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 -
You're going to have to spell that out for me.
Koreans, really? It's demographic replacement by the least fertile demographic in the world?
At any rate, it's not clear to me that addition constitutes replacement.
Weeds in my lawn replace the grass. Weeds in my garden beds replace the flowers and herbs I want to grow.
Wherever there is competition for scarce resources, like living space or sunlight, addition is replacement. You're just playing word games to deny your opponents their highly effective rhetoric (replacement).
I'd argue that you're indulging in word games more than I am - in this case, comparing Koreans to weeds while implying that resources in Georgia are scarce, or that the presence of Koreans reduces prosperity for others. I think this is a misrepresentation of the scenario. Is the state of Georgia like your garden bed? Are the Koreans choking out native Georgians? That's not clear at all.
It's not even clear how race or ethnicity is relevant - if the issue is that Koreans consume more resources, wouldn't it also be a problem if native white or black populations increase? All people consume resources. We just generally don't view this as prohibitive because Georgia possesses ample natural resources (nobody is starving!) and because people produce resources as well.
The metaphor you're making just doesn't make any sense.
I'm comparing people to plants and just like a plant where it's not wanted is a weed, a person where they're not wanted is a foreigner.
They can go back to their garden, where my kind of plant isn't allowed to grow.
The garden is the country or state. Citizens are both the plants and the gardener, just as man is both sculptor and marble.
Foreigners do suppress native birth rates, even more so when they are of another race. They compete for housing and employment, driving the cost of the former up and the wages of the latter down.
I can't force you to see something you're choosing to ignore. It's clear as day to me, as obvious as the nose on your face.
People like their own kind (kind as in kin).
If you want to grow a dandelion bed, then grass is a weed. If you want a lawn, dandelions are weeds. If you want a rose garden, both grass and dandelions are weeds. The problem isn't Koreans, it's grass in my rose garden, or dandelions in my lawn.
Are you a Georgian? I still haven't seen any evidence that Georgians hate Koreans or are opposed to their presence in the state. Why should it be the null hypothesis that Georgians want these people out? Nothing in the top level post quoting the WSJ indicated that natives have any problems with the Koreans, and the Koreans seem to contributing well to the local economy and cultural acclimatising to American ways, including by taking English names. I can find the full article by archiving it and there seems to be positivity there, including by Georgian government officials. Some local union workers have complained, but it also seems like most of these Koreans have come legally, consistent with Georgia's laws.
I mean, this mostly seems like a model minority situation to me. Koreans have mostly come to Georgia via the legal process, which Georgians themselves established via their state government, and those that have come have respected the local culture, worked hard, and tried to fit in.
Now, sure, maybe native Georgians hate them for some reason and want them to go, but you can't just assume that as your starting point. Be careful not to typical-mind here - maybe you don't think Koreans should live alongside Americans, but it is hardly clear that that is a majority opinion in Georgia.
At any rate, some Koreans coming to Georgia to live and work there, if consistent with Georgia's existing laws, cannot be said to constitute 'replacement' in any reasonable sense of the word.
You can't help but put words in my mouth.
The null hypothesis is the preamble of the constitution: we do this for ourselves and our children. Not for Koreans. No hate required.
And the Georgians agreed to these terms, at least until their partners failed to honor the agreement and then conquered Georgia. I don't think what they wanted for themselves has mattered since 1865, and certainly not since 1964.
Regardless, since 1789 states have not been allowed to set their own immigration policies, and so I need not be a Georgian, merely an American.
I can see nothing in the constitution that says that states or communities are not allowed to welcome migrants. I think you're reading a kind of racial bias into it? I know you didn't mention specifically, but I think it is significant that this conversation is about Korean migrants, and not white or black migrants from elsewhere in the US.
It seems to me that you are assuming, on a highly speculative basis, that Georgians are strongly opposed to living alongside Koreans. I see no evidence of that, nor that the democratic will of Georgians is to get rid of this Korean community, Koreans in general, or Asians in even more general.
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
The least fertile demographic in the world is parsis, I believe. Koreans are like, fourth or fifth- behind some not-technically-a-country groups like manchurians.
More options
Context Copy link
Are they really?
In the 2020 census data, Pooler had a population of 25,711, of which Asians made up 6%. Going off the numbers in your excerpt, the Asian population is now up to about 14%; a large increase for sure, but still a minority. Assuming none of the recent arrivals are white, the white population has declined from 54% in 2020 to 45% in 2025, hardly what I'd consider replacement-level demographic change even in the worst-case scenario. This isn't to say that the locals aren't entitled to have their own opinions on their community demographics, or that it could become true demographic replacement in the future, but your assertion here seems mostly baseless.
Also come on, changing one's name is absolutely evidence of assimilation, not perfect evidence nor sufficient evidence, but evidence nonetheless. It sounds like you've taken the Arctotherium-pill writ Asian migration, and while I can't contest the raw stats he highlights I'm still skeptical of the strength of his claims. (Honestly, I don't trust him in general, he comes off as much more cunning and calculated in his rhetoric than other HBDers, who mostly seem quite genuine.)
Yes, they are really.
More than doubling of a population share in five years is absolutely ground-shaking.
In 2000 the area was 87% white. If going from 85% to 45% in twenty five years isn't replacement to you, then you're being dishonest. The demograpgic replacement isn't in the future, it's in the past, and you're pretending it never happened.
I trust Arcto more than you, as I don't think you're being genuine, either. Admit what's obvious, first, and maybe we can go from there.
I didn't bother to check the numbers before 2020, mea culpa. I'll grant you the broader narrative of massive demographic change, though I'll note that until recently the increase in the non-white population seems to have come mostly from homegrown minorities and not imported migrants (so not "foreigners" per se); I suppose that to you the difference is moot. I still don't think that the recent Korean influx specifically was that big a deal, since there's a proximal reason for them to be here and East Asians aren't particularly known for chain-migration.
No excuses or exemptions from me, not anymore. All foreigners, every single one, the women and children and paper citizens included, are unwelcome. No leniency or accommodation for at least twenty years, if not 60 to match the duration of replacement.
There is only two homegrown minorities: africans and indians. If you're talking about Hispanics then they're just as foreign as the Asians.
You and I seem to know different things.
At least you half admitted that the Americans have already been replaced, but it didnt make one whit of difference to you.
Yes, I was talking about blacks re. "homegrown minorities", but some fraction of mestizos are definitely "homegrown" in the same way, at least in Texas and California.
Why not forever? What will have changed by then to merit any tolerance of foreigners, if their presence is so noxious now?
You clearly care about this matter on a visceral level. I don't. So it is.
Because I'm being reasonable.
The same thing that happened d to the Germans in the 20th century. No gobbledegook languages on public signage or ballots or ducking welfare applications. First names like Kyle and John and Susan, even if the last names as Rodeiguez and Pham. And intermarriage, so that foreigners don't just produce more foreigners amongst themselves.
We did this all before, and I want to do it again. The blueprint is right there.
Your posting is just the usual garden-variety xenophobia and racism, which is not in itself against the rules, but your sneering is getting over the top and bordering on pure culture warring, and given your history, I'm warning you now to dial it down because I can see you getting amped up and a ban is next.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The quoted article points out that many of them are adopting American names "to fit in better", like the pastor. Doesn't sound like people who don't want to assimilate.
That's typical of Koreans who aren't intending to assimilate (or stay), so it doesn't really mean anything.
More options
Context Copy link
Realistically, if you’re hiring for factory hands among the population of south GA, they’re going to be black.
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn't match my experience. I've seen a ton of assimilated second-generation Asians, for example - most of them don't even speak the language of their parents (somewhat inconvenient when you need to translate something in Chinese and you know this guy whose parents are definitely from China but turns out he at best knows Chinese at kindergarten level, or less), don't associate exclusively with their ethnic community, don't keep any old customs (maybe except occasional family holidays or such). And of course I know many, many assimilated Jews. And, Trump himself is an assimilated second-generation German - we don't see him speaking German or donning lederhosen on Oktoberfest, do we? (I'm not sure that's what real un-assimilated Germans actually do, but whatever they do, Trump doesn't do that).
It does match my experience. Even when mostly assimilated, foreigners remain very, very foreign in ways you can't always see.
They think and vote and act on juries as if they're foreigners, and once you notice that, a name change becomes meaningless.
Yes, I must admit, I never understood Trump's love for greasy fast food. Those Germans and their Teutonic ways...
I'd prefer a borderer or WASP to a tueton, and I'd prefer my borderer to be married to an American and not a foreigner. At least he's half-scot.
But you dance with the one that brought you, and you fight with the soldiers you have.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is how assimilation into Blue America looks like. No such thing as current Democratic party platform is conceivable in Asian countries, it is purely American creation.
No, but nor is there some sort of inherent immunity from western-style progressivism in epicanthic folds; sometimes Asian progressivism is more extreme than the western version.
Western style progressivism is the (still) most prestigious memeplex in the world, it is easy to understand why people all over the world want to immitate it (without fully understanding the nuances).
As for assimilation, it is going on stronger and faster than ever, only the assimilation is not going the way you would prefer.
Imagine some far away country, split roughly equally between Sunnis and Shiites, except that the split is not equal.
Sunnis tend to live in cities, control the media, bureaucracy and secret services, the wealthy, powerful and influential tend to be Sunni in way disproportionate ratio, while Shiites tend to be poor underprivileged country folk.
If you came to this country and wanted to stay there and assimilate, would you go to Sunni or Shiite mosque?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's a bit far. I think they'd fit right into Europe.
This only proves that they are assimilating into the White European culture of the blue tribe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some do, sure. But there's no such thing as "Asian ethnic interests" - why Vietnamese, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Sikh and Indonesians would have the same interests? I've met many people of different Asian descent, and they had very varied interests - I can't imagine how a single group would be able to represent them.
Do they? Any substantiation of that? I am sure some particular group of, say, Indians may agitate to the disadvantage some particular group of, say, Norwegians (of course, when I say Indian, I mean American person of Indian descent, and so on). But (leaving aside the definition of "native population", which I am sure you will provide me with in the other branch) claiming every Asian group always would advocate a policy that is contrary to the interest of every single "native" group seems to need a very extraordinary proof. At least it is not at all obvious why it would happen, so if you want somebody to believe it it makes sense to try and prove it.
I am pretty sure if you think that every Asian by their mere genetic buildup has interests that are all the same and are always opposed to the interests of all people who are not Asian, that is the textbook definition of racism. In fact, if I needed to define the set of ideas that are based on this assumption, I would think "racism" is the best term that would describe it. I mean, if the race is the sole criteria you are looking at, how else would one call it?
First generation yes. As you get further from the original immigration, people are much more likely to form pan-ethnic support groups for 'people who look kind of like me and have my kinds of issues'. A second-generation Indonesian is quite likely to feel they have a lot common with the second-generation Taiwanese and Japanese boys who can relate to overbearing parents, not really fitting in with your customs from the old place and the fact that white girls don't seem to go for Asian men, or whatever. Especially as they start marrying each other within that group.
Not in all cases, certainly, but in enough to matter.
(India and Sikh etc. are more different. I would expect to end up with a generic East Asian identity rather than anything).
Enough to matter for what? The claim was they form interests group which are detrimental to "native whites" (whoever that be). There's a big difference between kvetching about overbearing mothers (certainly no "native white" ever had one of those) and conspiring to take down the whites.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, there's an Issue with immigration from mainland China, which is that the CPC uses various means to weaponise the Chinese diaspora and the CPC is not our friend. There are legit reasons to want relatively few literal enemy agents in one's country.
This has nothing to do with racism; this issue doesn't apply to Taiwanese (many of whom are Han), (South) Koreans or Japanese, because Taiwan, South Korea and Japan don't have governments hostile to us and ruthless enough to pull this shit. It also mostly doesn't apply to ethnic Chinese whose ancestors immigrated way back, as they're culturally assimilated and don't typically have close family members in mainland China to be taken hostage.
The concern about CPC influence is not racist and is reasonable, but that wasn't @NYTReader's claim. His claim was about "Asians" - which covers the whole continent (in UK, Pakistanis are called "Asians", and why not - Pakistan is in Asia), or, more charitably, everybody who looks certain way - whether they are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian, Kazakh, Uzbek or none of the above, and ignoring when and under which circumstances they came into the country. I can't see it but as pure racism. And it never made any sense.
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
You said in place of. What's your evidence for that? I just distinguished between addition and replacement.
I don't have a Wall Street Journal subscription, so I can't read the article itself, but I would be very shocked if the WSJ was pushing a line about demographic replacement - especially since the portions you've quoted sound sympathetic to the Koreans.
Is the native population declining? Your quotes didn't say that, and as noted I can't read the article.
I think degree matters as well. If a native population goes down by 1% while at the same time some migrants move in, I wouldn't consider that replacement. I think the word 'replacement' suggests a wholesale removal. Is anything like that going on?
The did ask to replace the native red population of Georgia, though.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, that's why I was probing you a bit about what the lines are, in order to precisify what your concerns actually are. I didn't want to leap to conclusions and assume the worst.
That said, I'm not particularly keen on you outsourcing your opinions to someone else. Dean is a very articulate poster here, but one thing Dean cannot do is tell me what NYTReader thinks.
Why do you say 'native white' specifically? I said myself that I think a community has the right to determine its own conditions of entry, but in the case of Georgia, that existing community is not exclusively white. Wikipedia tells me that about a third of Georgians are black, which sounds about right for a former Confederate state. Judging from this it sounds like it's been like that for a long time, and I'd bet that most black Georgians are descendants of people who've lived in the state for centuries. So I find it a bit odd that you specify 'the native white population', since the native population of Georgia in this context seems like it would include an awful lot of blacks as well. Do they not count, for you? If not, why not?
On a side note, I also notice that, per Wikipedia's chart on live births by race of mother, the black birthrate in Georgia is going down faster than the white birthrate, though the overall number of black residents is increasing slightly faster, presumably due to immigration. Notably comparing 2010 to 2022 on USAFacts, the populations of every racial group in Georgia have increased, including whites. It seems hard to say that Georgian whites are being 'replaced' if they are increasing in number.
Anyway, what would happen if you submitted a referendum to all native Georgians on immigration policy? You might have to define 'native Georgian', but I see no way of defining 'native Georgian' that would restrict it only to whites, since there is clearly a very large non-white population whose ancestors have been resident in the state for centuries. But let's say we poll everybody who is resident in Georgia and who had at least one ancestor resident in Georgia in 1950. What would they vote for?
The answer is that I don't know. I don't think you know either. Georgia is a red state, but not that red - Stacey Abrams won 45% of the vote in 2022, and 48% in 2018. Its house of reps is 100 Republicans to 80 Democrats. There's clearly a left in Georgia and we might expect them to be more sympathetic to immigration - and of course, many on the right, including moderate Republicans, are sympathetic to a level of immigration as well. I'm not convinced that Georgians would overwhelmingly vote to kick Koreans out. There's clearly an appetite in Georgia for cracking down on illegal immigration, and Brian Kemp has signed bills to that effect, but I can't find much recent about legal immigration. This 2025 poll suggests that most Georgians want illegal immigrants to have some path to residency - if true I can't imagine them being more hostile to legal immigrants.
What position do you think Georgians would all vote for? Ending all immigration? Banning all Asian immigration? Nonwhite immigration? What is it that you think Georgians want?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Many people care about their local community and don't want it to change. Whatever the details are regarding the fertility rate of the established white population in the area versus the fertility of the new group is really secondary. The large infusion of new people from a different culture will change things. That is something that many people don't want, and understandably so. They are invested in the way things are, maybe for many generations.
even if they aren't things will change. But white americans don't have very high fertility rates so we can assume that the established white community probably doesn't have such overwhelming fertility rates such that they make the influx of new people irrelevant.
Fine. How about dilution? The existing population, and their community, and their culture will be diluted, which is bad enough. Concentration is just as important a variable in community strength as raw numbers are. At the very least, as the original local population is diluted their collective political power is equivalently diluted. So there is an objective reduction in the power they have over their home.
And dilution becomes more threatening due to the fact that white communities in America are generally pretty weak in terms of cultural vitality. Having a large influx of foreigners who might have more vitality and a stronger sense of community means that the new comers can punch above their weight comparatively. As dilution occurs the threat of actual replacement becomes greater, and the ability to resist it is diminished.
You can prefer dilution and cultural change in exchange for increased economic investment, but many don't. It seems like you're being intentionally avoidant about the concern.
If the concern is cultural change, I think that's valid, and I'm open to a discussion about that.
That is, though, I think a different concern to 'demographic replacement'? I take demographic replacement to suggest an agenda of, well, replacement - that is, not just a community changing through migration and integration of people of new cultural backgrounds, but rather the elimination of the existing population, and new people taking its place.
Well I would say yes, that is one of the concerns. But I didn't meant to imply that only cultural change matters. Demographic change, or more directly, ethnic change, is also part of the concern. Ethnicity is a powerful layer that has major effects on community and culture. Ethnic groups have in group preference and people of a shared ethnicity will almost always seek each other out to cooperate when in a multi ethnic setting.
ok then lets proceed with that
Yeah, I recognize that. I think you are being a little too literal with your interpretation of that term but I heard you concern. Thats why I offered an alternative, which is dilution. Do you accept that term? If so, can you then respond to all the stuff I said about why dilution could be reasonably considered bad or threatening to many?
I also argued that dilution has the effect of weakening the political power (and other kinds of power) of the established group, thereby making that group more vulnerable to actual replacement in the future. So while you don't accept that whats happening represents active replacement, would you agree that it is a step in that direction? When people are saying demographic replacement they don't usually mean that it is radical and immediate ethnic cleansing. But lets switch to dilution, something else that is threatening, do you agree thats happening? Do you see why that would threatening?
I didn't really say anything about an agenda of replacement, or agenda at all. I think that sometimes is a real thing. I sort of doubt it in this case. But thats not the core concern. The influx of foreigners will dilute the established group and that has negative effects, therefore it is a topic of concern, and we should seek policies that will prevent it - was what was being discussed I think.
I mean, my take on the broader question is that it's undoubtedly true that migration changes the character of a community - it changes its make-up in terms of ethnicity, language, religion, genetics, custom, and much more.
I also think that it is entirely reasonable for a community to have an internal discussion about how they want to change in the future, if at all, and to take organised action to ensure that they only change in ways they want, rather than ways they don't want.
That means that, for instance, if a community values being ethnically, linguistically, religiously, etc., homogenous, it can pursue policies to that effect.
The relevant question in most Western contexts is whether any given we does value that, and perhaps more importantly, whether we should value that. When we as a community make migration policy, what are our priorities? What goals are we serving?
In practice I think it's usually economic growth, and that tends to overwhelm everything else. But often people do claim different goals or motivations - the right often talks about cultural compatibility, or the left talks about compassion and hospitality. At any rate, this is a good internal debate to have.
I pressed NYTReader a bit because what that situation looked like was a community that was changing in terms of overall make-up due to an influx of Korean immigrants, and it wasn't clear that the natives were opposed to that immigration, or that the immigration was contrary to the wishes of the Georgia legislature. (Granting, hopefully, that the legislature is the preeminent forum in which the internal discussions or debates that I mentioned happen.) Hence my wanting to ask - what should be the priorities here? Why? What values or principles motivate your reasoning on this subject?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Seems to be going on in London, and many small towns in the US with which I am personally familiar.
No idea if it's going on in this specific case, but NYTReader is pointing to the problem in a broader context and suggesting that 'bringing back' business to America is actually a bad thing if it means staffing that business with foreign labor.
Given this, your insistence on picking at micro-scale technicalities occurs to me as pedantic and obnoxious.
OliveTapenade is correct to question the validity of "demographic replacement" of white Americans by Koreans. I mean: trying to catastrophize Costco selling kimchi or a few Korean restraunts opening.
I'm sure the Hyundai plant has Koreans in it. Those (hundreds?) of immigrants aren't "replacing" us.
No, those hundreds aren't.
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