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.
It's spelled out in the article. Foreign food, foreign languages, and foreign customs are becoming dominant in place of the native white population.
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.
Of course the WSJ is sympathetic to the Koreans; it's a liberal and immigration friendly paper. What does that matter? The article states that foreigners are moving in and the population of the natives is going down. I would characterize this as demographic replacement through immigration.
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?
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
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