excluding them or making them comply.
Best as in most beneficial to hold, or best as in most able to propagate in a competitive environment? Because a belief that is the one may not also be the other.
What makes you think I'm against compliance mechanisms? I believe the government has a duty and an interest in enforcing prosocial behavior. That's the entire point of creedal citizenship! You can say that it's a problem that people might defect against shared values and I'd agree with you, but it's crazy talk to identify the shared values as the problem, rather than the defection. A society built on-- for example-- shared ancestry, doesn't even get to the starting line!
For every belief I have, if I thought there was a more beneficial belief to posses, I would believe that instead. Therefore I can rationally conclude that I have the most-beneficial beliefs. My meta-confidence isn't 100%, since I could imagine learning reasons to swap out my beliefs again-- but for that exact reason it makes sense to bring in people with competing beliefs, so that I can either convert them, dominate them, or assimilate their more-adaptive traits.
Nothing. I don't think I said as much, either. I'm taking modern-day pseudo-creedal states and pointing out one of their failure modes as something to consider in this discussion.
If the shared values promote or tolerate continuous large-scale defection or prohibit acting against defection, then yes I certainly identify the shared values as the problem.
A society built on shared ancestry, depending on which ancestry that is, may not have to. I'm not saying it's universally superior to creedal citizenship, but in many cases, especially where the ancestry is an especially good one or the creed an especially bad one, it certainly would be.
This presupposes that you are indeed a competent judge of how beneficial a given belief is, and able to jettison old ones and replace them with new ones at will. You might be.
It's fair to identify particular values of particular creedal societies as being problematic. But as a trivial proof, an ideal creedal society is always better than an ideal ancestral society because the ideal creedal society can just capture whatever makes an ancestry "good" without the intermediary layer. It's like this: if you want the most law-abiding people in your society, you can admit people based on some proxy for law-abidingness, e.g., good SAT scores-- but that's always going to end up being less effective than just admitting them based on their actual history of abiding by the law. That applies ESPECIALLY if you take a strongly hereditarian position. If your entrance mechanism is looking for common descent, that actually relatively disadvantages the pro-social traits you assume are correlated with the descent.
That theory might work out for a society of completely atomized individuals, but...I dunno, I realize my perspective here is outdated and my even own life increasingly looks unlike it. But isn't a society a rather complex web of relationships? Not just on the level of the individual, but of places, families, institutions, cultural touchstones, language...Just dragging individuals out of one society to drop them into another results not in a society as I understand it but rather in a disjointed mass of people. There's probably a wide inferential gulf between us here. I'm sure that if you throw people into a creedal melting pot and wait for long enough, you do get something that resembles society-as-I-understand-it, but on the other hand I'm also pretty thoroughly convinced that if you keep stirring and throwing in new people that have nothing to do with the ones already in, what you get instead is just atomization again.
More options
Context Copy link
Descent may be harder to fake and easier to test for though, at least at low resolutions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This touches on the first question I was planning to ask - how should it contribute to it's enforcement? I would imagine that with a name like "creedal citizenship" it would at a minimum mean disenfranchisement of anyone who doesn't follow the creed. If that's how it is to work, I agree that a coherent nation can be formed this way, but you go on to say that over-exclusion is worse than over-inclusion. This makes it sound rather wishy-washy, and I don't know that a creedal nation can stay coherent, if you can participate without following the creed it's based on.
I think I disagree. If you have a nation that's 98% Catholic, facing the importation of a sizeable population of Muslims, with some Middle-Eastern Christians sprinkled in, that seems like a clear example of excluding people who share your creed being to your benefit.
If you're this optimistic about your ideas winning, I suppose that makes sense, but I think it's far from guaranteed. It's particularly strange to hear it from a Catholic.
Even if you're right, it's not clear it's worth the costs. For example, Communism may be destined to lose to capitalism (or whatever economic system you prefer), that doesn't mean there's any benefit in giving political power to communists.
How many grains of sand does it take to form a heap?
"Coherent" is, ironically, an incoherent target. Rather than create a few hard rules, it makes more sense to define a number of overton windows and accept that they're going to shift over time... but within a self-correcting framework that advantages particular kinds of evolution.
Assuming I had a creedal nation like I wanted, there would be particular mechanisms in place to enforce that creed, which people against that creed would likely be unable to tolerate. but if muslims really want to come to a country where you have to attend church on sundays to be able to vote, then I'll take the win with grace, and welcome all the soon-to-be-converts.
(apply this to your capitalist/communist objection too.)
???
I think God is willing to personally intervene on behalf of my religious community... and you think it's strange that I'm confident? I think it would be stranger if I wasn't! The truth is an asymmetric weapon. If I'm right, then I should be confident that I'll win. Not in the short term, maybe, but in a general, cosmic sense. And if I'm wrong... then I should have no fear of being set right!
How's that relevant to anything I said?
Well, I think that's a recipe for having your creed undermined and completely subverted over time, but that's beside the point. I'd like to know some specifics. What happens to people who stray outside these overton windows? What specific self-correcting mechanisms are you talking about?
That's great, I think it would work as well. However, you said that even though you disagree with leftists and liberals on matters of creed, you "think by far the bigger threat is a government that excludes people who indisputably share my creed, versus a government that would try and promote another creed" and went on to say how you're confident truth will win out in the end. This would imply that you'd be fine with importing a sizable Muslim minority even if you didn't have the ability to force them to go to church, and that the costs of excluding the tiny amount of Christians would outweigh the costs of excluding the Muslims, even under those circumstances.
Have I misunderstood something?
Correct. Catholics aren't known for just letting it go, because they're confident the truth will win out in the end. They are known for a highly organized church, a highly formalized dogma, and putting significant resources into their maintenance, and proselytization. It's like that quip from Star Control "peaceful missions through the cosmos rarely require weapons large enough to punch holes through a small moon".
Yes. It's not the only one though, and the other ones might have the advantage depending on the situation. You wouldn't be considering forcing people to go to church otherwise.
Huh? If you're wrong about the truth winning out in the general cosmic sense, you should have no fear of being set right? Wouldn't that be your absolute worst case scenario? If you actually had the truth, but it lost, because you refused to fight for it?
Reference to the sororitas paradox. "Coherent" isn't a well-defined idea. You can come up with a definition to make anything coherent or incoherent. I'd rather speak in terms of degrees-- accepting that any social target is going to have to be fuzzy, and working to keep it useful over trying to define hard boundaries.
The same thing that currently happens. Escalating levels of social sanctions followed by criminal punishments.
That's accurate.
Being confident in God isn't incompatible with working hard toward virtuous ends. "Faith without works..." etcetera etcetera.
It's not about being afraid of muslims, it's about, it's that going to (a proper) church is a strictly good thing, for both the individual and the community. Rather than impose it because I'm afraid of an enemy group, I'd impose it because "getting people to do good things" is one of the main purposes of a community. And yes, as a consequence, it would keep out bad people and bring in good people. My beliefs are the best; that's exactly what I'd expect them to do.
If I'm wrong about having the best (most beneficial) beliefs, then I have no fear of adopting better beliefs. You're missing the point by focusing on "truth" here. Of course, I also believe that my beliefs are true, but that's noncentral.
Fuziness does not imply incoherence, my approach is pretty much identical to yours, and you're just arguing over semantics. What I said was that with "over-exclusion is worse then over-inclusion" approach, you will turn the category of the nation useless.
Well... do you mind providing some details? General rules as to what kind of transgressions would meet with what kind of sanctions? Examples?
You're really not making this easy... What is? My description of your views, or the statement that I misunderstood something? If the latter, could you put some effort into bridging the inferential gap? Where do you think I've gone wrong?
I'm not sure how else I'm suppose to interpret it. If the main contingent pushing the idea of a creedal nation are the liberals / the left, you strongly disagree with their creed and how it should be enforced, but "think by far the bigger threat is a government that excludes people who indisputably share my creed, versus a government that would try and promote another creed", how specifically would you prevent the importation of a sizable Muslim minority if that idea gained traction? This isn't much of a hypothetical, by the way, actually existing 90+% Catholic countries ended up going the "mass migration with no creed enforcement" route because they drank the liberal Kool-Aid.
Yeah, and carrying weapons large enough to punch holes through a small moon is not, strictly speaking, incompatible with a peaceful mission through the cosmos. It does say a lot about what kind of universe you believe you're living in, though.
And if it can be shown that a mosque is a proper church, with similar advantages for individuals and their communities, you'd be ok with that, and you'd enforce your rule by forcing people to go to EITHER a mosque OR a Catholic church?
What was the point of the "truth is an asymmetric weapon" thing then?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How about second-class or otherwise tiered or modular citizenship?
Yeah... something. I'd like to know what the idea's proponents have in mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you think lefties like creedal citizenship? Because that's been the opposite of what I've seen and heard.
They might not conceive of their position as such, but in practice they're in favor of letting in every refugee who claims to be part of the alphabet. Meanwhile, they're mostly in favor of taking away the privileges of citizenship from groups like, for example, nazis. (They might not want to change their citizenship status on paper, but the powers citizenship confers are more important than the actual accounting value.)
Again, I don't believe in their creed, but I agree with them that in principle, someone with the right creed should be allowed the privileges of citizenship (after some time spent proving themselves) regardless of ancestry, and that people granted the privileges of citizenship should be inculcated with particular values.
More options
Context Copy link
JD Vance characterised lefties recently as being believers in creedal citizenship, whereas Vance prefers a citizenship based on ancestral line (with creed actually not being part of it at all). I don't really agree with him as I don't think it is a uniting feature of the left but I guess it's probably true that the right is less likely to believe creed is 'enough'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But how? Unless you are a rulebreaker or someone who gets money from the government for non-poverty or oldness related reasons you cant have been. If you are amongst the rulebreakers, certainly you knew you were, right? The rules as written are much harsher than the Trump rules. The third option is tariffs.
If you are a government subsidy for non-poverty reasons-er, well that could always have ended at any time right? Was your work nonpartisan? Like were you researching how to grow trees with wood 2x as strong in 1/18 the time? Or were you doing something else?
The tariff affected I see and understand. Its a rapid change in the business environment, and those always suck. If you can show me an approximately equal amount of outrage about the passage and implementation of Obamacare you are certified fresh to complain about the Trump tariffs.
Tarrifs and fewer immigrants increase cost of living. Plus he's personally annoying, and that counts.
Were you born after 2008? because people were definitely Big Mad. The outrage reduced over time, but only because Obamacare is actually decent policy. (And if you want to argue that, explain why even Trump still hadn't gotten rid of it.)
Anyways, if you want to make a 1-to-1 comparison the outrage about Obamacare is definitely bigger than the outrage over tarrifs. Immigration and healthcare are flamewar lightning rods, but barely anyone actually cares to discuss trade policy.
I'm a government contractor. I believe my work is relatively nonpartisan, though if I doxxed myself maybe you would find a reason to disagree. But apparently the trump administration doesn't, because the contract I'm on got renewed... just, after a whole lot of time-and-money-wasting nonsense.
Not generally, from you. Its not good policy at all. Medicaid should be abandoned not expanded. Implementing the mandate and coverage on preexisting conditions has caused a cost spiral in the personal/family health insurance market. Trump hasn't gotten rid of it because 1) He has never had close to the votes; 2) He doesn't really care, its not his issue; and 3) Taking away benefits causes farm more wailing than imposing diffused and hidden costs. The cost to the economy of Obamacare is equivalent of probably a 100% tariff on all goods in perpetuity.
Okay, so your argument is that:
I have two counterarguments.
#1: Narrow
Point #2 is wrong. Obamacare is good. Therefore 3 and 4 are wrong, and there's no contradiction.
#2: Broad
Even if I were to admit that obamacare was bad, that would not be sufficient to demonstrate a contradiction in my position, because my position rests on the particular degree of trump's badness, and also on the utility of opposing him.
Consider this non-political example:
Bob is clearly worse than Jim, no question. But it would be more rational for me to be emotionally motivated to oppose Jim. No amount of anger and hatred would reverse bob's actions, or even be particularly likely to deter future Bobs. But the right emotional reaction to seeing Jim about to kick a puppy might let me intervene in time to stop him, and perhaps even deter future puppy-kickers from doing what they want.
Consider this second example:
Jim is clearly bad. But if Jim is willing to get angry with me about Joe, it's politically expedient for me to join Jim in his anger so we can intervene against Joe together than to be angry at Jim first.
So you like Obamacare and dislike tariffs. Thats fine. Whats the cost imposing measure that was implemented before tariffs that you dislike as much?
Zoning laws. I hate, hate, hate them. They're also mostly a Democrat thing, so there's an example of me being appropriately mad at "my side" for acting against my interests.
Aside from that--
Other tariffs. Excessive FDA regulatory burden. The existence of patent law. The Jones Act.
I could go on.
Zoning laws are more bipartisan than you let on, and, given that most local governments are saddled with many state and federal mandates, are unfortunately necessary. In a more libertarian world you might be right, but I can't say I've ever lived in that world.
But consider this, town of 20k people with mostly or all high income single family units plus a quaint downtown. Now, the school district is "awesome" (in other words it contains children who are intelligent and nonviolent/disruptive). Some developer decides to knock down 10 houses and build a 40 story slum. This just absolutely blows up the finances for the town. They now need a whole new plumbing system, double the cops, and, most expensively, their school now sucks. These kids pay way less per capita in taxes, plus they run around stabbing other kids. Libertarianism has many good aspects, but far too many on that side dont understand you need to do things in order. You cant have no zoning laws without repealing the CRA and eliminating the public school system. It just doesn't make sense.
Tariffs are another similar case. When you think about it, it is objectively unfair to American workers that we have the FDA, EPA, NLRB, OSHA, etc and then they have to compete against someone who can burn coal and dump arsenic into rivers.
I'd be very interested in your patent law take. I've worked in it extensively and it mostly works well outside of pharmaceuticals and a few "innovative" patent categories (which IMO the patent acts as written shouldn't ever have applied to. To get an idea of those categories of what IMO are fake/illegal patent categories see Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo v. Prometheus, and Alice Corp.
I don't actually think I, or anyone actually knows what the Jones act does. It outwardly seems fairly stupid.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A rare return from the field of economics is the fact known for >200 years that increasing the supply of labor literally only ever benefits the ownership class. The idea of foreign laborers as beneficial because they make goods cheap is somewhat reversing causality. Goods have to be cheap because we have so many foreign laborers. If people couldn't afford the staples, they wouldn't buy them. The outcomes from there are: goods cost less, or workers are paid more, or revolution.
"Cheap goods" are an illusory benefit. You shouldn't be thankful big ag can bring in >100,000 H-2A workers so your strawberries are only $5 a pound. You should be furious that your compensation hasn't scaled proportionally so you can afford strawberries at $10 or $15 or $20 a pound; you should be furious at the greed of banks and corporations, at the incompetence and corruption in government, that has allowed the rampant inflation from the probably $0.50 a pound strawberries cost in 1970. Or the $0.25 for bread and the $1.25 for milk.
Your stresses over cost of living are the direct consequence of these three events:
Also bankers being bankers, amidst all that.
This should be an entire post. In brief, the wealthy have too much to lose by the ACA being repealed, and the #1 way to improve healthcare in this country is to deport >50 million people.
Set aside the immigrant/native question for a minute. Is it your belief that killing half the workers in the US would make the other half materially better off? Because that is the implication of your claim.
(A: it won't, of course, because, broadly, more labor => more production => more Stuff That People Want)
It doesn't matter if you make $10 an hour and strawberries cost $5 or you make $100 an hour and strawberries cost $50. The way you bring down the price of strawberries is by producing more strawberries. Repeat x1b across literally everything.
In the spherical cow hypothetical of half the supply of labor vanishing with literally no other negative effects, yes, quality of life for the remaining would improve profoundly. This isn't a matter of "belief," it's history and biology. Wherever civilized and sufficiently stable nations have recovered from sudden and large declines in population, golden ages have followed. It's ecological succession as applied to humans.
Not to be taken as personally misanthropic--I'm quite pro humans, quite pro there being many, many more. The US is simply not presently equipped for its number of inhabitants, and this is not a problem that can be solved without first deporting 50 million people.
You describe the mechanism. Yes, flooding supply is how you decrease prices. I'm not denying the mechanism, I'm saying its benefit is illusory. Abundant cheap offshore labor is how you produce abundant cheap plastic garbage. We wouldn't need abundant cheap plastic garbage if bankers hadn't destroyed the value of the dollar, if the owners hadn't outsourced so much labor, and if those same owners hadn't stalled out worker compensation.
That's all the economy is, now. The ongoing attempt to outrun the consequences of those decisions.
I'm going to have to ask for a citation, because this seems like an extraordinary claim and contrary to basically every historical example I'm aware of. What's the mechanism here? It is true that the recovery that follows an apocalyptic event will seem like a golden age compared to the apocalypse. However, the fact that hitting rock bottom leaves nowhere to go but up does not mean hitting rock bottom is welfare enhancing.
(I have a weird feeling you're going to pick the Black Death, but maybe you'll surprise me).
What are you actually trying to say? Like, what is the counterfactual scenario you are proposing? You say the benefit of material abundance is illusory, but also seem to expect that things would be better if instead of having more stuff workers were paid better. Is your position "actually, things would be better if we had less stuff"? If so, you should say that. If not, there's a basic problem where higher worker compensation and lower prices are isomorphic. If worker compensation rises but the amount of goods remain the same (per your stipulation) the result is the inflation that seems to incense you.
I guess “golden ages” are just the dead-cat bounces of civilizational history.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All your objections are empirically wrong. HDI has risen over time, coinciding with the greatest increase in labor supply in the history of the planet. And in general, GDP is correlated with population growth
The more laborers you have, the greater the economies of scale, the more innovations you can sustain, the more surplus you generate.
GDP as an idea is like a belief that doesn't pay rent. It doesn't tell you whether a country is good, a benefit in raising it is not found in evidence. Given otherwise equal choices among westerners, >95% would rather spend their lives in #39 Switzerland or #105 Iceland over #1 China or #3 India.
HDI is a lagging indicator for what could be called civilization development factor C. C associates totally with homogeneity except in Singapore (75% Chinese anyway) and the US, whose C increased following predominantly European immigration and has consistently declined over the last 5 decades. Those countries with high C reached their peak before accepting significant numbers of non-European immigrants, now their C is in uniform decline.
Economics is a pseudoscience whose total positive contributions to humanity are counted on one hand. It endures because it is useful to power, laundering corrupt motive under the veneer of something scientific. "The GDP is high," they say. They mean "Don't believe your lying eyes."
Only pharmaceuticals stand as a market sector where surplus drives innovation, and there it is intramarket surplus from the profits of optional and less-critical therapies funding research in critical therapies. Abundant plastic garbage has resulted in no innovations, improving the delivery of said plastic garbage is not innovation. Millions of foreigners originating in H-class visas either stifle innovation, in itinerant farmhands preventing automation, or cheap tech roles for workers who, as H-class visa holders, are by definition not innovators. No innovation has resulted from the proliferation of Indian hotel, gas station/C-Store owners and low-class tech workers; among the behemoths, the rise of Indians in Alphabet and Microsoft, among many other corporations, preceded not innovation but enshittification. Amazon may be credited for leading to AWS, but Prime is now the lamprey on the whale of their hosting services. The billions who owe cheap computers for their access to the internet will stand in history as evidence directly disproving the utility of cheap goods.
We reached the moon in the 60s. Beyond medicine, the idea we have become more innovative is laughable. We do have better medicine, we do have better entertainment. Day-to-day life today versus the 60s remains worse. It's no coincidence video games, television, and cinema declined, and now the previous bastion of culture in the left is on the verge of collapse. In the absence of such distractions, we would have already seen revolutionary violence.
I didn't cite GDP, I cited GDP per capita. Critical difference. And while I wouldn't use GDP per capita to prove that any particular country is good, but I can use it to make statements about the general trend of increased goodness because it's very strongly correlated with a lot of measure of goodness like e.g. life expectancy that everyone agrees on.
Not well defined. Give me empirical data or give me death.
You're using no science whatsoever. I'll take "psuedoscience" over that.
You're trying to make an a priori argument but I reject this comparison on it's face and also empirically. Go look at a graph of utility patents granted in the united states: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2023/08/utility-patents-granted-calendar.html . It doesn't anti-correlate with graphs of "immigrants as a share of US residents." so I'm pretty damn confident that if you want to track down a graph of "noneuropean immigrants as a share of US residents" it's not going to anticorrelate with that either. It just correlates to graphs of US population growth. More people means more innovation.
Your argument is entirely based on vibes. That's cool, but I've got statistics.
Your modus ponens is my modus tollens, though: if the vibes don't match the stats, then either the vibes are wrong or the stats are wrong/irrelevant.
For example, looking specifically at that patent page, do you really believe that innovation from 2010 to 2020 was 2x or 3x the innovation between 1870 and 1990?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Temporarily.
And now here sit we, these modern countries so proud of their female workforce, and wonder where the babies have gone that should have been the next generation of labor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ok, but can you show yourself being Big Mad about it? That's what he's saying would be required for you to be in the clear.
Why would I be big mad about Obamacare? I liked obamacare. I think the benefits were worth the costs, regardless of the change to the business environment. I don't understand why I have to be mad about obamacare to be mad about tariffs, which are more disruptive and have no such benefits.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If leftists and progressives were that interested in that cause they would have
freed their slaveslegalized their illegals when they had the power to do so. They have had it several times in the past.They did not, and because of that inaction- that inability to make a deal with the rest of the country and get it Done- now their cause suffers. Perhaps it was because they'd be destroyed as a party for making legible that flagrant and absurd violation of the laws and norms of the country? Perhaps it was because they believed that holding "they'll be deported otherwise" hostage would curry greater electoral success by driving turnout? Perhaps it was because they could do the county-level equivalent of court-packing by counting them in the census and redistricting accordingly? Perhaps it was because they were of a demographic that (socially, politically, economically) profited most from being able to undercut domestic labor, being of the class that most often buys it? It's difficult to say.
Now, we can talk about corruption in the sense that some slaves are getting rounded up faster than others, or who it's being done to first/who's getting exempted. And I have sympathy for your material conditions; economic instability is, naturally, bad for business as finance for it depends in large degree to a now-frustrated economic forecast (and of all the criticisms of Trump this is the greatest and most grounded, and affects both the capital of the Empire and all of its provinces).
But a side doesn't get to claim it's some unique badness because it [mistake theory] never made the sacrifices and compromises necessary to fix the issue and in so doing revealed that side didn't care, or [conflict theory] where it intentionally made the problem worse.
They made their best effort. DACA, Dreamers, etcetera. Democrats have had a government trifecta extremely rarely over the past few decades.
Anyways, illegal immigration is better than legal immigration. I'm a neolib, not a leftist; anyone who wants to live here can come, but if they want to stay here they shouldn't ask for welfare.
What deal? Republicans view immigration as a capital-t Threat. Look at any thread on this site and you will see that there are plenty of near-single-issue anti-immigration voters. Democrats couldn't have made any deal that didn't hurt more than it helped.
It's not difficult at all. Illegal immigration is a good thing. I want as much of it as possible.
don't twist my words. I'm not claiming trump is uniquely 'bad' in some objective sense. I'm claiming trump is uniquely placed to oppose my values and interests. Sure, clinton is also a rapist and I admit I don't feel nearly as much vitriol against him. But as much as everyone on the epstein list deserves to be taken down, I think it's perfectly rational to motivate my ingroup to focus on specifically the biggest threat to our interests. Call that Trump Derangement Syndrome if you want, but emotions are part of motivation and motivation is a part of political change, so it's perfectly rational for us to be "deranged."
Doesn't everyone? You, on the other hand should look at the reactions to the Martha's Vineyard, be it in threads here, or on other place forms. No one seems to actually be pro-immigration.
You must live inside the most well-fortified filter bubble known to man. Do you seriously believe no one is pro-immigration? Are you such a mistake theorist that you think literally every leftist/liberal is simply ignorant of the downsides?
For myself, I understand that not everyone benefits from immigration. I understand why people in particular cultural-economic positions might rationally want to reduce the number of migrants. But I am not one those people. Immigrants directly benefit me and my ingroup. We want more of them.
Quite the opposite, I'm a conflict theorist who believes the only reason the left is "pro" immigration is that it's bad for their outgroup. This also explains the sudden change in attitude when they're at the receiving end of it, in situations like Martha's Vineyard, or Lukashenko shipping Middle-Easterners into the EU.
What? The left is pro-immigrant because they have an overly naive desire to help everybody (at least those who do not hold a set of beliefs they despise). The left was mad about Martha's Vineyard because reportedly said immigrants were given a bunch of promises that Maryland never made, and that a relatively small town doesn't have a lot of capacity for helping a lot of people arriving at the exact same time.
They don't want to help, because given the chance, they didn't. It's not about size, because New York cried uncle too, and they got sent a tiny portion if what the southern states have to deal with. Being upset about promises would make sense, but being upset at getting sent the immigrants does not, if they actually believe what they say this they do.
And what were the fake promises anyway?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I live in a location with tons of migrants-- both internationally (from latin america, and india) and internally (colleges nearby). It's great. Tons of services, no discernable effect on crime, plenty of new capital moving in to energize the local economy.
I sincerely don't care about how immigration hurts conservatives, and I mean that in every sense. I'm not encouraging it just to hurt you... but if it does, tough luck, buttercup. I'm pro-immigration because cheap labor is awesome, and network effects make it even better. I would probably be more anti-immigration if it was my labor being cheapened... but as a software engineer that works remote, my field is already at the upper end of globalization. You cannot threaten me with immigrants taking my job. If they could, indians in bangalore would already be doing it.
That's great, but I still want to know why the reaction to Abbot's and Lukashenko's shenanigans wasn't an amused confusion. If immigration is really so great, shouldn't the recipient jurisdictions be saying something like "thanks, you're only making us stronger"?
More options
Context Copy link
And which location is that?
Does it perchance happen to have a bit of a history of possibly White, possibly Christian people either from a homogenous culture or engaged in the process of forming a homogenous culture building it up? Is it still, or was it until very recently, majority non-immigrant?
Possibly not. Maybe you're in Singapore. But as a matter of probability, I doubt it.
We'll see what's left of your location after a generation or two of Multikulti.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, the next time they get power when the MAGA cult dies upon its leader's death, I expect them to just legalize them unilaterally. Also college debt should just be deleted and the papper work lost and deleted. If the next Democratic president listens to the Supreme Court a single time, I will consider them a failure.
I expect you to be quite disappointed when Trump kicks the bucket and the half of America that considers you an enemy doesn't abruptly vanish like the morning mist.
From my perspective, everything you've listed is already priced in. I know that people like you are in favor of what is, from my perspective, corrupting institutions, looting the treasury and mocking the concept of rule of law. I've observed these tendencies for more than a decade, it would be very late to affect surprise now.
Anyone voting for Trump or his allies now on the belief that electoral success would result in permanent victory is a fool. I, and I think many others, have long understood that we can rely neither on the Constitution nor purported "rule of law" to protect us from rule by those who hate us, and that to the extent that we uphold institutions or norms at our own expense, the response will be ceaseless defection. We do not consider people like you to be our countrymen. We do not wish to share a society with you, and if providence be kind we will not do so much longer. We will never accept your authority nor your rule. We are, collectively, now in the process of burning what shared institutions remain, and then either we will go our separate ways in peace or resort to fratricide.
Has the US ever struck you as a place with a fool deficit?
More options
Context Copy link
Yep. Might have happened before the 2024 election (well, it would have been more an angry red mist). But now someone's going to take the MAGA ship and try to sail it. J.D. Vance being the obvious candidate, though a few years can be a long time politically. Probably won't be as successful in energizing the base (either their own or their opponents) as Trump; maybe the middle will come back into play, or maybe it'll be more trying to separate the Democrats from groups they've neglected. I can't tell from here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link