site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14d ago (text post)   23083 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 29, 2026

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Donald Trump reportedly called FIFA president Gianni Infantino in order to get FIFA to review the red card that USA player Folarin Balogun recieved in the match against Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Ordinarily, Balogun's red card would render him ineligible for Team USA's next game against Belgium in the round of 16. However, a special session of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decided to suspend the red card, allowing Balogun to play against Belgium.

Belgium is big mad. The conventional wisdom in the immediate aftermath of the red card was that this was not a reviewable decision. This is a good reminder that nothing is ever final until it happens.

Belgium is big mad.

Have there been statements by the Belgian team that they don't care and they'll win anyway? Maybe it's just not being reported, but playing under protest because Balogun is on the pitch is big loser energy.

The result here might be irregular, but it isn't unfair because it shouldn't have a serious impact on the outcome of the game.

I thought you couldn't make soccer more of a joke.

How could you say this? The tournament has like another dozen games left. And those games are way more likely to feature some dumb drama. I bet you'll retract this statement by the end.

He who saves a nation violates no law

This is pretty poor behaviour. I'm seeing videos of Mexico fans making massive noise, lighting fireworks outside the hotel the English team is playing in in a (failed) attempt to disrupt their sleep. That's obviously crass and bad behaviour. How is this any better, just because it's done behind closed doors?

The US was also using tricks with the Iranian team I recall, making them travel into and then quickly leave the country.

It's just a game, not a trade agreement or a war or anything worth cheating over. What is the point? Why not at least show a little magnanimity or sportsmanship?

The US was also using tricks with the Iranian team I recall, making them travel into and then quickly leave the country.

The US never played Iran, this is just normal immigration stuff that got signal boosted because "fuck the US" (related: Canada actually did much worse stuff but didn't get nearly as much bad press).

How is this any better, just because it's done behind closed doors?

TBF that is exactly the argument people make about much more important topics like jawboning, corruption versus fraud, etc. If you do it the right way (and let's be honest, with the correct letter behind your name), you can get away with anything.

Football is never "just a game".

It's our DNA.

The Iran situation seemed kinda weird and possibly atleast partly down to Iranian officials in charge of stopping players defecting (Like the women's team did in Australia) not being given visas due to their political affiliation. Then Iran minimizing time in the USA to try and reduce risk of defection

My take, in this case, is that just because FIFA is used to accepting their bribes in grocery bags full of euros hand-delivered to their hotel rooms by expensive prostitutes, does not mean they aren't capable of long term planning. The US is a great growth market for them- lots and lots of disposable income(in an extremely strong currency) with a population that loves sports, has ties all over the world, makes a great host, has advertisers who will pay dearly, etc. Mild corruption is Tuesday and they've been trying to get the USA into footballing for a long time. It should've been a yellow card anyways.

Oh god, did Trump somehow manage to make the perpetually underdog USMNT the bad guy during their home World Cup?

We were always the bad guy, this has just given the hatred a locus.

Americans and their ability to front as the best and strongest country in the world whilst also being the worlds biggest victim is unmatched.

Trump is not a popular figure. Neither is FIFA. Seeing them shake hands over the US team is like getting a letter of recommendation from Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein on your ability to manage a summer camp for girls.

No one likes the Belgians. Seeing them lose to the Americans would be great. But that would be quite enough for most people. And you should be courteous enough to pack your bags and leave when you're done.

Trump is not a popular figure

You should see "the media" in europe, a wretched hive of scum and villainy even more dishonest than CNN.

Yes, many Americans have no idea how much people dislike the Belgians (and not just for the actions of Leopold II). Previously I was rooting for USA win here. After this, well, I'm still rooting for a USA win here, but it's now a little bitter.

I've never met anyone, including several Belgians, who have strong opinions about Belgium as a country, much less actively dislike it. I don't really believe there's a large contingent of Belgium-haters anywhere outside their former colonies.

Oh, I genuinely dislike Belgians. My least favourite Europeans by far. Again, no issue with the land or its art (many great artists have come from the land now known as Belgium), but rather once again, it's the people and their ancestors. And actually, this time I have an issue with the country itself (in a way that I absolutely don't with the UK or France or the US) and how it's built from wealth extracted through opression of other peoples in far flung corners of the world to an extreme degree even the other colonial powers were horrified at (say what you want about the Brits, at least their colonialism was probably the most "enlightened" version of it out there).

The Jutes didn't get their own soveriegn country. Neither did the Frisisans. It's a sad accident of history that Belgium even exists as a country today and didn't get absorbed as a part of France.

“Listen to the yell of Leopold's ghost
Burning in Hell for his hand-maimed host,
Hear how the demons chuckle and yell
Cutting his hands off, down in hell”

The French have a category of jokes, mostly the same as "blonde jokes" in english, specifically for Belgians. They are usually depicted in French media as dumb yokels.

Sounds almost affectionate if anything. I've heard the Dutch do this aswell.

It's generally seen as ill mannered and out of touch to go digging into the past for grievance with anything relating to politics. So I don't think Leopold has much to do with it. Football is its own history.

Somewhat related, I’ve read a lot of hatred being hurled at Belgium in regards to soccer. Can you explain the anti-Belgian thing? They seem like a tiny country that nobody really cares about with a soccer team that is like second or third tier in Europe. I know they’re highly ranked but that’s it. Why do non-US soccer fans seem to hate them?

Say, how do you like the Belgians now?

Yeah, yeah…not great Bob.

A mismatch between FIFA ranking and big tournament performance for a couple of years.

It's hard to say. I can only speak for myself in that they are a bitch to lose against. They usually have very strong teams on paper, but they also never go the distance to actually win. For smaller countries to have their miracle runs ended by Belgium instead of the 'big teams' is very anti-climactic. For bigger teams to lose against Belgium is similarly disappointing. It feels like you've been robbed of all the romance and drama of seeing two big teams duking it out. Instead you get... Belgium.

They had a golden generation about 5-10 years ago that made them an absolute top tier team for a bit. They're coming down from that level of play so there's still some resentment about that run.

Shot in the dark but does it have to do with being the seat of the EU?

He should be disqualified for not being American. Trump admin literally had their birth tourism case last week and he’s exactly what they and (me) are against. The only exposure he’s had of America is being born here for 2 months and leaving.

Edit: wanted to add I think it’s the right call reversing this red. All the post saying corruption or US bullying but honestly I think they just fixed a mistake. I don’t think he should be playing for US team because he’s not an American.

My goodness, what long labor. How's his mom doing?

Sorry chuds. The constitution says America wins FIFA.

The President of the United States getting a soccer decision overturned demonstrates that yes, you can effectively use a bazooka to kill a mosquito.

I've been seeing talk about VAR having been improperly used in this case, and how that's the unspoken justification (because FIFA doesn't want to admit a mistake). Any truth to that?

It was a shitty, stupid call, but shitty stupid calls are a tradition within international soccer that is being threatened by the American Way.

It's one of the major cultural differences between American big-4 sports and international soccer, and has been for years, along with showing pain on the field*. American sports thrive on precision and accuracy, soccer on a vague sense of spirit. In the NFL and NBA the clock is precise to the millisecond, in soccer the game ends when the ref thinks we're at a pretty good spot to end it. In American sports out of bounds is fought down to the inch and moment the ball or the player is out of bounds play stops, in soccer out of bounds is just kinda casual.

Soccer is very like boxing, in that corrupt or fixed matches are part of the lore in a way that is inextricable from the history of the sport. Reading a big Muhammed Ali bio, basically every one of his championship fights had some accusations of corruption or fixing or tomato can or pepper-on-the-gloves antics by somebody. Maradona is one the inner circle best, and also illegally scored in the World Cup and everyone knows it and it's just a joke. Once you accept that it is part of the history, the thought of actually getting calls right would be change, and there's nothing old-head hardcore fans hate more than change.

*My solution to diving, which I find distasteful and unaesthetic: harshly penalize extravagantly showing pain on the field, regardless of whether there was a foul or not. Soccer players aren't inherently more effeminate than any other athletes, they're just trained and socialized to show pain, where other athletes are trained and socialized to shrug it off. The "don't be a bitch" rule will fix the problem.

*My solution to diving, which I find distasteful and unaesthetic: harshly penalize extravagantly showing pain on the field, regardless of whether there was a foul or not. Soccer players aren't inherently more effeminate than any other athletes, they're just trained and socialized to show pain, where other athletes are trained and socialized to shrug it off. The "don't be a bitch" rule will fix the problem.

Can we start by fixing basketball and QB play?

I'm not sure professional Basketball is ultimately salvageable as a sport. It would require major surgery, altering rules in ways that would make the modern sport illegible to the classic sport.

What do you see as wrong with QB play?

Diving for RTP calls mostly. Also Josh Allen is (to be technical) a little bitch.

Agreed that it's an issue. My bete noire is the Mahomes style fake going out of bounds so they defender has to stop his momentum to avoid a RTP, then sneak back in for more yards. Or the late slide to pick up an extra yard. It'll need to be regulated at some point.

I just don't think it's nearly as common or nearly as distasteful as the display you see in soccer, or in the NBA at this point.

I mean it's less common but it doesn't get enough censure because people are used to football players toughing things out.

Josh Allen being a human freight train when he wants to be and a granny with a broken hip when he wants to be is dumber than Neymar rolling around.

I think it gets less censure because of the helmets. I just don't see the same degree of facial acting during NFL games, so it's less distasteful.

More comments

I'm not sure professional Basketball is ultimately salvageable as a sport.

This is mostly because there's too much cultural inertia to do what has to be done: eliminate the three point shot.

Then floor spacing dies, players get taller and more immobile again and the product quickly finds a new metagame that's equally horrible

I like the three point game. My problem is with the meta-game of load-management and cap-acrobatics and tanking.

The problems I see are that a) the game is easier in every aspect and phase the taller you are, b) there aren't enough tall people with that talent level in the world to staff 30 competitive teams, c) there are 30 NBA teams, d) who play 82 games a year, which e) don't really matter to the final season outcome that everyone cares about.

Solve those five and the three point game will be much less of a problem.

Why? So it can go back to being a game of giants with very little skill?

At what point in the NBA’s history do you believe this was an accurate description of the game?

Probably back when not enough players could consistently make three pointers.

I'm not an NBA history buff, but that seems to be the desired direction for their change.

More comments

As I understand it there really was some kind of irregularity with how VAR was used, I believe that they used slo-mo or still frames in a context where it isn’t allowed (because all contact looks worse slowed down) or something similar to that, but they’re not hiding that, it’s in the official FIFA statement. It also was an extremely harsh call, and Messi had done the exact same thing (worse, honestly) in a previous game and wasn’t even given a yellow. They all-but-never overturn decisions within a tournament though, so imho, that’s all probably the fig leaf and Trump contacting Infantino is the real reason. I think the only other time this has happened was way back in the 60s? They did wipe away a multi-game suspension for violent conduct for Ronaldo to let him play in this very tournament, but FWIW that red card happened before the tournament so it isn’t quite as egregious/comical.

I was texting with a friend about the overturned suspension earlier today, and literally during the act of sending him a meme about “Trump called up FIFA to make this happen lol” it was confirmed that, in fact, that was exactly what happened. What a time to be alive.

Anyway, culture-war-wise I haven’t seen any truly negative opinions about the decision from Americans, certainly not from American soccer fans. Everyone I’ve seen or talked to has been amused and/or happy. It is admittedly kinda dirty but, well, it’s FIFA. Even the liberal NYT commenters on an article I read seem to at most be saying “I wish it hadn’t happened like this but I’ll take it.” Hell, even my mom (who utterly despises Trump and doesn’t care that much about sports) isn’t too broken up about it. That red card was total BS anyway, so this is how it always should’ve been.

After the red card and before this happened, the general sentiment from my mostly liberal social circles was "What's the point of having a corrupt government if they won't step in at times like this?"

Now everyone is pretty happy.

It's interesting that Trump is clearly pro-America-getting-into-soccer- and as an MLS fan(and rooting for a team that has three players for the national team), I have to sympathize- even though being into soccer is my least red tribe trait(no, speaking French doesn't count, it's Cajun French and not metropolitan), Trump liking it makes up for retarded Iran adventurism in my book.

I mean he's a huge sports fan of all kinds.

I think Trump would have the same reaction if it was darts. It isn’t soccer itself but America winning.

He just praised Harry Kane, too, though. I think he genuinely likes soccer, or at least feels some fondness for the game. He played soccer in his school days.

Trump loves the USA winning, but he probably loves even more that world cup tourists love America. They love our restaurants, our dance halls, our wings and ranch dressing, bucees and the sheer scale. There are regular human interest stories on cable news about fans from abroad falling in love with America(and drinking all the beer in Boston) in addition to the usual aides printing out tweets for him to peruse.

Out of all of the "Euros loving America" style slop content, the ranch dressing thing strikes me as particularly bizarre. You can easily get ranch dressing here, including multiple locally produced varieties. It's a very common choice for chicken wings, which are also available in basically almost every pub that also serves food here. Perhaps it's different in some other countries?

Buffalo wings outside of the USA very rarely live up to the ones inside the USA. I'm not a particular fan of American food but that's one spot where I'll say the Americans way outdo everybody else

More comments

[Meta] The gish gallops need to end

There’s a post below discussing Governor Shapiro and his state booth, Reflecting Pool liner need, and USAID funding death estimates. I think there’s a temptation here to look at all the upvotes (24, solidly above average), the length of the piece, etc and call this a good post. It isn’t. This is just the conservative equivalent of one of those gish gallop posts with dozens of news links pointing out every bad thing Trump has done, with the veneer of thoughtful debate. For those not familiar, Wikipedia here but all you really need to know is that the idea is asymmetry: drop a lot of stuff all at once that can’t possibly be responded to comprehensively. The live debate equivalent is perhaps Spreading? To the credit of the poster, the arguments aren’t necessarily weak per se, but the end impact is like a firehose, and that’s what I take issue with.

Functionally, I think these posts are bad for the community. There is no through thread at all that I can see beyond cute one sentence transitions like “it’s not a question with millions of lives on the line” which is the type of transition I’d be super impressed to see in a high school essay for its fluidity, but am super disappointed to see in a place like this.

Not only is there no common thread between three full length posts slapped together beyond perhaps a trivial thematic “my team is right and yours is full of liars”, there is not even a concluding paragraph that attempts to tie them together.

Why is that bad? The length is not healthy for discussion and debate; the whole point of a thread setup is for somewhat distinct topics to be somewhat distinct. Set up and packaged like this, it incentivizes a “war of worldviews” which might be fine if the point of the post is to discuss worldviews, but it isn’t - the post is all object level or one step up on the topic ladder. So I feel like this goes against the spirit of the site.

If you have three different topics with something substantive to say, you should post three different comments.

I think there’s a temptation here to look at all the upvotes (24, solidly above average)

As someone who often is voted negative but rarely gets a mod warning, I find the voting feature rather useless.

The only thing it will tell you is which way the local hive-mind of lurkers is leaning.

More complex voting systems have been tried elsewhere (e.g. slashdot's karma system where users have limited mod points, or LessWrong's separation into comment-quality and comment-agreement), but personally I find the motte well enough moderated that it is readable without additional filters (unlike reading slashdot at -1).

If you have three different topics with something substantive to say, you should post three different comments.

Agreed, I would have preferred one thread about the reflecting pool and one about the death count of USAID.

Obviously conversations will get derailed by comment replies, that is a feature not a bug. I am also fine with comments making a one sentence side claim that will lead to multiple replies. But loosely tying multiple separate topics into one package seems not ideal.

As someone who often is voted negative but rarely gets a mod warning, I find the voting feature rather useless.

I do find it useful in one small case - if I'm deep down thread talking to one person and im consistently getting one downvote I'll be more likely to bail, it seems rude and is highly correlated with poor productivity in my mind.

FWIW, I've had the situation where I was deep in a thread in a back-and-forth with someone, and then upon checking on it later, I find that someone downvoted every post of the other guy, but did NOT upvote mine, giving the impression that I did the downvoting. If I see that, I'll usually upvote the other guy afterwards, but you need to notice it in the first place.

Oh yeah, it's not a 100 percent thing by any means.

You can't just assume that your interlocutor is the downvoter in such cases. Lots of users use the "firehose" page to scroll through all comments as soon as they are made, with no regard for how deep into a thread they are, and one of them just as easily could be the downvoter.

If you think something's a Gish Gallop, show at least one claim that the "gish gallop" made that is false. If you think you can show a post is bad, respond to the post. If you're making a top-level post to complain about another poster's behavior, ping them.

If you think a post has no through-line, at least try think harder about it than a 12B quantized LLM (Gemma4-12B). I actually ran this test before posting (caveat: deleted original chat, this is remade now) so as to make sure I was being sufficiently clear.

If you have good examples of the same process starting from lies from the right, I'd be interested in examples, but everything I could find was either fairly distant history (Iraq War), very arguable (exactly how true the 'defund the police' mechanism was versus not continuing increases), or just stupid (peace in middle east).

I like the way you structured the post and I think it felt more honest than posting them as three separate topics.

Your post was "here is the pattern I'm noticing, here are the data points, here is what I think of the pattern". If you claim to notice the pattern after just posting one or maybe even two incidents the responses are likely to be "these are isolated incidents". If you try to get everyone to notice the pattern just by posting one of these stories every week or so for months on end then you risk people get annoyed with you "get off your hobby horse" and it defeats the purpose of this place being able to speak plainly.

@EverythingIsFine Having specific incidents to discuss is fine. But being able to have meta discussions is also useful. This post you are discussing allowed for both types of conversation.

@stolen_brawnze I'd generally suggest people not worry too much about the meta-health of themotte discussion forum. It especially should not be a reason to complain to someone who is improving the discussion.

Thank you for the charity, but I’m being selfish. I want more comments to read while I’m bored at my desk!

I stand behind this:

It's what I imagine you would do if for some reason you wanted to minimize the amount of interaction you get for all that effort.

Maybe the interaction is more draining than the initial effort. If I write a controversial post I usually spill three - five times more words defending it.

I think you should put each topic in its own top post.

Because bruh. Why are you trying to corral all discussion led by you into one thread? We have an issue where we can go 24+ hours without another top-level thread, and you were withholding three of them to save for one post? I don't understand why you do it like that. It's what I imagine you would do if for some reason you wanted to minimize the amount of interaction you get for all that effort.

I enjoyed reading it. I'm not as convinced by the "through-line" justification.

That's more fair. The more serious justification's that we've had a number of topics, both political and non-political, where a common rejoinder was that an individual small case was not meaningful in some way, the large case not representative, and the attempt to connect them after being 'called out' on it mere retrofitting. Where my examples clearly stand on their own, I'll write them individually, cfe 3d Printers or Legos or furry cancelation. I'm not sure that the fair booth example would be worth a standalone post even in the Bare Link Repository era.

I also specifically don't want to be the type of person that optimizes for interactions. I'm probably overcompensating on 'don't get braincored', but the failure mode is dire enough I'd rather risk that.

But fair. And there's a good example coming out of Louisiana that might serve as a test case, if I have time to write it up later this week.

While the post the parent links to is not a Gish Gallop, I will give an example of a Gish Gallop a leftist publication posted last year and how I rebutted it.

Context: Charlie Kirk was a conservative activist who was assassinated by a leftist last year for his conservative beliefs. After he died, many leftists smeared his name and attacked him. I responded to one particular attack against Kirk which, yes, was a Gish Gallop: Making a bunch of weak arguments, and implying the other person needs to refute each and every weak argument.

In my response, I only addressed one weak argument:

Now, I haven’t looked at every single claim made against Charlie Kirk made in these Gish Gallops of attacks against him, so I will look at just one claim used to attack him: The claim that he advocated stoning gays.

This claim was made out of content; Charlie Kirk was making a rebuttal to the claim that “Love your neighbor” (Luke 10:27) means we must not consider gay pride marches sinful. He himself was not saying gay people should be stoned to death. This claim is so inaccurate, Stephen King apologized for making it

[...]Based on the one claim I have taken the time to investigate, they seem to be lying [...] when going after Charlie Kirk.

A Gish Gallop is not a long post meandering in several different directions. A Gish Gallop is making an argument and then backing it up with a barrage of weak arguments and dubious facts, none of which really hold up if examined closely, but which are hard to address en masse because the arguer can keep switching from one point to the other ("Okay, you say Not A, but I notice you didn't even address B, C, and D, why is that? Hah!")

You are mostly just expressing your personal preference as to what type of posts you'd like to see. I don't entirely disagree with you, but we aren't going to require people to "only post about one thing at a time."

As for upvotes and downvotes, that's unfortunately an inevitable result of evaporative cooling. I would say the Motte is still more ideologically diverse than the average forum or social media site, but the number of people willing to post long posts about their hobby horses is becoming narrower, and upvotes mostly reflect the general attitude towards those hobbyhorses (generally, "right good, left bad").

I don't know if the post you cite is really the best example of this site's Length Problem, but I'm glad you brought up the Length Problem more generally.

When I started reading /r/slatestarcodex's culture war thread, posts were long for a reason. Posts were frequently written to cover current events. Authors generally understood that their audience might not have the full history and context of the event at their fingertips, so the better posts would frequently provide information to the reader about what was happening, what events lead to the current situation, who the players were, and why the topic was important enough to bring up. That framework helped expose me to a lot of world events, history, and concepts that I otherwise would not have seen at the time. It created a lot of long posts, but the length was a byproduct of an attempt to maximize understanding.

More and more, post length here feels performative. There's not a lot of context; most posters seem to assume that every reader is exactly as plugged in as they are. The broader history is gone. Sure, we know from the post that Jaan van der Grindl went and Said a Thing On Twitter Again, but who the hell is Jaan van der Grindl? Is he somebody in a position of power? Does he have some unique influence over the broader population? Hell if I know. If I click on the link, I'll find out that he's railing about immigrants or birth rate. Awesome. Now I have to figure out if this is something van der Grindl says regularly or if it's out of character for him. Did something happen recently to make this relevant? Hell if I know. Now I get to read bad machine translations of Dutch news articles to try and find out. Maybe I'll get lucky and learn that there are protests in Europe again. What makes these different? Protesting is constant over there. The sense that the modal poster is trying to maximize understanding is gone.

Beyond that, the discussion space has largely collapsed. You'll see topics about Catholicism, declining birth rates, AI, immigration, and... that's broadly it. Somebody is going to reflexively say to "be the change that you want to see in the world", but believe me, I've tried. There's not much engagement outside of a handful of well worn paths.

As a result, I've broadly retreated into the other threads on the board, where people actually talk about things that might be new and interesting. For example, did you know there's a highly coveted waiting list for luxury beans? I sure as hell didn't. It's a window into a culture that's completely alien to mine. There's probably all kinds of room for a culture war post about that. Right now I'm trying to write a post about how Fender is in the middle of a lawsuit that's threatening to upend the entire midlife crisis industry, but I don't know if I'll bother to finish it. If I provide all the necessary context, I fear nobody will particularly care, because they're all busy talking about how AI will fix the European fertility crisis by making all the immigrants Catholic, or something.

Hell if I know what to do about it, though. It seems like it's what the regulars want.

I do find this post a bit ironic.

My problem with length is I don't want to read it all.

I'm largely in the same boat, at least depending on how much detail and depth is necessary in a topic. My philosophy is that simpler and shorter is better. If a post is long but each sentence is packed with detail, that's better than being a long post that could have been rewritten to be shorter. I've gotten used to skimming long posts that fall in the latter.

One thing I noticed browsing the mega AAQC round-up is how many old AAQCs were an exercise in synthesizing comments above. The big effort posts and link filled explainers are there, but many are a few paragraphs to frame a picture. As if they were a cherry on top award for providing wisdom not yet stated within the context of a comment chain.

I do not think that is an overly helpful observation, but it could be evidence of a community that valued understanding more. One idea is bussing to move the weekly threads into the CW thread as a pinned top-level comment for the day of the week. Bean culture war posts might sprout with more exposure.

For example, did you know there's a highly coveted waiting list for luxury beans?

I humbly request @fribble chooses one type of weekly thread for the Rancho Gordo saga so that I can more effectively monitor the bean situation.

The bean chronicles have been on hold because my AC has been fumbling all its rolls vs heat. I will be pulling out the slow cooker (this weekend) for the next batch.

I will also try to stick to Wellness Wednesday to make it easier to find/skip as desired!

I humbly request @fribble chooses one type of weekly thread for the Rancho Gordo saga so that I can more effectively monitor the bean situation.

May I suggest the Wednesday Wellness thread?

Beans, beans they're good for the heart
the more you eat, the more you fart
the more you fart the better you feel
so eat your beans with every meal

That’s a variant I’ve never heard. I grew up with

Beans, beans, the magic fruit
The more you eat, the more you toot
The more you toot, the better you feel
So let’s eat beans with every meal.

Looking back on the rhyme as an adult, I suspect foul influence from the UK.

That's the more common variant, for sure (EDIT: but I know it as "...the musical fruit"). But it doesn't lay out the cardiovascular benefits, so it doesn't point to any weekly thread in particular.

Right now I'm trying to write a post about how Fender is in the middle of a lawsuit that's threatening to upend the entire midlife crisis industry, but I don't know if I'll bother to finish it. If I provide all the necessary context, I fear nobody will particularly care

Doooo eeeet

You'll see topics about Catholicism, declining birth rates, AI, immigration, and... that's broadly it.

Why are you surprised that people want to talk about the hottest culture war topics in the culture war thread? (Ok Catholicism isn’t quite as topical as the others perhaps, but I like the Catholicism posts all the same.)

For example, did you know there's a highly coveted waiting list for luxury beans? I sure as hell didn't.

Coffee beans or baked beans or what?

Unusual cultivars of beans that you cook with, shipped to your door.

Right now I'm trying to write a post about how Fender is in the middle of a lawsuit that's threatening to upend the entire midlife crisis industry, but I don't know if I'll bother to finish it.

Please do. The most recent guitar I bought was a Fender.

Agreed 100%. Someone complained not long ago about referring to court cases by one word names, and the mods said that this was fine because it's a typical way of citing them, which I can understand if it's Brown v. Board or some other landmark decision that every educated person is familiar with, at least in the United States. The problem is when people assume that cases that were big news in their hobby horse communities are similarly well known everywhere else, and they're referenced without any context. So someone says "The argument that you're making doesn't square with what the court said in Vinoverski, and the reader is wondering what they hell the poster is talking about. Meanwhile Google gives a dozen cases with that name, and even giving the full case name is just shorthand for saying "you can look this up yourself". I'd prefer that people would instead say something more like "The argument you're making doesn't square with what the court said in Vinoverski v. Sullivan, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that municipalities could regulate short term rentals under the zoning code (I made that case up so don't go looking for it).

Vinoverski v. Sullivan, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that municipalities could regulate short-term rentals under the zoning code (I made that case up so don't go looking for it)

Link to a non-made-up Pennsylvania decision on the topic for people who want it

I didn't know I wanted it, but I did

This is exactly the sort of reason I love this place.

I will post a full summary of this case in the next Friday Fun Thread.

The mods don't really know what to do about it either. We don't have a lot of levers to use that won't just disincentivize posting in general.

I agree it’s a bad post for the reason you think it’s a bad post, but it’s not a gish gallop. Beyond that, even though the Gish Gallop proper is pointing at a real bad argument tactic , I hate it for the reasons demonstrated here. Incorrect accusations of Gish gallops are too common, and becomes its own bad argument itself.

Anyway, the problem with the bad post is that it is, as you point out a long post with multiple topics but no thesis or theme. Personally, post length is much less interesting as a heuristic of quality than having a strong thesis with some supporting material.

A pithy post with a strong thesis delivered in a few sentences or less is much better than some of the meandering mess of stream of consciousness. Unfortunately too many folks fancy themselves lil’ Scott Alexanders (who himself, while a great writer is overly long to his own detriment).

So you get people (1-2 who really over do it) writing cute little anecdotes and tedious stories with many words and little point beyond a vibe, and that’s treated wrongly as the gold standard.

too many folks fancy themselves lil’ Scott Alexanders (who himself, while a great writer is overly long to his own detriment).

Hot take but he's actually a mediocre writer [1], and this is what you get for organizing the forum around such a writer.

[1] Why is he so popular if he's mediocre? He's above average on one metric which is entertainment quality, but mediocre on logic, evidence, concision, and substance. I weight entertainment very low so he comes out as middling on my scale, but unsurprisingly most readers weight entertainment very highly. He also built his brand on a lot of volume and had a first mover advantage in that what he did was pretty fresh back in the early 2010s. Now there are copycats, many which are just as good, but they're less novel because he already did it, and usually have less volume.

There's a clear througline; all three stories deal with Blue Team messaging that's playing fast and loose with the truth. A moderate governor of a Blue state nakedly lies in a way that denies the legitimacy of the Trump Admin. Blue MSM aggressively downplays the evidence/possibility that vandalism is at least partially to blame for exacerbating the Reflecting Pool debacle. Blue academia gives a (probably) grossly inflated casualty figures for the effect of Red policy.

I think it's useful/interesting as a little snapshot of some of the current media going-ons. The first two are unlikely to be remembered a few months down the line, the third will be one small piece of all the ink spilled about Red Team attempts to alter America's international status quo, but all three are examples of the kind of deception that's contributing to the break-down of consensus reality.

That’s hardly a very intriguing or incisive throughline, though. Take a snapshot of any day in the past century and you’ll find a bunch of political organs massaging the truth. If you want to prove the present is particularly egregious, you’ll need to step into the world of statistics.

I always collapse all the multipage philosophical meanderings (especially the ones concerning AI) and navel-gazings,

No. We can't simultaneously have a rule that say we should "proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be" and then cry about Gish Gallops.

Not to mention, this isn't even a Gish Gallop. The tactic Duane Gish perfected was citing many studies out of context, in a way that make it seem they agree with his point to people who haven't read them, and it turning out that they don't once you look into them. The reason the Gish Gallop was effective in stage debates was that it takes more effort to research and refute the claims, then it is to make them. It was also trivially countered - because Gish's repertoire was actually quite limited, one of his opponents prepared for a debate, and was actually pre-bunking all his claims in real time, making him look like an idiot. Things like this don't tend to happen on this forum, and definitely not from Gattsuru.

Be honest about what this is: you being upset that your side does actually look bad, and being unable to provide counter arguments.

If you have three different topics with something substantive to say, you should post three different comments.

Yes, I'm sure you will be less upset when you have 3 top level Gattsuru comments instead of one.

Wishing each and every American a blessed 4th of July. The United States is an exceptional country and no American should take for granted the lottery of life that they won merely by being born in that country. Regardless of your political affiliation, a president is temporary and will never define the country any more than the robust private sector as well as the accomplishments, ambitions, charity, altruism, warmth, and resilience of the American people. America remains the global hub of innovation, entertainment, and academia. When I think of a dynamic society that is readily transparent about its flaws to a fault, receptive to change and development, I think of America. Unlike most European states, America isn't under the illusion that endless subsidies, bureaucratic bloating, and clientelism can keep the ball moving. America is the world's sole meritocracy, where diligent and conscientious work is all but guaranteed to yield a comfortable life in a safe, upper-middle-class suburb where people keep their garage doors open and allow their children to play outside until midnight. American research infrastructure, budgets, connections, corporate R&D, venture capital, and job markets are unparalleled. Billions of people on this planet would sacrifice anything to set their feet on American soil, let alone be born and raised there. Many people put their lives at jeopardy by doing so on a daily basis, making or attempting to make the treacherous journey through the Darien Gap of the Colombian-Panaman border.

My family comes from a third-world dictatorship and I've had the privilege of witnessing them reaching the American dream first-hand. Things I take for granted today were precious commodities for them. I was raised in a 70% Republican neighborhood in the South, and at all times, I was viewed solely as an individual who happened to have a non-Anglo-Saxon name and a member of the community, judged by my character and work ethic rather than my caste or creed. I am enamored with many aspects of life in Norway, but I will never earnestly feel a sense of belonging in the society here, I hit a dead end by constitutionally failing to fit the Norwegian mold. On paper, I did everything right, I speak Norwegian at C2 fluency, Knausgaard's My Struggle series are one of my all-time favorite reads, yet the country has an idiosyncratic social code I've yet to fully decipher, there's an invisible barrier between ethnic Norwegians and me that has led my social circle to consist of fellow American or continental European expats. Western Oslo is home to several upper-middle-class communities with 1-2 million USD homes making it some of the most expensive real estate in the country. People there believe that their postal code is a referendum on their self-worth and are content to live in a dated wooden house that can be found for a third of the price on the opposite end of town, and the vast majority of people residing there would not be able to purchase a house in 2026; they typically pool in resources from their extended family, have inherited a residence, secretly live in a condo, or entered the housing market in the 1990s when it was not this oppressive. Despite Norway priding itself on being an egalitarian country, "keeping up with the Joneses" is much more of a thing here than virtually anywhere in the US. People here believe the opportunity cost of going into debt for some puffy vests and quarter-zips outweighs that of using their wealth for edifying and intellectually stimulating experiences. They vacation in the same tacky Spanish resorts that the lower-middle-class scourge 15 miles away does, rather than saving some funds for a trip to Cuzco or Singapore. The wealth in the suburbs of Indianapolis, Detroit, Columbus, Houston, and Dallas, which also share the same reputation of being flashy and stuck up in their respective metropolitan areas, feels much more meritocratic, as I know it is possible to be a homeowner there as a common man who righteously ascended the social ladder. Paradoxically, the average income in those communities is much higher than anywhere in Norway.

My time abroad in 26 countries has made me realize that every country has its fair share of pros and cons, and in that regard, grasping the extent to which America’s pros outweigh the cons has reinforced my American exceptionalism. America's cons are reversible and tractable, but the solid foundation remains intact. I dream of the day I get to return to the United States. I will drive a camper van from coast to coast, staying at KOA campgrounds. I will see the multitude of landscapes that the American national park system has on offer. I will marry a cute blonde Utahn girl at BYU before I begin my postgrad in an Ivy League institution. I can't wait to pay a measly $100 out-of-pocket monthly for world-class medical care.

"The tenets of American democracy are particularly cherished when you are not born with them but with deliberation and conviction adopt them for your own." -Marjorie Lynch

America could have been the best country on Earth but immigrants have stolen it and turned it into a mediocre, and declining, country that is barely better than Canada and the UK (worse immigrant situations and base populations). You praise the root of this destruction: egalitarianism, hardworkocracy (meritocracy is when high IQ people are aristocrats not when grinding for market value pays off), classlessness, greed, deracination, treachery, and above all, hubris.

Chinese and Indians have completely invaded American STEM at all levels: tech companies, academia, mathematical finance, hardware, and engineering. Smart white American labor has been completely wiped out and has nowhere to go. It almost amounts to a genocide of smart white Americans. And mediocre white Americans don't care because they are classless, greedy, deracinated, treacherous, narcissistic, and believe in the lowness of hardworkocracy. They think that if some aliens land in Montana and start taking over all the land, Americans should just compete with them to have access to the finite resources. Compete to the bone, compete until there is nothing left in live worth living anymore. Just work, work , work, work according to standards set by the aliens, by the demiurge, sacrifice love, beauty, friendship, and everything to pointless toil. I question at times how much qualia they have, if any. Maybe some people have a divine spark and others are just mud.

  • -10

We have a wildcard rule on themotte: dont be egregiously obnoxious. Its not specific for good reasons. If people are being very annoying to a wide range of posters we consider that rule-breaking. Even if no specific rule is broken.

Your behavior in this thread is in violation of the rule. We are giving you a 1 day ban for you to go back and read through your comments and your interactions with others. Figure out what you are doing wrong and stop it. If you cannot figure it out, I doubt we will be able to point it out sufficiently to help you.

Bans for egregiously obnoxious behavior escalate much faster than other types of bans. Consider this potentially your last warning.

Chinese and Indians have completely invaded American STEM at all levels: tech companies, academia, mathematical finance, hardware, and engineering.

Actual engineering (not software "engineering") is still very white in the US. Especially things like aerospace, civil, and nuclear engineering. Immigrants tend towards the higher pay/effort fields, and ones that aren't gatekept by ITAR.

America could have been the best country on Earth but immigrants have stolen it and turned it into a mediocre, and declining, country

I think you mean non-white immigrants. If so, please just have the balls to come out and say that. Otherwise this logic is tortured. America was built by immigrants. The average US citizen is an immigrant or a descendant of an immigrant who came here from late 19th century (start of Ellis Island) onwards, Trump included. But I never hear complaints about the European immigration waves, just Indians, Chinese, Somalis, Muslims, Mexicans.

Unfortunately The Motte didn't exist back in 1920.

We probably talk about the R1b expansion an unusual amount relative to The Motte not exist 14Kish years ago either, though.

America was built by immigrants

Going into the wilderness and building your home from trees and mud is not the same as flying to a city on an H-1B to undercut someone else's computer job (better case) or flying to a city and being subsidized (normal case)

I'm a race realist but not a white nationalist. The problem with immigrants is that they are too average, and that there are too many average people. The country that concentrates the most smart people while making sure the existing smart people in the country are benefiting from it wins. With Asian and slavic immigration some might say America is doing that, but those people are largely 120 IQ cheaters and not really brilliant. Some of them are fine but their numbers should have been maybe 20% of what went in. They should not dominate American STEM like they do.

But I never hear complaints about the European immigration waves

You may not have heard of them, but there exist valid objections to the behaviors of certain Ellis Islander groups. I would guess that WhiningCoil more precisely means non-Hajnali immigrants.

But I never hear complaints about the European immigration waves

The reason you don't hear about those guys as much is because it used to be a major fucking issue until we did a 40 year immigration moratorium and had a couple apocalyptic wars to bind us all together. And you can still trace out the marked difference in voting and crime patterns. One of the biggest cultural impacts from the Italians was an entire genre of crime media.

But modern mafiosos can't get away with burying people in the Pine Barrens anymore. Conversely, one of our two political parties seems cheerfully willing to tolerate any amount of government and welfare fraud from the Somalians.

Aristocracy is when high-agency people break rules, scheme and kill to fulfill their desire of getting things simply for existing instead of working hard. Those who complain about not being given things instead of doing the above are not aristocrats, they are failsons.

No, Aristocracy is when smart people get to compete with each other and keep the profits of their own competition for themselves, instead of having all their time wasting competing with a horde of lvl. 1 3rd world zerglings and then having their miniscule EXP half confiscated and handed to more 3rd worlders and proles.

Aristocracy is when a group of people get together to declare themselves the elite and give themselves special privileges. It requires some intelligence, yes, but far more important is a particular social skill, which you might call 'leadership' or 'douchebaggery'. If you don't have it --- and you don't -- then you won't be among the aristocratic class when it forms. And if you inherit the position, you'll be shuffled off to somewhere you don't like.

f you don't have it --- and you don't

How would you know? This is just a pointless insult, layered on top of wishful thinking against my position. Actually it would be really easy to enact intelligence hierarchies that are more rewarding than now, the fundamental issue is too many dumb people. The solution I think is to go form a small competitive intelligence hierarchy civ somewhere else and to have it outcompete the equality civs over time.

How would you know?

Reading your comments is sufficient.

The solution I think is to go form a small competitive intelligence hierarchy civ somewhere else and to have it outcompete the equality civs over time.

It doesn't work. The people with the high leadership-quotient take over these groups, if they become significant, every time.

Reading your comments is sufficient.

No, it's not.

It doesn't work. The people with the high leadership-quotient take over these groups, if they become significant, every time.

What does that have to do with outcompeting equality civs? Of course we want good leaders.

Smart people are keeping the profits for themselves. Ergo, you're not smart enough to be an aristocrat if you're here complaining about taxes and nepotism.

Most smart people lose half of their income to taxes and make half of what they should because of anti smart people systematic efforts to lower their opportunities. In other words, most smart people are upper middle class and make six figures. Or less -- go check the IQ income correlation. 145 IQ people are on average at the 90th percentile of income, with a lot of spread. That sounds wrong to me.

The most robust IQ-income correlations I've seen stop at 130, because they're based on the ASVAB.

This gets close to 140. The trend is pretty obvious anyway. My statement was based on the correlation being about 0.40. That means 3 SD IQ people average 1.2 SD income which is around 90th percentile on a gaussian. Income is skewed of course but not as fat tailed as wealth so I think this is a reasonable estimate. A right tail should decrease the percentile of each SD so if anything the situation is more bleak.

He's just using a different normalization of the same scores, that apparently gives slightly higher equivalent IQs.

More comments

Whatever you call "let the high IQs work without taxes or competition with anyone they don't like", it's not "aristocracy" in any established meaning of the word. Aristocracy is not when you "get" to do things. Aristocracy is when you do things, while other people less versed in politics "get" to do what you allow them and no more.

Bemoaning that the world isn't fair because you only get to keep 100k/year instead of 200k/year is a useless and undignified activity.

Amazing how much "dignity" coincides with shutting up and accepting what your betters give you.

One's welcome to not accept it, and I wish him luck in getting more than what he's given. I just don't care for made-up justifications for why he "deserves" more than mere dregs of an upper middle class salary.

More comments

it's not "aristocracy" in any established meaning of the word

Polybius's "anacyclosis" idea (Wikipedia article short on citations, original text)

Monarchy (good) → tyranny (bad) → aristocracy (good) → oligarchy (bad) → democracy (good) → ochlocracy (bad) → monarchy

let the high IQs work without taxes or competition with anyone they don't like

I didn't say without competition. I said without meaningless competition. It's like banning France from the worldcup unless they play 3 games a day against U14 teams to qualify. Obviously in a lot of worlds France will just sit it out and the world cup will be won by some mediocre team that was willing to play all year against U14s.

Aristocracy is not when you "get" to do things.

Aristocracy is a privilege, nature is when animals just do things, like a bear eating a human for example. Aristocracy is like being born into a world where you don't have to waste your time fending off bears.

Bemoaning that the world isn't fair because you only get to keep 100k/year instead of 200k/year is a useless and undignified activity.

It's less undignified than having or expressing false consciousness and it's not more useless than anything else people comment on the internet for free.

I didn't say without competition. I said without meaningless competition.

I didn't say without competition either. I said without competition with anyone you don't like. Naturally everyone is incentivized to eliminate as much competition as possible, branding it "meaningless" and "below them" and shit. That isn't how it works. Competition only becomes truly meaningless when you're strong enough to make your lessers compete against it instead. Like the actual aristocrats of the world are currently doing to you. You're the bear barrier. You'll remain one until you become the kind of person who's better at wrangling people than bears.

If you're truly too smart for your current position in the world then complaining on wordcel forums is both undignified and useless. You should be out there lobbying, colluding and scheming.

More comments

Smart white labor has nowhere to go

What universe are you living in? How old are you? I'm 27, white, in tech. I'm not a genius, I didn't go to an elite school. I've always had tech opportunities that would have given me a comfortable middle class life. So did most of the other white boys that graduated with me. Competition from Indians and Chinese in STEM is real, but it's not so all consuming white tech bros are being """genocided""".

While I think op is being a little bit histrionic, I strongly agree with the basic premise (I.e. h1b visa very obviously drive down wages and any one working in tech should oppose the, on this basis). A nice example of this phenomenon extended to its logical conclusion is what currently happens in American universities, (maybe it’s improving, I left in 2022) which operate in an open borders environment with their ability to recruit international students. This created a huge race to the bottom where faculty were directly incentivized to hire foreign nationals because, 1, 20-40 k is really good for anyplace that is not America and 2, you get an essentially indentured servant who very much does not want to leave. This obviously displaces lots of domestic students, sabotaging much of the nations scientific pipeline.

I have had tech opportunities where I am among a 10% white minority. I had to work harder for less opportunity only to be surrounded by Indians. To me, that is unacceptable.

"I have to work in social conditions I find personally uncomfortable and displeasing. This is clearly the same as genocide!"

Bruh. Please.

Big tech should be at least two thirds white people but instead it's maybe 10%. That looks like some kind of severe racial discrimination and crowding out to me.

I can believe underrepresentation (although some Asian overrepresentation in tech feels, frankly, pretty organic) but I don’t for a second believe that Big Tech is only 10% white. That seems like quite an exaggeration.

Although, my two personal friends who work in the FAANG world are an Indian guy (to be fair, he’s a citizen and a very patriotic rah-rah-USA kind of person) and a black guy, so hey, what do I know. Are there real stats on this out there?

Big Tech is probably about half foreign-born (overwhelmingly Chinese and Indian), with the other half split between white and Asian-Americans. Whites are probably a plurality if you count East and South Asians separately, but each company is different e.g. Microsoft has a reputation of being more Indian and Meta of being more Chinese, and individual teams or departments could have any possible ratio based on idiosyncratic hiring practices.

There's a relatively small but significant set of whites in the foreign-born tech set.

Google's 2024 diversity report has them at about 45% white and 46% Asian in the Americas. Hiring is about 40% white and 43% Asian; tech hiring is 48% Asian and 37% white. Still a lot more than 10% white.

More comments

I can believe underrepresentation (although some Asian overrepresentation in tech feels, frankly, pretty organic)

Part of the point of white people having borders is not having to lower themselves to 9 9 6 standards. You can say 9 9 6 is hard work, but there is more to life than toil. I say working harder than is reasonable for a person with a lot of qualia is just another form of cheating, and people deserve to land wherever they would land if they worked hard within a reasonable allotment of time, such as 40 hours a week, so that better people don't have to sacrifice their qualia just to land where they deserve.

Are there real stats on this out there?

At the companies I worked at I counted and I got 10%. Obviously they try to hide it from normies.

Some companies release diversity reports. Google's indicates 45% of the US workforce is white. 10% is simply not credible.

More comments

9-9-6 is a punishing work schedule and America maintaining a high standard of living without it is worth prioritizing, but is it really that bad? I don't believe techworkers are working Saturdays a lot. I know there are people working six twelves(which is what normie americans would call it, although for FIFO roughnecks and the like who probably make up the majority of such workers it's more likely to be 7-7 M-Sat). I know techworkers work some unusual hours but is it really normal to work more than about fifty hours a week?

More comments

Fair enough. Yes there are many good things to like about the US like its (imperfect, but still, extant) meritocracy. Now if only the people of the country would stop trying to prevent others from moving there to achieve the exact same goals and wishes the current population also wants. Regardless, the country still remains genuinely welcoming to others in a way (continental) Europeans are not and have never been.

In anticipation of the 4th of July 250th anniversary I was going to change my flair here to "Benedict Arnold did nothing wrong!", but then I took another look at the current state of the UK and what the US, despite it's flaws, is still like and thought better of it...

  • -11

Now if only the people of the country would stop trying to prevent others from moving there to achieve the exact same goals and wishes the current population also wants.

"Here I will beg leave to propose a doubt. The present desire of America is to produce rapid population by as great importations of foreigners as possible. But is this founded in good policy? . . . [A]re there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience [to rely on natural increase] for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose . . . millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of [millions] of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here."

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

Now if only the people of the country would stop trying to prevent others from moving there to achieve the exact same goals and wishes the current population also wants.

Sorry, but too many people have a completely incompatible epistemology and metaphysics. Please feel free to copy any of our institutional sourcing documents in your own nations if that makes your cope feel better, they're all available for free online.

Now if only the people of the country would stop trying to prevent others from moving there to achieve the exact same goals and wishes the current population also wants.

You can't have a de facto open borders policy that more than half the country disagreed with and not expect tremendous blow back. Biden and crew felt the necessity for workers far outweighed the need for public consent, so they bypassed it and relied on our hijacked institutions to label the dissenters as racist bigots. Now people of the left-leaning sort are coming online and complaining about the severe political correction as if it came out of nowhere.

Did Biden have an open borders policy? My understanding was that the policy was to turn away people trying to enter illegally, and deport them if they entered (recent arrivals, not people with established lives in the US), and there was no surge in the number of illegal immigrants entering and staying long-term.

Edit: I was wrong, see below.

The actual policy was to not enforce any laws, actively decline to find people entering, and help coach illegals through falsifying asylum claims if anyone accidentally did their jobs.

and staying long-term.

Clever wording. By the time Trump was elected, most of the Bidenwave had only been here a couple years at most.

Okay, I looked into it and there was actually an increase in the number of illegal immigrants staying long-term, but this was not due to relaxed enforcement, but due to an increase in the number of people attempting to enter illegally. They actually deported more during Biden's last year in office than in any year of Trump's first term. Regarding asylum:

President Biden issued an executive order that sharply limited asylum which along with Mexico's help led to a decrease in illegal border crossings.

The Wikipedia article Immigration policy of the Biden administration also has some interesting bits:

On June 4, 2024, Biden signed A Proclamation on Securing the Border to shut down the border if illegal crossings reached an average of 2,500 migrants a day in a given week.[15] Migrant encounters subsequently dropped down to 2020 levels.[16][17]

In February 2024 and again in May 2024, Republicans in the Senate blocked a bipartisan border security bill Biden had pushed for to reduce the number of migrants who can claim asylum at the border and provide more money for Customs and Border Protection officials, asylum officers, immigration judges and scanning technology at the border. (...) It was negotiated in a bipartisan manner and initially looked like it had the votes to pass until Donald Trump opposed it, citing that it would boost Biden's reelection chances.

So it seems he tried to curtail the influx, but it was too late.

They actually deported more during Biden's last year in office than in any year of Trump's first term.

No, they didn't. They just fraudulently counted people turned away at the border as "deportations".

So it seems he tried to curtail the influx, but it was too late.

Also viciously disingenuous. That bill was pure poison. Ostensible limitations (which were still high), all of which had "Unless Biden or Mayorkas doesn't want to", when they manifestly didn't want to. It was just shitty, manipulative theater. Like the Proclamation that doesn't actually do anything besides shut down a detention center. It "halted asylum applications", but they were still just doing catch and release.

From the same wiki article:

In response to Biden's order on February 7, 2021, an anonymous ICE official chafed that the Biden administration had "abolished ICE without abolishing ICE [...] The pendulum swing is so extreme. It literally feels like we've gone from the ability to fully enforce our immigration laws to now being told to enforce nothing."[4] Other ICE officials and agents argued that said changes were more dramatic than even Biden promised during his campaign.

No, they didn't. They just fraudulently counted people turned away at the border as "deportations".

Did they not do the same under Trump?

Not so far as I'm aware. Actually border encounters are down over 95%, so there really isn't anything to add to the total of actual "taking people who are here illegally and sending them home" numbers.

More comments

Now if only the people of the country would stop trying to prevent others from moving there to achieve the exact same goals and wishes the current population also wants

but then I took another look at the current state of the UK and what the US, despite it's flaws, is still like and thought better of it...

Don't you think that the sorry state of UK may be caused by the type of massive immigration to uk, that the US people don't want?

No, the sorry state of the UK is caused by repeated and incessant pandering to the lower classes and the unproductive of all stripes and colours and ages.

And can you guess by the color of their skin and their religion which are the most unproductive lower classes and most pandered to?

Also mass migration is policy that is top down, which throws the argument about pandering a bit off. And especially the white working class in UK has been fucked over and not pandered to in the last 60 years or so.

And can you guess by the color of their skin and their religion which are the most unproductive lower classes and most pandered to?

The most pandered to unproductive class is retired boomers, and particularly retired homeowning boomers. (Landowners who no longer perform the military functions of a traditional warrior elite are the most pandered to unproductive class in almost every society where they exist, of course).

It's not quite so simple. The white working class had immense power in the 50s-90s, especially culturally (albeit often mediated through establishment figures). That's why the Doctor Who reboot centered around a white working-class chav who failed school with no A-levels and worked as a shop assistant, and why reality TV had such cachet at that time. You can see that cultural power dying as worship of the white working class died out around the late 2000s: the next-but-one companion three years later was also a working class chav, but this was treated as a bad thing she had to rise above; then you had a succession of companions who were clearly upper-middle class and then 'working class' characters who were upper-middle-class with a London multicultural accent and mostly DEI in one area or another.

Working class power showed most clearly in the trade unions, but also in the ruinous taxes and the ruthless destruction of generational wealth.

My mother failed to get into the best UK university because the working-class academic at her interview heard her upper-class accent and literally refused to say a single word to her until she gave up and left; my father was spat on for having the same accent. There's a reason it's hard to get the upper classes to feel they have more in common with Dennis from the estate than the nice young Indian man who does their accounting (Digwa). Lots of bad memories.

I remember going to the Saratoga Battlefield, where Arnold was shot in the leg. The interpretation was pretty clear that if he had died from that wound, he would have gone down in history as one of America's most beloved generals and patriots.

Instead, he received a nameless memorial. I wonder sometimes if that wouldn't have been a decent enough compromise to deal with the Confederate legacy, but I think everything is so poisoned that neither side would accept it anymore.

Instead, he received a nameless memorial. I wonder sometimes if that wouldn't have been a decent enough compromise to deal with the Confederate legacy, but I think everything is so poisoned that neither side would accept it anymore.

The settlement was already made. Attempting to renegotiate it now is bad faith.

It was a renegotiation in bad faith already. The settlement before destroying the confederate monuments had been mostly uncontroversial in the sense of few paying much attention to it.

I had intended to write an effort post commemorating the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of independence. Instead I allowed myself to be distracted by kids, dogs, the world cup, and holiday festivities.

I appreciate your post both for it's content, and for providing me with an opportunity to hit some of the bullet points that I had wanted to hit without putting in the effort expected of a top-level post. I had wanted to start with a discussion of Justice Thomas' address to the students and Faculty of the University of Texas from a couple months ago (the address itself starts around 9:20 into the video). Specifically how he describes the distinction between treating ideals and principles as abstract intellectual concepts vs treating them as active forces. He talks about his experience growing up under Jim how and about how while the law may treat people unequally, the law can not make them unequal, only God can, and only you can take away your dignity. He talks about the United States being a "creedal nation", IE a nation defined by ideals rather than blood-lines or geography. Those ideals being the ones espoused in the Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble to the Constitution.

I agree with Justice Thomas' observation that those ideals have fallen into disfavor in recent years, especially amongst our so-called "experts" and "elite" as those ideals are dismissed as "unscientific" and "anti-technocratic". Like Justice Tomas I also find it troubling that patriotism and has been allowed to become a partisan issue. Gone it seems is "the loyal opposition" instead what we have are two factions. Those who seek to diminish the United States and the ideals espoused in the Declaration versus those who seek to embody and perpetuate them.

Count me among the latter.

Back in January I wrote a post about how "Allegiance" was something that I feel is sorely missing from the modern immigration debate and that is a post that I stand by. Recently there was a poll going around about how 55% of self-identified Democrats would prefer to live overseas, and I can't help but contrast that with what has easily become my new favorite genre of content which is foreign World Cup fans reacting to mundane Americana like Air Conditioning and Ranch Dressing. If you want to leave, I want you to leave. At the same time, if you are onboard with Baseball, Buc-ee's, and government by consent of the governed I welcome you with open arms.

Happy 250 to my fellow Americans, and here's to 250 more.

Those who seek to diminish the United States and the ideals espoused in the Declaration versus those who seek to embody and perpetuate them.

Donald, is that you?

Personally, I think that the US was founded on both good ideals (like freedom of speech, restricted government, democracy) and bad ideals (exploitation of non-citizens, territorial expansion). Plus a few which sounded reasonable at the time but did not really work out long-term (keeping military power in the hands of the citizens, the electoral college).

I very much cherish the good ideals of the US, and I credit the US with upholding these ideals when most of Europe was plunged into darkness, and spreading them in their sphere of influence (in Europe, at least).

I think that it is fair to say that most people on both sides of the culture war cherish these ideas at least to some degree (neither side is very committed to freedom of speech, for example). Both sides are in favor of democracy, at least if we disregard Trump's claim that the SAVE act will secure the Republican dominance for a hundred years as his usual empty boasting.

Recently there was a poll going around about how 55% of self-identified Democrats would prefer to live overseas,

It might be worthwhile to examine in which states they want to live, and on what ideals these nations are built. As you said, the US is built around ideas, not bloodlines or geography.

A US citizens who decides to emigrate to the Taliban, Belarus, North Korea, Saudi Arabia is arguably betraying the ideals on which the US is built. By contrast, emigrating to Canada or Germany involves no betrayal of fundamental American values in my opinion.

Anyone loyal to the good ideals of the US can by necessity only be loyal to the US as it exists in reality if the US does a good job of upholding these ideals. If she feels that another state does a better job of upholding these ideals, the natural response is to move. Obviously what precisely are the good ideals of the US is debatable as much as the present state of affairs.

By contrast, there are many 'patriots' on the right who seem to worship the trappings of the US more than the ideals. Who did not get turned off from the stars and stripes when W tortured suspects in gitmo under that very flag.

And then you have the flag-wavers who prefer the Confederate flag, who basically signal that the founding principle which they liked most about the US is the exploitation of non-citizens. I will take any draft-dodger who decided that fighting in Vietnam is not compatible with his understanding of the ideals on which the US was founded over them any day of the week.

A US citizens who decides to emigrate to the Taliban, Belarus, North Korea, Saudi Arabia is arguably betraying the ideals on which the US is built.

Likewise, DSA candidates should all be convicted of treason.

Anyone loyal to the good ideals of the US can by necessity only be loyal to the US as it exists in reality if the US does a good job of upholding these ideals.

"Men did not love Rome because she was great; Rome was great because men loved her."

The confederate flag in practice is mostly about pride in the White Southern identity(and White Southerners are an ethnic group whose culture is extraordinarily popular; the obesogenic food, sports, country music, lake culture... liberal comedians tell jokes about how much fun the whole thing is. One of the reasons Trump is able to win is because the secular version of this culture has a good time so reliably and it appeals to the common people). I don't dispute that blacks genuinely have a (understandably)negative reaction, but the white liberal elite mostly just doesn't like their cultural enemies; there won't be a symbol of White Southern culture which isn't controversial for that reason.

This reminds me of a Catholic blogger who wrote a four part article on why Catholics can and should fly the LGBT rainbow flag because it really symbolizes equal rights in employment and housing, and all gay sex stuff is incidental.

Not sure if this argues for or against your position, but it seems like someone should take the same sides of both flags to be consistent.

(I am skeptical of both flags )

The United States is an exceptional country and no American should take for granted the lottery of life that they won merely by being born in that country.

I hate this. I want to find whoever coined this "lucky to be born a X" meme and torture them in the most luxurious way I can possibly imagine.

There is no lottery to being born in America, any more than there is a lottery for a TSMC foundry to produce silicon chips as opposed to burittos. Americans conquered this land, established it's institutions, and then fucked. They fucked a lot. And they made more Americans as surely as Indians make more Indians, or Africans make more Africans.

The mistake of America is believing anyone else could possibly achieve this. It's resulted in 100 years of global misadventures trying to spread "Americanism" and failing every single damned time when 3rd worldism just drags it back down to the lowest common denominator. And it's going to fail even harder when it tries to make Americans domestically out of another billion third worlders.

You are killing the America you love so much. We'd all be better off admiring it from afar. At least then there would still be something left to admire. I wept during the festivities today with the certainty that America won't exist in another 50 years. I recognize nothing of the country I was born into only 40 years ago already.

The born lucky thing is from Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. It is an incredibly retarded argument, imo.

Rawls is right up there near Rousseau on the list of Most Destructive Philosophers of History.

Of course, Rawls being downstream of Rousseau means the frog retains the top rank.

So what is you explanation for American exceptionalism, if it is not the ideals? HBD of its white population? Or something metaphysical, that during the independence war God let the Holy Spirit descend on the Americans and their descendants in a way which he did not bother with for the Latin American nations?

So what is you explanation for American exceptionalism, if it is not the ideals? HBD of its white population?

Probably both. It can't just be the ideals, we have Liberia as a counter-example.

It's probably something like "A heavily selected portion of Europeans with the right ideas at the right time".

Liberia literally isn't ruled by America-descended blacks; it was overthrown by a cannibal warlord named 'General Butt Naked' who left a power vacuum for the usual pack of savages.

The fact that they could be overthrown by a 'General Butt Naked' probably indicates there were some flaws with the society they'd established, though.

Estimates for the population of Liberia that is descended from African-Americans range from 2.5-5%, the indigenous Bassa and Gio ethnic groups resent that cohort and there have been severe tensions between blood-and-soil Liberians and those descended from returnees as the latter did not integrate well. By that time, they have lived in the United States for centuries which has formed a great chasm between the cultures and religious traditions.

Even if you are so vitriolic about black people, the fact of the matter is that they are more productive in the United States than in any other country. George Washington Carver would have never realized his innate talent in a country like Liberia. If you believe black people are so lazy and violent, you should still desire the damage to be minimized by allowing them to remain in America, where they can provide the greatest benefit out of any country in the world. It is the United States where professional African-Americans have thrived in communities such as Prince George County, Metro Atlanta, and Missouri City. African-Americans are an integral part of the American ideal; they have given us jazz sounds that play in every dance scene of a WWII movie, the banjo, iconic Southern soul food and Creole cooking, legendary stories like To Kill a Mockingbird, and honorable men and women such as Justice Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell, and Condoleeza Rice.

To Kill A Mockingbird wasn't written by an African American unless I'm learning very new information about Harper Lee. Also the majority of contribution is either entertainment where there's a substantial thumb on the scales to both put them in the spotlight, and to overly lionize their contribution to the formation of the art forms.

Even if you are so vitriolic about black people

I'm not? I'm just saying Liberia basically forked the US constitution and it didn't produce results above what you'd expect from any another African nation.

I'm not accusing you of doing so definitively; I meant in case you are. I just don't consider Liberia to be a compelling example, as they haven't truly embraced the values that have yielded America's prosperity, even if their non-binding constitution may suggest otherwise prima facie. Freedom of the press, consent of the governed, and the rule of law are alien concepts to the vast majority of Liberians who have no connection to the US to speak of.

Botswana, while far from perfect, is a case study of an African country that has managed to successfully lift itself by its bootstraps. It was once a landlocked country with no paved roads and only 100 educated people in a country of 1 million inhabitants, but through an export-based economy and democratic institutions inherited from the traditional kgotla system, has become the wealthiest country on the continent. Their recent presidents have unfortunately seemed to reverse much of what has facilitated this transformation, but nevertheless their living standards are about on par with those of Moldova or Bulgaria's. Botswanan poverty is not the same as that of its eastern neighbors in Zambia or Zimbabwe.

but nevertheless their living standards are about on par with those of Moldova or Bulgaria'

Bulgaria and Moldova are not basically the same in terms of economic development. In terms of PPP and nominal, Bulgaria's GDP per capita is about twice that of Moldova's. Bulgaria is 55th and 59th in ranking of countries by GDP per capita PP and nominal, respectively, while Moldova is 93rd and 89th.

Moldova is not in the EU, while Bulgaria is and this year even joined the Euro Area.

Freedom of the press, consent of the governed, and the rule of law are alien concepts to the vast majority of Liberians who have no connection to the US to speak of.

I think this is a fully general point regarding immigration, and applies to a thousand little things besides that season the secret sauce that makes America America.

Yes.

Less flippantly, do I need an explanation for gravity to prove it's effects? Are 250 years of history not enough?

If you're claiming only this specific idea of gravity could do x, probably yes. The US was a huge mostly empty resource heavy new frontier. It's why we called it the New World. I think a counter-factual nation of French Americans seems pretty likely to have been hugely successful as well.

If you want to say only this version of Americans could have done everything its not a claim thats well backed up by evidence if you don't know why.

I think a counter-factual nation of French Americans seems pretty likely to have been hugely successful as well.

Excuse me, counter-factual?

I think he's saying essentially rerun American history but have the Quebecois either end up in control of the greater USA or just replace the 12 Colonies with roughly-equivalent Francophones.

If you want to say only this version of Americans could have done everything its not a claim thats well backed up by evidence if you don't know why.

You know, this is the same argument I saw in a random youtube video ages ago, about why North America is an OP starting position for a civilization. They made all the usual arguments about natural resources, fertility of the soil, and a few I'd never heard before about how especially navigable America's waterways and coasts are.

Except there were people here before the land was conquered and turned in The United States, and they didn't do any of that shit. In fact, there were many, many unique peoples here, and none of them did any of that shit.

So excuse me if I don't entirely buy the argument that anybody living in America would have been as great as The United States. History shows there were, and they weren't.

Except there were people here before the land was conquered and turned in The United States, and they didn't do any of that shit. In fact, there were many, many unique peoples here, and none of them did any of that shit.

I think reality is actually more complicated than that. There's reason to believe that the North America that the European explorers saw was essentially a postapocalyptic wasteland. There's good archeological evidence there were very sophisticated societies in North America (as there were in South America when Cortez arrived) that had collapsed – Cahokia might have been larger than the London and Paris of the time at its peak around 1100, for instance.

Now, I tend to agree with you that these nations likely would not have been as great as the United States if they had not collapsed or been overrun, but this is for moral reasons as much as any other: the Cahokians, like the Aztecs, appear to have practiced human sacrifice. As simple as it is to say that being "too stupid to have invented guns," is slightly more important than whether or not you practice human sacrifice, I tend to think that European success (including in the sciences) was due in no small part to their religious outlook, which was upstream of their culture, which in turn produced the scientific method.

TLDR; American Lore is even cooler and more hardcore than you were taught in school (and if you ever get a chance to go to a North American mound, I highly recommend it).

Cahokia might have been larger than the London and Paris of the time at its peak around 1100, for instance.

Fascinating reading.

Political, economic, or cultural problems may also have contributed to the community's decline.[61] Thomas Emerson and Kristin Hedman argue that Cahokia's large immigrant population was a factor in the city's ultimate fragmentation, as differing languages, customs, and religions obstructed the creation of a cohesive Cahokian cultural identity. Analyses of Cahokian burial sites and the associated remains have also shown that many Cahokians were not native to the city or its immediate surrounding region. These immigrants were sometimes buried separately from native residents, a possible indicator of weak integration along ethnic lines.[32] It is likely that social and environmental factors combined to produce the conditions that led people to leave Cahokia.[62][56]

It would be really fascinating to know what actually happened. What's the largest or most recent city in Eurasia to be completely abandoned like that?

Cahokia seems to have been completely abandoned before contact with Europeans.

Eurasian diseases absolutely wrecked the Americas and the Australias. Making up a huge amount of the initial suffering/damage/deaths inflicted.

Like it's always struck me as kind of stupid when people try to whataboutism Australian history since unless they somehow had an impermeable bubble until the invention of vaccines there was no way that that exchange wasn't going to lead to 90% of Australian Indigenous dying horribly of smallpox et al.

More comments

It would be really fascinating to know what actually happened. What's the largest or most recent city in Eurasia to be completely abandoned like that?

Many good examples in Southeast Asia. One of the examples that comes to mind for me is the Khmer capital of Angkor, which at its height in the 13th century boasted a population of approximately 900,000 people (London at that time had a population of approx 80,000; Angkor's population was over 11 times larger). It's likely to have been the most populous city in the world during its heyday. There isn't consensus about the causes of the empire's decline and the city's eventual abandonment; some explanations I've seen relate to increasing competition by neighbouring kingdoms such as Sukhothai and Ayutthaya who would regularly conduct raids and incursions onto Khmer territory, others stress the effect of environmental shifts that resulted in poor harvests and clogging of the canals that irrigated the city, causing out-migration from the area. Certain other hypotheses suggest that elites freely moved elsewhere to take advantage of burgeoning trade networks accessible from the Mekong and Tonle Sap rivers. The coup de grace that spelled the end for Angkor was when the Thai sacked and burned the city in the 15th century, at which point the remnants of the Khmer court moved south to Phnom Penh.

Funnily enough this would later happen to the Thai as well in an act of historical karma - the city of Ayutthaya eventually ended up amassing a population totalling 1,000,000 around 1700 (one of the world's largest cities at the time) but they were then sieged by the Burmese Konbaung dynasty in 1767 and destroyed. It's a less compelling candidate than Angkor though, since the city was not fully abandoned and is still a provincial capital.

Sure, but there is a large gap between no-one else can do it and anybody else can do it.

Your claim was no-one else, my claim is likely someone else. I don't claim it is everybody else.

The French kind of did, though. There weren't as many of them as the English, but they were a sizeable minority population. Paul Revere was the son of a French settler. "It could also be done by some close cousin populations who were literally involved in the real life one that actually happened" is a pretty thin expansion.

Sure, but with an absolute position i only need a thin expansion to disprove it. And of the if the French could and so could the Spanish, then it seems like the Ottomans could have and so on and so forth.

More comments

Are we invisible? We're still here! Quebec is a large province with what, 8 millions of population? It's not just an historical eccentricity that some people and places have french names and a few people have learned french; the first language and the one everyone is expected and indeed in many cases forced to learn, is french. We've maintained as much control over our own affairs within the canadian confederation as we could short of independance. We fight and struggle as every western country to maintain our culture against globalism, with the extra difficulty of the political weigth of the canadian structure which finds us mightly inconvenient, and the juggernaut of American culture, but we are, so far, still here!

It can both be true that our immigration system is largely a tool of fraud and parasitism, used as a cudgel by elites against the American people, and that in many countries there some men and women with true American hearts, who could make themselves beloved and patriotic Americans today as easily as if they were born here. Just part of the tragedy of the whole situation.

I hate this.

...and for what it is worth I hate you right back. While I may not have coined the phrase I do share the sentiment. Rawhide Kobayashi Is more of an "American" than you will ever be so long as you continue to cling to your old-world bigotries. Change my view.

My country is not a costume, my nation is not playacting, my forefathers did not bleed and fight and die so that way everyone in the world is born American if they say aw shucks and light fireworks. They did it for their own progeny, their own sons, even the ones who married the ellis islanders. They staked their own fortunes on the outcome, and the winnings are rightfully theirs and no others.

That's the opinion of the founding fathers, too, that the nation was earned through shed blood and shared prospects, nothing else.

They staked their own fortunes on the outcome, and the winnings are rightfully theirs and no others.

So the USA is the property of the descendants of the 13 colonies by right of conquest, in the same way the Venezuelan oil is?

And if other ethnicities want to share in that wealth, you would prefer them to do so not by emigrating to your country and adopting the local beliefs and customs, but through violent conquest and displacement of the indigenous population, so their claim will be as valid as your claim?

As the saying goes, civilization is not a suicide pact.

War is bloody and awful, but it's honest. Letting your better principles be the knife used to bleed you dry is not.

Yeah, I would prefer the lie I was sold about people emigrating here and learning our language, our history, our morals and customs.

But that isn't happening. Not even remotely. We just have random third world colonies committing tax fraud, welfare fraud and immigration fraud on an industrial scale, and we just let it happen. I would enormously prefer an actual war instead of rolling over and letting the third world steal everything that isn't bolted down.

My country is not a costume,

No, it's an ideal. That is what it means to be a "Creedal Nation" I have far more respect people like @Opt-out who elected to self-deport, than I do the false friends who claim to love their country while simultaneously aligning themselves against everything it stands for.

As I said above, If you want to leave, I want you to leave. At the same time, if you are onboard with Baseball, Buc-ee's, and government by consent of the governed I welcome you with open arms.

That is what it means to be a "Creedal Nation"

You just elected a third world communist to be the mayor of New York. There is no creed that will get you booted out, so it's not a creedal nation.

You just elected a third world communist to be the mayor of New York.

I didn't elect him. You (the rootless affluent liberals who sneer at normie Americans) elected him. And whether or not someone can be "booted" out of the country for not being American is arguably one of the hottest fronts on the culture war right now.

Yes the current focus is on illegal immigrants, but we can discuss expanding the effort to include Communists and Salafists once the border is secure.

I didn't elect him.

Americans did. And even if they're not your kind of Americans, I think someone should think long and hard about how they got to become the kind of Americans that can elect a mayor of New York.

You (the rootless affluent liberals who sneer at normie Americans)

Tiresome. You mention old-world bigotries in the other comment, but your bigotry is so advanced that not only do you have a reflexive hostility to a particular group you disagree with, you think anyone who disagrees with you must be a part of that group.

Yes the current focus is on illegal immigrants, but we can discuss expanding the effort to include Communists and Salafists once the border is secure.

Well, that's music to my ears! You're the first Creedal Nation enjoyer I've talked to that's even willing to entertain the idea. Everyone else was either squirming and trying to wriggle out of the conversation, or was rejecting the idea outright.

  1. I did not self-deport. Overstating as I’m still in US half the time. As some of us have come to believe my self deportation is to one of two of the US allies. It’s aligned with building America.

  2. America being a creedal nation is false. It’s only creedal in how it’s a new Europe but the America story has always been fundamentally a European tribe. 80% maybe even more of humans could never be America. They can’t build or maintain institutions.

It's not an ideal, either, it's a people, and every attempt to make it an ideal is an attempt to erase and if ore those people.

I'm not going anywhere, this is my home as it has been for ten generations, and it belongs to me in a way that it cannot and will never belong to foreigners regardless of their citizenship. You can crowd in all you like but goddamn you this is mine.

Bucees and baseball doesn't make an American any more than a stetson and boots, and it never will, and it never can.

And what if a majority of heritage Americans support civic nationalism, birthright citizenship, and all the rest (as seems to be the case)? Can they not overrule you? Or is the desire of, shall we say the Scotch-Irish, to close our borders more legitimate than that of the scions of New England Puritans and Pennsylvania Quakers to have them open?

I sorely wish we could have that conversation instead of being crowded out by teeming hordes of foreigners.

But realistically, White Men Vote Republican, so I think you'd find that you wouldn't get your way.

Then there is nothing to discuss, is there? The founding fathers did not secure a future (some future) for their descendants by posturing about it on the internet.

There are now those who do not respect blood claims on principle, and not dried blood in any other case.

Americans conquered this land, established it's institutions, and then fucked. They fucked a lot. And they made more Americans as surely as Indians make more Indians, or Africans make more Africans.

A significant chunk of Americans, including just of the white population don't have any strong genetic ties to the colonists. I have German and Irish and Italian heritage myself in my grandparents/greed grandparents and while I don't know the full lineage of my ancestors the idea that I, and many others like me, exist because the colonists fucked a lot is just incorrect. I may or may not have genetic ties to the colonists somewhere, but it's not some overwhelming key piece. And in fact about 40% of the country can trace themselves back to Ellis Island alone which only operated for 62 years out of the 250 we've been around (and was for the east coast, the west coast had Angel Island which processed a lot of the Asians). Now some of those people may have higher percentages of colonial heritage than someone like me does, but the idea of it just being beause the original colonies reproduced is incorrect.

The mistake of America is believing anyone else could possibly achieve this. It's resulted in 100 years of global misadventures trying to spread "Americanism" and failing every single damned time when 3rd worldism just drags it back down to the lowest common denominator.

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, Italy, and a significant portion of post soviet nations, among quite a few others here and there are success stories of Americanism spreading. So successful that you didn't even consider them, we literally did an anime style defeat means friendship with quite a few. Those dirty inferior Japs are now our friends and one of our closest allies. There's also of course Israel (which is a democracy and generally an ally even if they're a shit one), and the other nations that Olive mentioned.

And in fact about 40% of the country can trace themselves back to Ellis Island alone which only operated for 62 years out of the 250

And 30 million of us can trace ancestry back to the 53 survivors of the Mayflower.

The mistake of America is believing anyone else could possibly achieve this.

Surely Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., are evidence that other people can and have built comparable countries?

The whole process of "English people sail across the ocean, establish a colony, and build a free and independent nation that provides for the material prosperity of themselves and their descendants" has happened multiple times.

It kind of worked in Argentina too, until it became clear that you can't remain rich forever if your economy is 100% based on cattle.

I feel like a country should be able to be fairly rich just doing things that seem basic well. A country that adopts modern tech but doesn’t invent it. Has a good bureaucracy that doesn’t mess things up too much. Basically running a lot of constant costs businesses with limited moats. This feels like Australia to me. Which has mining instead of cattle. Especially if you do not have large amounts of minorities that are purely on welfare/cause crime. This is likely where Argentina should try to get to and become Australia of S America in terms of wealth.

Mexico is the opposite of this kind of economy as they have two better international cash crops (US trade/Drugs) which make the wealthier but always feels like a poor country because they have a lot of dysfunction.

Didn't Argentina retain wealthy after they had plenty of industrialization, and a succession of economically illiterate buffoons in the rose house destroyed any semblance of fiscal or macroeconomic sanity until that was no longer true, and then they had a national reorganization process which lost a war, and then they had hyperinflation?

You’re going to receive a pretty large barrage of responses filled with hair-splitting that supposedly illustrates the notion of American exceptionalism. Highly patriotic Americans view themselves as distinct from and superior to pretty much every other country on Earth, they view themselves as uniquely meritocratic, uniquely free, uniquely honest and uniquely stable as a society.

However, as someone who has lived in and travelled to a dizzying number of places you can put me in as one of those people who has no desire ever to live in America, and you would have to pay me to go. As far as I am concerned if they want their country to themselves, they can have it (nor is it their obligation to take in any immigrants). But the idea that America isn’t already subject to “endless subsidies, bureaucratic bloating and clientelism” is a fantasy, and has been for a long time.

Yes, for what it's worth, I've visited America a few times, and my experience has generally been that it's a nice place to visit but I am very glad I don't live there.

I don't want to judge all of America based on the big cities I've been to, because it is very large and diverse, and people have told me that I would find the Midwest or some of the smaller states and towns much more congenial, but you would have to pay me to make me consider living in New York. I find it quietly terrifying that people who live in that bubble have so much global influence.

So, maybe there are parts of America I would love, but for now, I still call Australia home.

I know this is a predictable response, but I nevertheless want to point out that I am American, and there is literally no sum on earth you could pay me to live permanently in New York. The smaller cities and towns are indeed far different, as other people already told you.

I wish that every non American had that view of the US.

For what it's worth this observation is actually consistent with my experiences in other countries as well. I love visiting Britain, but you would have to pay me to make me live in London. The smaller and mid-size cities, on the other hand, are lovely.

In general I think I prefer the smaller towns.

Have you been to any of the sunbelt megasprawls?

I love visiting Britain, but you would have to pay me to make me live in London.

That is generally how salaries work, yes.

I love visiting Britain, but you would have to pay me to make me live in London.

Oh boy yes absolutely. I'm British and if it were not for my highly paid job that requires me to be in London I'd be off to some mid size place like Letchworth Garden City (or, shock horror, Milton Keynes) which is basically like American suburbs but done right (never been a fan of the anti-suburb crowd, the US messes up in certain respects with how they do them but the basic idea is very sound).

There are plenty of nice suburbs like Beaconsfield, Gerrard’s Cross etc where you can live in a big suburban house and take the train in direct or nearly direct to the City for work.

It depends on the region, I think. In East and (most of) Southeast Asia I'm generally comfortable with the idea of living in the bigger cities; as overwhelming as they can sometimes be there's a lower baseline level of dysfunction, lower crime rates, less urban decay and a much lower chance of having run-ins with junkies, fent zombies and other such unsavoury characters. To be quite honest if I was fully capable of freely moving elsewhere without having to incur extra costs, I would go somewhere in Asia (I currently live in Australia as well, and while I like Sydney enough there are a couple reasons why I would not stay here long term).

In most Western countries I would definitely prefer not to live in most of the cities; granted it depends on the country but the level of dysfunction in many of the urban cores is hard to stomach. The smaller cities and towns are consistently much nicer.

I wouldn't mind living in Boston (most liveable IMO of the 10 or so USA cities I've been to) and would like to spend a month or two in certain parts of the USA for the novelty but I similarly think that day to day quality of living in the USA can be fairly easily mimicked in a bunch of places.

Wait what?

checks my pockets You had me excited for a moment, but no, there's still a king on my loonies.

WhiningCoil didn't mention anything about the monarchy, and certainly I feel no shame in the fact that we have a king.

Where did those mythical Americans come from before there was an America? Not outer space, surely?

Free Englishmen.

With a smattering of Dutch, French, Spanish and Native tossed in for flavor.

French, Spanish and Native tossed in for flavor.

No. Celts and Germans were tossed in for flavor, not these people.

You are wrong.

New York and Pennsylvania started as Dutch colonies before being occupied by the English in the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War. Meanwhile the Spanish presence in what would become Florida the Carolinas and Texas predates the Mayflower by a century, and much of the Mississippi watershed had been colonized by the French which set the stage for both the French and Indian War and the Louisiana Purchase.

Germans didn't start showing up in meaningful numbers until the mid 19th century, three generations after the United States had already been established.

The Dutch stayed in New York which is why I didn't say no to that. The Spanish left Florida and the French mostly left Louisiana and did not really contribute to the US like the Germans did.

No they did not. Again, Germans didn't start to show up in meaningful numbers until the mid 19th century when the US was already established, and even then they were themselves immigrants.

More comments

And Scots. My direct patrilineal line are Scots that settled Northern Ireland as part of the plantation of Ulster, and then came from Belfast to the colonies a few decades before the revolutionary war.

Fair point, I'll admit that I had mentally lumped the Scots in with "Free Englishmen" which I recognize is a faux pas when speaking to someone of Scottish descent.

Eh, no offense taken. I'm a mutt anyways, plenty of actual Irish, English, German, and French Canadian in my veins too.

Whose paying $100 monthly for health insurance?

I am, in England. NHS care is basically unavailable except for emergencies (and even then, expect 6+ hour waits) unless you want your problem looked at in 2028.

I don't have insurance, but I pay $35 per visit and $30 for labs at the local community health center.

That’s why I wasn’t sure if the posts was satire. I don’t have insurance as a single male. I groked what it would costs a month for a single 35 year old male and it’s 600 a month. Makes no sense to carry insurance in US unless employee sponsored. Better to just pay cash.

Makes no sense to carry insurance in US unless employee sponsored. Better to just pay cash.

The point of insurance (at least to me) has never been to deal with routine care, but for catastrophic situations, like how car insurance isn't for covering oil changes. In practice, health insurance covers both, but I sure don't think too much about it covering my annual physical. I like having health insurance so I know I won't break the bank if I get a significant broken arm.

But who does it make sense to have it? Especially when you can just sign up the following year. At 7k a year and cash discounts you need a significant injury to make it worth getting.

At 7k a year and cash discounts you need a significant injury to make it worth getting.

Yes, that's what I mean: it's literally insurance against catastrophic injury. I think that's one of the biggest flaws in the system, really: it conflates a health care plan with health insurance, when an awful lot of people would be perfectly fine with a bare-bones plan that only covers the latter, and then paying for the former out of pocket.

It’s a lot more than that. Obamacare requires Prep. Which I believe is $20k per year. I believe 4% of men are gay so if they all took it that alone adds like $1k/year to what insurance needs to charge to break even. And lots of other required coverages

I'd caution that while this might work as a fermi estimate, it's got some pretty rough assumptions on both sides.

Trivially, there's a lot of ways to like dick that won't require a PrEP prescription. You can get surveys with numbers showing up to 50% of gay men on PrEP, but there's a big asterisk when you look at the survey methodology and find it's mostly venue-based. That's useful from an epidemiological perspective, but it's about as hard as you could crank down on the selection bias effect without being seen as a joke.

The costs are the other side. Truvada's gone generic. It did cost a lot for a while, but now it's about 300-400 USD/year at retail pricing, and bulk agreements probably drop that further. The injectable PrEPs aren't generic, though, and non-generics are where the big numbers fall out from. I don't know how much of a breakdown exists on where the average consumer falls on that band.

Obamacare requires Prep. Which I believe is $20k per year. I believe 4% of men are gay so if they all took it that alone adds like $1k/year to what insurance needs to charge to break even.

One, I doubt that the cost of pre-exposure prophylaxis is greater than the cost of treatment for someone who has caught HIV.

Two, the more people become infected with HIV, the more opportunities it has to mutate, including mutations that would make it airborne or otherwise easily transmissible. If you ignore AIDS because "it's only killing gay people and drug users, and they don't matter", you run a not insubstantial risk of the first clause in that sentence no longer holding.

More comments

People with crappy or heavily subsidized health insurance.

Most people with an employer-sponsored high-deductible plan and no dependents. Depending on the employer, you might even pay less with a standard plan or dependents.

Ok but that’s not $100 a month. It’s a hidden wage subsidy. Costs the employer way more.


What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats