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.
How would you get rid of some guy sleeping at your house once you've decided your generosity is being strained, you don't like how he's been taking food from the pantry, money from your pocket or how he looks at your daughter? The guy might have no house, he might have no skills and no job and the street sure is dangerous... but it is not a reasonable expectation to turn your house into a hostel for arbitrary numbers of losers.
Why should Sweden be obligated to keep an arbitrary number of Somalians just because the Somalians don't want to go back to Somalia? Why would they want to go back to Somalia voluntarily? Paying them to go back to Somalia is idiotic, they can just come back again.
Why would I want to leave a 5-star hotel to my crappy apartment when I could stay and mooch off room service? That's just not how it works. The police would be called. They would find ways of getting rid of me.
The Algerians made it clear to the French that they had to leave or they would kill them, so they left. That's how it works. There is no police between nations, nations have to deal with this themselves and it inevitably gets messy and confrontational. Sometimes conflict is inevitable.
Being a nation without a state is an unpleasant prospect. Should the Swedes resign themselves to be like the Kurds, who just get hammered continually by nations that do have states? Why take any chances? Why should they worry about a Russian invasion when the streets of Malmo are unsafe for women because it's full of rapey Africans? What is the cost of a Russian invasion and conquest to Sweden? They'd merely lose political control over their country, risk unaccountable robbery and crime, get made to pay taxes for Russian interests...
Mass deportations can be done quickly and cheaply but not by handwringers and legalists who drag things out. In the UK they go through this whole dog and pony show about 'oh I'm gay you can't send me back to Nigeria because they'll be prejudiced'. You can't let people game the system by producing whatever rubbish will extend the process into the never never, there needs to be a disciplined exercise of authority. There are no magic words I can say to convince the hotel to let me stay in their room forever, not by producing sob stories or claims or phoney documents.
At some point European liberals and handwringers need to realize that their generosity is the problem. When immigrants drown on boats crossing the med, that's the fault of the policies in Europe. When coyotes, or whatever they call them in Europe, take boats full of women and children and abandon them with no fuel in the middle of the high sea, they are doing it because they know they'll be rescued. If the Europeans want to prevent people from drowning in the med, they need to stop accepting them and rescuing them.
They're like a parent who keeps supporting their drug-addict son. Giving him money enables his lifestyle, if he didn't have the support he'd have to get his life in line.
I'm fairly sure they know by now. But to them, the problem is not a problem.
Liberals would say the problem is the human smugglers. But they have no authority over them and don't want to shoot them, so they have no influence over what to do. People choose to go with them because the smugglers tell them lies about how easy their life will become, and the business model is lucrative enough that this won't change if we decide to stop saving people. So saving them becomes the moral thing to do.
More options
Context Copy link
Nobody* thinks that migrants drowning in poorly built boats is a good thing, we disagree about the solution.
*lizardman constant aside
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