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 -
Fair enough. Yes there are many good things to like about the US like its (imperfect, but still, extant) meritocracy. Now if only the people of the country would stop trying to prevent others from moving there to achieve the exact same goals and wishes the current population also wants. Regardless, the country still remains genuinely welcoming to others in a way (continental) Europeans are not and have never been.
In anticipation of the 4th of July 250th anniversary I was going to change my flair here to "Benedict Arnold did nothing wrong!", but then I took another look at the current state of the UK and what the US, despite it's flaws, is still like and thought better of it...
"Here I will beg leave to propose a doubt. The present desire of America is to produce rapid population by as great importations of foreigners as possible. But is this founded in good policy? . . . [A]re there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience [to rely on natural increase] for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose . . . millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of [millions] of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here."
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, but too many people have a completely incompatible epistemology and metaphysics. Please feel free to copy any of our institutional sourcing documents in your own nations if that makes your cope feel better, they're all available for free online.
More options
Context Copy link
You can't have a de facto open borders policy that more than half the country disagreed with and not expect tremendous blow back. Biden and crew felt the necessity for workers far outweighed the need for public consent, so they bypassed it and relied on our hijacked institutions to label the dissenters as racist bigots. Now people of the left-leaning sort are coming online and complaining about the severe political correction as if it came out of nowhere.
Did Biden have an open borders policy? My understanding was that the policy was to turn away people trying to enter illegally, and deport them if they entered (recent arrivals, not people with established lives in the US), and there was no surge in the number of illegal immigrants entering and staying long-term.
Edit: I was wrong, see below.
The actual policy was to not enforce any laws, actively decline to find people entering, and help coach illegals through falsifying asylum claims if anyone accidentally did their jobs.
Clever wording. By the time Trump was elected, most of the Bidenwave had only been here a couple years at most.
Okay, I looked into it and there was actually an increase in the number of illegal immigrants staying long-term, but this was not due to relaxed enforcement, but due to an increase in the number of people attempting to enter illegally. They actually deported more during Biden's last year in office than in any year of Trump's first term. Regarding asylum:
The Wikipedia article Immigration policy of the Biden administration also has some interesting bits:
So it seems he tried to curtail the influx, but it was too late.
No, they didn't. They just fraudulently counted people turned away at the border as "deportations".
Also viciously disingenuous. That bill was pure poison. Ostensible limitations (which were still high), all of which had "Unless Biden or Mayorkas doesn't want to", when they manifestly didn't want to. It was just shitty, manipulative theater. Like the Proclamation that doesn't actually do anything besides shut down a detention center. It "halted asylum applications", but they were still just doing catch and release.
From the same wiki article:
Did they not do the same under Trump?
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
Don't you think that the sorry state of UK may be caused by the type of massive immigration to uk, that the US people don't want?
No, the sorry state of the UK is caused by repeated and incessant pandering to the lower classes and the unproductive of all stripes and colours and ages.
And can you guess by the color of their skin and their religion which are the most unproductive lower classes and most pandered to?
Also mass migration is policy that is top down, which throws the argument about pandering a bit off. And especially the white working class in UK has been fucked over and not pandered to in the last 60 years or so.
The most pandered to unproductive class is retired boomers, and particularly retired homeowning boomers. (Landowners who no longer perform the military functions of a traditional warrior elite are the most pandered to unproductive class in almost every society where they exist, of course).
More options
Context Copy link
It's not quite so simple. The white working class had immense power in the 50s-90s, especially culturally (albeit often mediated through establishment figures). That's why the Doctor Who reboot centered around a white working-class chav who failed school with no A-levels and worked as a shop assistant, and why reality TV had such cachet at that time. You can see that cultural power dying as worship of the white working class died out around the late 2000s: the next-but-one companion three years later was also a working class chav, but this was treated as a bad thing she had to rise above; then you had a succession of companions who were clearly upper-middle class and then 'working class' characters who were upper-middle-class with a London multicultural accent and mostly DEI in one area or another.
Working class power showed most clearly in the trade unions, but also in the ruinous taxes and the ruthless destruction of generational wealth.
My mother failed to get into the best UK university because the working-class academic at her interview heard her upper-class accent and literally refused to say a single word to her until she gave up and left; my father was spat on for having the same accent. There's a reason it's hard to get the upper classes to feel they have more in common with Dennis from the estate than the nice young Indian man who does their accounting (Digwa). Lots of bad memories.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I remember going to the Saratoga Battlefield, where Arnold was shot in the leg. The interpretation was pretty clear that if he had died from that wound, he would have gone down in history as one of America's most beloved generals and patriots.
Instead, he received a nameless memorial. I wonder sometimes if that wouldn't have been a decent enough compromise to deal with the Confederate legacy, but I think everything is so poisoned that neither side would accept it anymore.
The settlement was already made. Attempting to renegotiate it now is bad faith.
It was a renegotiation in bad faith already. The settlement before destroying the confederate monuments had been mostly uncontroversial in the sense of few paying much attention to it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link