This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Let's talk about the Örebro Party: (Swedish) lefty socialists except they support remigration.
Key quotes from Wikipedia (emphasis mine)
They've made headlines recently (and got on my radar) because Mullvad's CEO donated €452,000 to them.
My perspective on remigration:
People should live in their own communities. I remember reading an article about a tradcath community, and presumably the article wanted to criticise and mock them, but I thought they had decent values and the world is better with them. Or the furry community, even though they can be weird, sometimes produce amazing works like this. Or the unique cultures from other countries and ethnicities...hence the appeal of reversing immigration.
Immigration has ruined communities. A massive problem with today's culture is that it has become one monoculture: everything is becoming gentrified, secured, and impersonal. Translation tools, ethnic stores, etc. are accelarating this (despite otherwise being positive by granting me interesting new cultures and vice versa), by making every culture adapt every other culture's most viral aspects (which aren't necessarily good, like arguably convenience food and tipping). LLMs are accelarating this. But immigration is perhaps most accelarating this: some immigrants are even beneficial, but immigrants who don't know or respect the culture's customs, don't socialize with the rest of the community, take more than they contribute (without an apparent excuse), commit much more crime than the existing community, and don't even speak the language...break community members' unspoken understanding, friendship, altruism, trust, and communication with their neighbor.
But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically. Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest. How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them? What if it's too expensive? What if it's dangerous for them? What about women and children?
These are difficult questions not only morally, but the infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake. It risks broadening persecution, creating a fascist state, an ugly monoculture...the exact failure it seeks to prevent.
So what to do? I don't oppose moderate immigration reform, like:
Honestly, I don't think these are enough to reverse the decay of culture and public resources, and they may seem like a waste of resources for unwanted immigrants, but I think too much immigration/remigration would be worse (for culture and public resources). A real solution must be broader than immigration. Fixing the other issues: making LLMs more diverse, further improving translation tools and incentivizing ethnic stores to include more cultural nuance, and increasing nationalism as a side-effect of addressing the elephant in the room: convincing most of the population to like their government (maybe by having it do something notable for the public and advertising it, and electing new parties with less out-of-touch politicians, even Örebro if they tone down remigration).
Arguably the above essay is another milquetoast thought experiment with the same conclusions everyone already knows: obviously government should not be so corrupt, etc. So another point of discussion is why Örebro decided to focus on this as their stand-out policy. Is it just marketing and they plan to implement something much more moderate (I realize I'm bad at marketing, but I'm skeptical this would work for a generally leftist party). Is it a radical idea to appeal to the working class? Is it only the media that's focusing on this policy, and Örebro themselves consider it a less important part of the agenda compared to the socialist policies? (Probably all of the above, especially the third.)
I do think we need some radical solution to fix societal decay, although it may emerge outside policy, like a technological breakthrough, or just younger generations replacing older ones and having a drastically different culture. I don't think it's in immigration. Maybe the Örebro party will get elected by arguing for remigration, but if they actually want to improve Sweden, I believe the bulk of their implementation must be in their other policies.
Send them anyways. Or depose the government of Australia and send them all there, as was traditional.
There's no way it's more expensive than keeping them.
As the saying goes, "remigration is the moderate solution."
Why? What is the foundation of a secular morality that says Europe has infinite debts to the world?
If God is dead, then there is no morality in sacrificing yourself to save people that are only treating you as a paypig to be replaced.
ah, starting to think someone's having a fun bit of trolling.
Honestly, sending immigrants to Australia (with its vast empty space and functioning government, so they can live safely but not interfere) and paying them seems like it could work. I’m not intentionally trolling, but there’s probably a serious caveat obvious to anyone who’s actually familiar with geopolitics (as opposed to tech); OTOH in the desert regions, I don’t see how they’d get food and shelter or what they’d do in exchange to not drain from the rest of society.
Australia's already got a pile of refugees from Sudan and Somalia that it's struggling badly to make anything productive of, and has turned off the refugee tap for them consequentially (though still allows family reunification visas so hasn't hit peak population). They'll get airdropped into shit suburbs of Australia's existing metropolises then enthusiastically take the government teat for as much as they can, like the already-present ones.
More options
Context Copy link
Australia doesn't want second-hand Somalians. In the event Somalia doesn't want second-hand Somalians either (and somehow can prevent it) Somaliland is right there angling for brownie points. Land flights of Somalians in Hargeisa while it still technically counts as repatriation, bribe Somaliland with an economic deal, and recognize the nation of Somaliland down the line. Pressure should build for Somalia to allow all the Somali refugees, cared for by the gracious and functional protection of Somaliland, to allow the repatriation of these individuals.
What is the reasoning for Somalia not wanting Somalians? I assume our Somalians are at a minimum somewhat filtered. They had to be smart enough to get the NGOs to fly them in. Is it just Somalia doing their own people a solid by refusing to let them come back?
My loose understanding of Somalia is there's a bunch of different ethnic/clan structures. A lot of the ones currently entrenched in the USA are from a ethnic subgroup that was dominant a couple decades ago but got overthrown, so the return issue gets complicated on both sides. Somalia doesn't want a bunch of relatively-rich, educated members of a clan that's not currently in vogue airdropped on the country. The US Somalians don't want to deal with the state of the country as-is.
This kinda thing complicates a lot of refugee population issues. My understanding of the Rohingya, for instance, is that they were essentially the Easternmost Bangladeshi population that expanded into the Westernmost part of Burma during the British control (since the British didn't meaningfully police immigration between the two). Once Burma became independent, they immediately did their best to kick the Rohingya out since they'd make up about 30% of the population and are distinctly good at breeding. Bangladesh refused to take them since they were a borderline failed state but the population is now kinda strung out between the two countries.
Also further complicated since my loose understanding is that the part of Myanmar that the Rohingya lived in historically swapped hands rather frequently between Muslim Bengali entities and Burmese entities. The Burmese were the last to hold it prior to the British annexation, but that was arguably due to the British breaking the Bengali entity first and the Burmese sweeping in on essentially undefended territory. Consequentially it's quite hard to allocate who actually has responsibility for the Rohingya population since there's distinct arguments that can be made for them being Bangladeshi, them being Burmese or even Rohingyastan
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know if Somalia does not want Somalians, but remigration generally agitates family who benefit from remittances sent to the homeland, the diaspora getting sent back, and nationalist or tribal offense to 'We don't want your kind.' All the same reasons Mexico's government has and will condemn mass deportation of its nationals working illegally in the US.
Also people forget that bailing to an affluent Western country is an expensive privilege that's generally only available to the upper echelons of society in the countries of origin. Cases like Ilhan Omar where she was daughter of a very important cog in the deposed military are extreme, but hardly unusual. Somalia doesn't want the deposed intelligentsia randomly dropped back on them, especially in a way that'd likely put them under an international microscope.
Having sufficient willpower, finances and clout to get through the various layers of bureaucracy, bribery and fleeing to get moving isn't easy. These people have sufficient clout in the homeland to get the narratives they want pushed.
More options
Context Copy link
For Mexico that changed sometime post 1980. I think it was post WW2 Mexico wanted remigration because they wanted the labor to industrialize.
But yes I can agree remittance etc is a strong argument for a country to refuse remigration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Point of order - Australia is less habitable than it appears, the population heat map looks the way it does for a reason, same with Canada.
Now ingenuity can make it work but the empty space is unused for a reason.
"Make this place liveable, and you can stay" doesn't sound like bad criterion for a residence permit.
That’s a terrible criterion.
It works if there are spots you want occupied but they’re hard to find or reach. When travel involved a wagon train that described a lot of land. Today, it’s roughly none. The arable land is owned and farmed. The adequate pasture is owned and ranched. The mineral deposits are owned and mined.
Neoliberals would hate this criterion because it doesn’t get them cheap labor. Social conservatives because you’re actively encouraging foreign enclaves. Ethnonationalists because you’re benefiting a foreigner and not a native. Bleeding-heart liberals because you’ll generate lots of corpses. Libertarians…they might be up for it, actually, but I’m not sure they actually exist in the wild.
Airdropping migrants into the outback, Fortnite style, buys you nothing.
Anakin_glaring_back_at_Padme.png
The whole point is it gets you fewer immigrants at worst, and people who cracked terraforming at best.
The Dutch cracked terraforming centuries ago, and if there was a market to support it, it would not be a lost art.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link