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 am completely tired of this shit. Europe needs to take its lands back. I’m tired of it in America. If you were ever curious how pogroms happen then this is it, but I have a feeling in the past it was for far smaller infractions. A minority group then probably would have been smart enough to handle this guy first.
It feels to me like this is getting close to Catholic Just War theory. Your government won’t deal with this which would then devolve power down to the common man.
As someone who losts his home and some wealth to white flight I understand the anger.
Europeans democratically vote for politicians who pursue pro-immigration policies. The immigration is, roughly speaking, the expression of Europeans' collective preference. One can make an argument that "they vote against immigration but get immigration anyway" - however, the reality is that if people consistently voted against immigration as one of their absolute upper-echelon top priorities, they would get politicians who actually stop immigration. This is because then it would become clear to politicians that being for immigration or running against immigration and then doing nothing about it means the end of a viable political career. I think that allowing mass unfiltered immigration of people from violent and backwards cultures is a very bad idea for Europe, but Europeans, as a group, do not vote like they see it as being critically important.
I believe that to fundamentally fix Europe's approach to immigration you would have to either change voters' minds or end democracy. I would much prefer the former, since in my view ending democracy to fix immigration would be replacing one major problem with another major problem.
UK did vote for Brexxit and got immigration anyway. There is also a huge chunk of the populace that is now foreign born. A hecklers veto type thing would still seem to be possible as in the native Brit’s become ungovernable. I would guess 30% of Europe or close to it are very anti-immigration.
As to No immigration or Democracy I will gladly side with No Immigration. Dictatorship just isn’t that bad and it’s mostly American propaganda that makes you fear it.
A dictatorship is like deciding to dismount the brakes on your car to save weight before a road trip, or sharing a needle with a stranger. There is certainly a possibility that it will not be a big deal and you get Park Chung-Hee. There is also the potential for unlimited disaster.
Us Germans have experiences both with dictators and democratic leaders. If I have to choose, I will pick a democratic leader over the coin toss which is a dictator. The worst leader Germany ever had (by pretty much any metric) is mustache guy, with Wilhelm II having worked hard to earn a well-deserved second place.
You are anti-immigration, so you probably hate what Merkel did in 2015. I have lived through it, and I can assure you that it compares to what happened 1939-45 like a sparrow compares to an A380. I will strongly prefer a candidate from a party whose policies I do not share but who is committed to democracy to a candidate whose policies I favor but who would rule as a dictator.
Like I said American propaganda. You immediately jumped to with a dictator and used Hitler. Who I guess I could remind me you would have won Germany the entire world without the American involvement.
Democracy hasn’t worked as well in the third world. Successful Democracies are largely correlated with high hbd qualities. Africans don’t view Democracy the same way. Either form has a ton of corruption but sometimes the dictators are better and law and order. Pinochet set Chile up to be well. House of Saud has been a success.
Basically on an immigration debate and whether a dictator would be better it basically ends up being it’s the same thing. If you import a lot of third world immigrants at best you become Brazil. You will have a dysfunctional Democracy and won’t be able to maintain all the institutions that make a good Democracy.
The American involvement was predictable risk of being at war with the UK. Hitler rejected the UK's ultimatum to cancel the invasion of Poland anyway and after he did that the UK declared war, as did France.
Even if American non-involvement could have somehow been guaranteed, going to war with the UK and France was a very risky move. In the real timeline, most things went well for Germany in the first 3 years of the war. However, the UK and France together with their colonial holdings were economically stronger than the Axis powers and because of the English Channel and the power of the UK's air force and navy, Germany had no way of knocking the UK out of the war. It's possible that if a few things had gone differently, if the French had made some better decisions, Germany would have gotten bogged down when trying to invade France rather than gaining a swift victory. And there was always the Soviet Union looming in the background.
Basically, Hitler's foreign policy failed to honor the "only go to war when success is reasonably likely" maxim and should be evaluated as a massive failure despite Germany's successes in the pre-war period and in the first 3 years of the war. If he had stopped after Czechoslovakia and then managed to attain a durable peace with the other relevant great powers, then one could evaluate his foreign policy as a massive success. But he didn't stop.
As for democracy, I agree that it is not a panacea and that its successes are partly correlated with having good human capital. I prefer living in a democracy, though. I don't want to live in Pinochet's Chile, Saudi Arabia, or Hitler's Germany. I'd prefer not facing the possibility of imprisonment, torture, state murder, and so on for expressing my political ideas, for example.
Pinochet’s Chile is the best LATAM country to be from. Richer than Argentina without all the nicer of Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico and let’s not start on Venezuela….they wish they had a Pinochet now.
Of the options you give America and Europe aren’t talking about living in America and Europe. I will gladly choose the House of Saud over living in Somalia. Which is basically Europe in a generation.
The problem you have is you still think you live in Germany. That’s not what is coming.
As I heard someone on a forum put it many years ago, if I'm forced to choose between fascism and communism (I'd prefer neither) then I choose fascism. Because the secret police will come for me at some point either way, but when the fascist secret police arrest me I'll have a full stomach.
I think this undersells fascism. Like Pinochet only killed communists. Which I don’t even disagree with. And from a historical perspective he was proven correct. Meanwhile Milton Friedman was running his economy so you did have a lot of freedom. I would feel more free in Pinochet Chile than almost every European State today.
I’ve talked to females who feel more free in Arab Dictatorships because they are never afraid to be out at night.
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