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.
Has the formation of ghettos ever turned out well? Usually, you'd want to do the opposite. Force integration, encourage assimilation. Teach the language, the culture, make attending mandatory. Even if they re-migrate (voluntary or not) later, you almost certainly will get better social outcomes for the host population that way - and outcomes for people not caged in ghettos is certainly better. Most famously, Singapore was rather successful in integrating their (poorer, less educated, majority Muslim) Malay minority into society by doing just that - they went as far as requiring single appartment buildings to mirror the ethical make-up of Singapore itself. No ghettos, by any means necessary.
In the end, it sounds like you want to minimize welfare spending, so you can't keep up ghetto containment very well anyway since everybody needs to get to work.
That's not very leftist of you. Doing that will depress working class power, making your native low-skilled population poorer, which is exactly the reason most right-wing governments absolutely suck at limiting immigration effectively.
I mean, you can't really force it. You would have to break up their communities by force and reeducate them, in a "kill the Indian and save the man" kind of way. Perhaps it is not physically impossible, but it would certainly require the kind of cruelty you are trying to avoid here. Probably more cruelty than remigration (even deporting them all) would entail. Arabs are not Malays. They need to, fundamentally, stop being Arabs if they are to be individual members of Western societies.
The Middle East is the area of the world that has been multicultural for the longest time, it being the crossroads of continents. And what kind of culture survives such churn while keeping itself intact? One that is extremely clannish, inward-looking, and outwardly hostile to the point that individual members can't defect because everyone else hates them and will reject them. There are multiple cultures in the Middle East but they're all like that and even the Israelis, who used to be relatively European in their outlook, are in the process of becoming exactly this.
The other alternative, besides this and remigration, is to accept that multiculturalism is here to stay and make it official by organizing something like the Ottoman millet system, which seems to be what Brainwavez was getting at. Keep everyone apart and make interethnic interactions into explicitly ethnic interactions, so that the entire community can be held accountable for the actions of the members, so that in turn communities will police their own rather than risk collective retaliation. In other words, prison rules. And this would mean for Europeans to adopt this Middle-Eastern "multicultural" mindset.
But the fiction that we're all individuals before the law, part of the same society, cannot keep standing forever when it is so clearly not the case anymore.
But the Middle East is awful! The whole point of remigration is that you don't have adopt the Middle-Eastern mindset and can readopt the wholesome, high productivity Lockean one.
More options
Context Copy link
Retvrn to Rum
More options
Context Copy link
I think it could be done way less cruel. Start with the ghettos - most immigrants live in rentals, and you can require apartment buildings and/or street blocks to be inhabited (in the case of Sweden) by exactly 80% natives, 7% Arabs, 2% Finns, 1% Poles, ect - by law. A bit draconian for the land lord, who now needs to choose from a far smaller pool of applicants, but not exactly horrible. And if you remove the ghettos, being "clannish, inward-looking, and outwardly hostile" becomes a lot harder.
The education could be a requirement for the work permit or welfare payments. Target women and children specifically. In the end I'm an optimist, I think the western value system itself is so superior, it will propagate itself eventually when/if enough friction towards active resistance is introduced. Get woman and children out of the house early and consistently, enforce language.
Singapore is a small city-state where everyone is living in each other's laps already, and to add to that most of its housing is government-built. ~80% of people live in public housing, which gives the government a lot of control over housing allocation without having to force any private landlord to do anything. Someone who moves from one end of Singapore to the other can still easily see his friends, go to his job, etc. This is also already an officially racialized society with everyone's ethnicity being written on their ID cards.
European countries are much bigger and lack all of these things. There's no official ethnic registration, at best there's the "migration background" thing that only goes back one generation. It would have to be established. Is it time to riot yet?
In the Netherlands, only about a quarter of people live in public housing. Over two thirds own their house. The remainder live in private rentals. You would have to nationalize the housing stock, or regulate housing sales to the point of de facto nationalizing the housing stock. Is it time to riot yet?
Also in the Netherlands, the big cities are majority-minority already whereas much of the countryside has few immigrants, and when they do, it's Poles. Equalizing the population would mean making people move far away from their jobs and families. They're not going to like that. Is it time to riot yet? Etc.
More options
Context Copy link
This solution has been tried and failed in the US. We did school bussing. And affirmative action. And it failed to solve Americans original sin. We still have a large not fully assimilated ADOS class.
ADOS is a special case and probably not assimilable for the reasons Jefferson pointed out, bolstered by HBD reasons. They will never forgive the original sin as long as they are visibly less successful than whites, and they will always be visible less successful than whites if they aren't receiving continuous bolstering to an extent greater than ever practiced -- and any such bolstering depends on the acceptance by both groups of the relevance of the sin.
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