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 -
Important thing is that 5 justices agreed to the main majority ruling which means this issue is hopefully settled and dead for another 130 years. The right is free to try to change the constitution if they don't like the consequences.
I'm halfway through Alito's dissent and man is that dude a hack. Same level of bad as Sotomayor.
Roe v. Wade was overturned only 50 years later, Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson only 60 years later.
50 years/60 years are also good enough for me. By then the makeup of the US will be so different to right now it'll be effectively a different country regardless!
Why would you be happy about this ruling and then say the US would essentially be a different country. The US or Rome is the great country the world has ever seen - why would you want that dead? There is nothing more important than preserving the US.
It's going to be a different country anyway, even if you had a magical way to make it majority white. Change is not death. And anyway you are not the sole arbiter of what future trajectories constitutes death of the usa.
More options
Context Copy link
He genuinely hates the US and the West and would like to see it collapse.
It's because this is good for him and his likes, and not for the likes of me.
The revolutionary-minded are seldom correct about what they think is good for them
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wrong. I think there's a lot good about western countries and their history and everything. It's the people I mostly have an issue with, not the countries themselves. The USA for example I think has it in it to become the shining city on a hill it aspires to be, the geographic expanse, the natural beauty, the resources, it's the people and more specifically the mindset of these people that irks me.
Because the people of Pakistan totally would have built something so much better if they were simply on the magic soil of America, obviously.
More options
Context Copy link
The country IS the people, not the land. Land is a resource. You're essentially saying that you want to destroy me, my people, and my culture so that someone else can have my stuff. That is pretty antagonistic and make you unambiguously my enemy.
What's your ethnic background? What ethnicities would you include or exclude from the category of "true" American people?
I'm Pennsylvanian. My parents, and my grandparents, and my great grandparents, and (most of) my great great grandparents were all born and raised in Pennsylvania. We do things like deer hunting, going to Firehall Weddings, doing the Chicken Dance, treating our neighbors with respect and kindness, and going to sane Christian churches that actually follow Jesus' teachings and focus on being good people instead of angry moralist hypocrites. If you work hard and take care of the people around you, they'll take care of you in turn.
I don't care whatsoever what "ethnicity" someone is, I care about their culture and their values and their behaviors. I'm not automatically opposed to any and all immigration, but it needs to be very limited and controlled so that the burden is on them to integrate into the culture and communities they move to rather than the other way around. If you LIKE Amerca, and want to BE American, and want to come join us and learn how to be like us, and put forth a good faith effort towards that then I will accept you and allow you to do that. I have had friends and neighbors of many ethnicities who have done this, or their parents or grandparents had done this, and they were Americans. If two people from a foreign country like America and want to be American and legally come here and have children who are born in America and raised in America and their parents do the thing where they mostly forget about their old culture and language and raise the child as American, then I will happily accept that child as an American.
What I have a problem with is exploiters. People who want free welfare and healthcare and education, so they come here and have foreign children who they raise as foreigners with foreign values living on our soil but with American rights. People who have no intention or desire to contribute to taxes and just want to take take take. People who come here for jobs to send money back home to their families and then leave but snatched a free citizenship for their children in case they ever decide to come back. People like Hasan Piker who was born in the U.S. then immediately brought back to Turkey where he was raised as a Turkish Muslim, whose feelings and nationalism and loyalty are to Turkey and the Turkish people, who then comes back to the U.S. and pretends to be one of us while trying to undermine us.
I have a problem with people who hate America and the American people while trying to extract our resources and export them to their home countries where their hearts and loyalties truly lie.
People respond to incentives. I'm like 80% on board with the general idea of birthright citizenship. If someone is born and raised in America, with the cultural values and loyalty to America, then by all rights they are American. But if you take it to the extremes, where a South American defector who does not respect their home community nor ours, abandons their people, violates our laws, hops the border, and then births a baby on our soil in order to get them citizenship on a technicality, this is a BAD incentive. That baby is not an American, it belongs to the country that its parents belong to. There is no sense in which the parents or the baby are loyal to or culturally American. They should all go back home, as soon as possible. I don't care what ethnicity they are. The problem is not that they don't look like me, the problem is that they do not act like me, and when conflict arises they will not feel an innate desire to protect me or stand up for me, because they don't consider themselves true Americans either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If someone says you hate "the US and West" they don't mean you hate the geography or natural resources. It is the people, culture or institutions that would be the objects of hatred.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In fifty years the Latinos, Indians, East Asians and Muslims will have Irishified and the United States will be back to being 85 percent white.
I know I might be feeding a troll, but are you aware of the evidence that European ethnicities don't fully assimilate, as well as the fact that the genetic distances between white Americans and the races you listed are more than 5 times as large as those between European ethnicities? If you're not trolling, I don't understand how in 2026 such naive blank slatism feels plausible to you.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, you mean like how Boston is an Irish city, not an American one, and now places like Houston and Los Angeles are going to be Mexican cities, and Dearborn will become Muslim?
Yes, the replacement will continue apace. The slope is still slippery, and we are still sliding.
More options
Context Copy link
With how "melting pot" has been deemed Nazi-adjacent in the past decade, in favor of "salad bowl" or "mosaic," I'm skeptical that repeating history in this way is likely. With immigrants and their children being actively discouraged against assimilating, it's going to be hard for them to "Irishify," even before you get to the superficial differences. Arguably we're seeing some of the fruits of that change in attitude towards immigrant assimilation today, with the strong anti-Jewish push happening on the left.
I think this depends on whether you consider the melting pot a project that must be actively pursued and that is sensitive to "leftist project" policy decisions, or an unavoidable consequence of dense cohabitation and intergroup mobility that someone just happened to slap a laudatory label on
Perhaps, and it's certainly possible that it's just something that happened that someone slapped a label onto, but I'm not sure there's such a thing as a positive "unavoidable consequence" that isn't sensitive to "leftist project" policy decisions or any "project" policy decisions. There are about a Graham's Number times more ways things can go negative than they can go positive, and in the rare cases where the positive things happen by chance, they seem extremely easy to destroy, either completely by chance or due to people specifically attacking the parts that make things positive, as is the case here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Latinos are pretty likely to just be tan white people in another generation or two, they’re already assimilating and they want to be white.
No they will not be tan white people. They will either be nearly identical to native Europeans or be servant class. That is how it works in Mexico. So the most likely path is they will be tan people who clean your table and home.
They’re already majority euro by ancestry, and are intermarrying at high rates- it’s unlikely that ‘Mexican Americans’ will be genetically distinctive in 100 years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bell Curve 2 with a lower mean merging into Bell Curve 1 with a higher mean, thus creating a merged Bell Curve whose mean is the weighted average of its two constituents, is still a bad outcome when we could have just stuck with Bell Curve 1 and prevented Bell Curve 2 from coming into the picture in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fair point. But it'll be a more inclusive "white" which I'll take.
More options
Context Copy link
The East Asians are pretty much already there, and Latinos can probably make it, too. But Indians and Muslims? I don't see it. They will remain distinct, unassimilable groups, like blacks.
Not even close, in any way. Happas are very acutely aware of their own non-whiteness.
in a contrast to other groups historically, this seems more far more imposed from within the minority than from the majority.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Second or third generation Indians have mostly already assimilated in my neck of the woods.
What does that even mean? Are they only 25% or 12.5% Indian on average? Because otherwise I can point out an important way in which they failed to assimilate.
...It really doesn't? At best your point would be that their parents or grandparents didn't assimilate.
And at any rate, I don't buy into the blood-purity ideal of America, so we're both sort of begging the question, if you think assimilation is functionally impossible and I think it's common.
Indian engineers and businessmen are completely integrated into my community. They join Boy Scout troops, they run for local schoolboards and serve on local charities.
Their kids win Valedictorian in the high school, and dominate the varsity tennis squad, but they also skive off on senior skip day and throw house parties and join the marching band and try and fail to lose their virginities on prom night.
My Indian neighbors futz about their lawns and wash their cars in their driveways and get season tickets to the minor league baseball team.
Hell, one of my most firmly held Indian stereotypes was broken last year when a group of Sikhs massively overpaid for a piece of real estate at an auction, due to lack of research, to the point of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on the deal.
There's just no difference.
You don't have to buy into blood purity, but I am incredibly skeptical that any of your Indians are very well assimilated. You've listed absolutely trivial superficialities and completely dodged the actual question of intermarriage.
There is, and there is a huge difference, and denying it doesn't make it go away, it just marks you as stricken with motivated blindness.
More options
Context Copy link
No, it really does. Who you marry is much more important than «futzing around» in your lawn, give me a break. And really, it's the only relevant measure of assimilation. They either mix with the natives, and the new generations become a corresponding genetic mixture, at the weighted midpoint of the two groups, or they remain a 5th column. As a 5th column, they may adopt some superficial cultural signifiers, but they will still be an ethnocentric 5th column, always serving their own discrete ethnic interests, as reflected by their marriage incompatibility with natives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’ve found upper caste Indias (and Pakis etc) as probably the group that easiest assimilates to the US. Especially in the upper class. We have right-wing Indian politicians in the west.
There’s basically zero East Asian or non-European Latinos in power in the west. Caste probably significantly matters for Indians and Muslims. And a wider variety of outcomes.
Norman Mineta (Japanese) was in the cabinet when Gary Locke (Chinese) and Ben Cayetano (Filipino) were Governor. Mazie Hirono (Japanese) is in the Senate, Hung Cao (Viet) is acting secretary of the Navy, Elaine Chao (Chinese) is Secretary of Transportation.
So, Hawaii and Washington governors, Senator from Hawaii, and a smattering of cabinet roles.
More options
Context Copy link
Not a lot of non-European Latinos in power in Latin America either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Everything that has been said about Mamdani was said word-for-word about Kennedy.
Kennedy wanted to tax specifically white rich people?
Rich white people were already being taxed at an 90 percent rate so it wasn’t a live issue. To seriously answer your question, Kennedy was broadly sympathetic to the racial Current Thing of the era, in a mealy mouthed Barack Obama kind of way.
I’m not asserting that Mamdani is necessarily either a good politician or a good man. I’m just saying that the racial and religious politics surrounding him are currently well within the bounds of what we have seen for other integrating ethnic groups historically.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They accused Kennedy of being a communist? Because that's what I hear about Mamdani when I turn on the radio.
Yes, Kennedy being soft on Communism to the point of being a secret or not-so-secret red was a constant rhetorical drum beat on the right, like it has been about every single democratic politician since FDR. Look at the “Wanted For Treason” flyers that were being passed around Dallas the day he was murdered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nobody ever called Kennedy a Ugandan Muslim.
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