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.
You not being able imagine deporting people without immediately genociding them like the Nazis is a very silly argument. First because it is credible to no one that you can't imagine it (did you try at all? try harder!), and second because all they would have to do is just not genocide people. Very easy, they're already doing that. And there is zero indication that they are going to stop doing that, they already deport people without murdering them. What evidence is there that they will start? None. Its ridiculous.
You clearly just believe that remigration = fascism, by definition, that is the logic chain you have laid out. So just say that. Its honest.
Why would you assume this would involve military tactics? What evidence is there that remigrations are inherently dangerous, plenty of countries have done mass deportations without turning into genocidal states. Huge claims with zero evidence.
Is it really that hard to take them at their own word? Why do you not? Why should we not?
This is genuinely the most retarded thing I have ever read on this website
The deportation force must not genocide people and successfully deport a large ratio of foreigners, (since the policy is remigration) many with deep ties to their community. Inevitably they will resist. Inevitably many natives will join their resistance. Inevitably, news will spotlight some especially cruel deportations, and local economies will suffer, increasing resistance. Deportation is very invasive: it's effectively kidnapping from heavily-guarded areas, here large communities of mostly citizens. All this means mass remigration can only be accomplished by a powerful, nonlocal force that is brutal towards citizens.
And I doubt such force can be controlled, especially after intended deportations are over. Is there a historical example where it has? (Conventional militaries only target foreigners. Conventional police are local to their community and not powerful enough to carry out mass deportations. El Salvador’s crackdown has been supported by the vast majority of its citizens and only targeted men, remigration in today’s Sweden would not.)
I don't understand why people here trivialize this. More and more people are using LLMs for more and more tasks, even basic thinking, and it's invading online discourse and media. All major LLMs have similar political preferences, creative ideas, writing tropes...much narrower than those shared by humans. Even in different languages, there's not much more variation in political preferences and writing tropes.
The result is that cultures all over the world are being diluted with the same, narrow LLM monoculture. It's overriding people's beliefs, self-expression, lifestyle...things that distinguish cultures, as people seek their LLM instead of peers, teachers, or tradition.
Also, LLM output is intrinsically impersonal, so it prevents community bonding whenever someone seeks the LLM instead of their peer. If there's enough community bonding elsewhere that's not an issue, but in many cultures there's not; compared to pre-2020, the median person spends less time with peers and there are less third spaces.
Most of them have been there less than 12 years, and have minimal ties to the Swedish community. Loading up the emotional affect does not a good argument make.
Now, if some UK guy is talking about remigrating Windrush, you'd have a point. Sweden, not so much.
Edit:
I expect less than you might think, kind of like Trump's little bit of shock and awe enforcement caused US migration to plummet. They have no ties to the land or the people, they like being showered with free money, but the times would not have to get very hard before they pull up shop and find the next host to bleed.
I support
Maybe these measures are enough (if most immigrants leave, or don't but assimilate and contribute more). Then there's no problem.
But what if they're not? Sweden allegedly has over 2.5 million foreigners, ~25% of the total population (from 2017). If a large fraction do resist and co-opt many natives, how else can they be deported? Except by a powerful and cold-hearted deportation force, which especially after the deportations are over, threatens the rest of Sweden's culture (which unrestricted immigration also threatens, but still, is there no middle solution?).
Likewise, ICE has so far reduced the immigrant population, but far from eradicated it: according to Pew, by 1 million between January-June 2025, but there are over 50 million total. And faces large resistance from the left. (I want moderate immigration in the US also, although it looks like it's losing to extremes, but I think compromise is possible, evidenced by the World Cup and smaller events where people across party and ethnic lines get along.)
Eyeballing the by-country numbers, something like 700K that people would probably want to deport. A bunch of Polish plumbers aren't generally the point of concern.
What of Sweden's culture is threatened by removing people that want to replace Swedish culture?
Approximately no Western country is interested in enforcing assimilation, which is the closest thing to a middle solution.
The threat is intrinsic to any powerful and cold-hearted force against domestics: it may abuse its power, in this case deporting and/or harassing people who should not, like "good" foreigners or natives, because they're not much different than the targets and there's no larger force to hold it accountable.
Depending on your criteria, foreigners that should be deported may be indistinguishable from those that should not.
Again, it's fine if Sweden only removes people who overtly infringe on Swedish culture (i.e. break laws or repeatedly break important basic norms; I do advocate leeway for new immigrants who can’t be expected to know the entire language or unspoken rules, but they should be explicitly taught then must eventually learn a bare minimum). Maybe that's a large ratio like 700K, and I think a deportation force tasked with this would be smaller, and less likely to target natives or assimilating immigrants, because they act different.
It's a shame if no country is interested in "assimilation" because (my proposal of) it doesn't require dropping the foreign culture, just parts that directly conflict with the host culture (e.g. immigrants can continue native traditions and speak their native language, but must follow the host's law and learn the host's language well enough to communicate).
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