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 -
Judging the Iran War on its initial goals:
There has been so much talk about the Straight of Hormuz, that people are forgetting this was never an initial goal of the war. It's easy to forget that the Straight of Hormuz was open and not tolled by Iran before the war. So by definition, how could a war aim be to something that you already have. This would be like the US declaring War on Canada and saying one of the aims is to take New York.
So looking back, it's important to see what they initially said. This is straight from the White House itself [https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/04/president-trumps-clear-and-unchanging-objectives-drive-decisive-success-against-iranian-regime/](This is straight from the White House itself:)
Tonight, @POTUS will address the nation on Operation Epic Fury.
From day one, the objectives have been clear: obliterate Iran’s missiles and production, annihilate its navy, sever its support for terrorist proxies, and ensure it never acquires a nuclear weapon.
Trump:
President Trump (March 2): “Our objectives are clear. First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities… and their capacity to produce brand new ones — pretty good ones they make. Second, we’re annihilating their navy… Third, we’re ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon… And finally, we’re ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
Vice President JD Vance (March 2): “Whatever happens with the regime in one form or another, it’s incidental to the President’s primary objective here — which is to make sure the Iranian terrorist regime does not build a nuclear bomb.”
Secretary Rubio (March 3): “Our objectives remain, as they’ve been identified from the beginning and the President laid out clearly yesterday. Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and we will not allow Iran to hide behind the immunity of a massive short-term ballistic missile inventory, or the ability to make them or launch them… As well as the destruction of their navy.”
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (March 4): “The mission is laser-focused: obliterate Iran’s missiles and drones and facilities that produce them, annihilate its navy and critical security infrastructure, and sever their pathway to nuclear weapons. Iran will never possess a nuclear bomb.”
It's obvious from these statements there were four goals:
The Straight of Hormuz is a red herring. The fact that we are even talking about it at all means we have gone backwards. The US has accomplished only one of its war aims and that was to destroy their Navy. The rest are not done and at best are TBD. If you had said 6 months ago that the war would still be ongoing that only one goal would be accomplished, what would you have said about the status of the war?
To me, and this is just my opinion, people would have said the war is not going well. Based on those four goals explicitly laid out by Trump, I don't see how you can say we are close to a victory.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ydld0gykpo](By the way, Trump himself says that the war will continue until at least November.)
Here he again explicitly mentions the nuclear weapons as a warm aim (that is not accomplished yet). Personally, I don't see this war ending any time soon. At this point, the Iran government has shown it is resilient and it is in a literal fight for its life. They can't back down now. Meanwhile, I don't see any way the US can accomplish its war aims without staying until the regime collapses. How long that takes I think is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, stocks of crude oil in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve fell to 285 million barrels last week, the lowest level since November 1982, according to data from the Department of Energy.
Trump is saying Iran won’t surrender even though they’ve lost. Because their only hope left is that Democrats win. Because they can’t win on the battlefield.
Were the Jews winning at Masada because they held the surging Romans at the gates? Were the Prussians losing in 1871 because the Commune controlled Paris and refused to surrender for months? What’s the argument being made? Trump is losing the war with Iran because Iran refuses to surrender?
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, because everyone predicted that Iran would take over the Straits so any American victories didn’t count. It was said that America was losing because Iran controlled the straits, so it didn’t even matter if America achieved its original gains. I was criticized many, many times for saying that oil would continue to push through the straits and that Iran would never toll it.
Now that this is undeniably true that Iran does not control the Straits we move onto some other goalpost. The straits of Hormuz never mattered at all! Whew lad
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Love it or leave it, but woke.
This weekend, The University of Texas played The Ohio State University in Austin, TX. A screen shot went viral on Twitter showing a crowd of Indian students celebrating the victory.
"Heritage Americans", the dissident right, the Woke Reich, or whatever you want to call them went crazy, pointing out the massive demographic changes in Texas that are happening. This is true. Anyone who has been to Texas knows whites are a minority here in any medium sized and larger city. The changes have been stunning and within 30 years, it is unrecognizable.
Critics rightfully pointed out that they were pretty much just being racist. You talk about integration, and here are immigrants and children of immigrants celebrating a victory in football wearing cowboy hats. What is more American than that? You clearly just don't like Indian people.
An Indian politician said that this is what Texas is. If you don't like it, LEAVE! There is some truth to this. This is what Texas is now, but historically the South Asian population has been tiny. This is a very recent development. Is 20 years all it takes for Texas to become something new? If you are 30 and above, you probably grew up with almost no Indians. Now this is what Texas is and you have to leave if you don't like the changes?
This reminds me of the UK. Pre-Windrush, the UK was 99.9% white. As recently as 1991, it was 95% white. Now though, if you complain, you are going against British values. For thousands of years, the UK was essentially 100% white. Within a few generations, it is a multi-cultural country and if you don't like that, LEAVE! We are not a white society, and actually never were. I could go on and on, but with the exception of Reform, that is the general consensus now.
Back to Texas. It's crazy how quickly this can happen. Mass migration can happen and within one generation, this is seen as the new default and any complaints about this are seen as against the new values. Of course, the biggest gatekeepers of this isn't the left. They really have no control over their outgroup other than canceling people and social pressure, but if you don't care what they think, what can they really do? The center-right has also rushed to condemn people criticizing the massive demographic replacement in Texas. People like Dan Crenshaw rushed to condemn the racism and call out this anti-Indian racism and essentially sided with the left, who hates them. They have essentially said the same thing as the left and that these aren't Texas values to be racist. So basically, love it or leave it, but woke. If you don't like the new Texas, leave.
But where will they go? You basically have to live in a state like Texas for access to the best jobs. schools, dating, etc. It's insane to me how fast we can accept something new that is unprecedented as the new normal without considering the consequences. Only weirdos and disagreeable people point this out, and by the time people start to see the consequences, it will be too late (assuming there are negative consequences, which should be obvious is my POV).
Going crazy on Twitter? That plus a dollar will buy you a Costco hot dog.
No, it’s still Texas. The presence of nonwhite people has not changed the character, traditions, even the political landscape of the area. Sometimes unfortunately.
Not in my experience, but what do I know? I’m sure the Brits understand better.
Only for a sufficiently strong value of “don’t like.” You know, like anything else. Taxes too high? Can’t own a gun? Tired of hippies? Maybe you should leave those states.
But no, that’s quitter talk. Real Anglo-Saxon cowboys gather their posse and run the degenerates out of town. Anything else would be unacceptable value drift. If you don’t shoot the tax collector you’re basically allowing white genocide.
No, they’re the old values. Sometimes values apply even to people you don’t like. Cultural replacement can happen but it’s not magic. Getting a bunch of Indian students to come absorb your rituals is how it’s supposed to work.
The enemy must be both strong and weak, huh?
Where, indeed? Why is it that the places with freedom of movement and speech have all the good stuff? How come the nonwhite people get to enjoy it? If you just pushed them all out, maybe you could enjoy that magic soil for yourself.
You said it, not me. I wish you’d go for longer before bringing up your hobbyhorse. You got some good questions out of this account.
Twitter delenda est.
Who's he an alt of?
More options
Context Copy link
We had all the good stuff before freedom of movement, and freedom of movement is killing freedom of speech.
As here.
P.S.
So is it absorption or replacement?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fairly simple - people from countries perceived as shithole ones are also perceived as shithole people until proven otherwise.
You represent your country and your country represents you. This is why no one cares about Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Thai or Vietnamese people anymore. In the mind of the westerner they learned how to human - so it is not a big deal if some of them move over here.
Whereas India is represented by humorous TikTok videos about how they prepare street food there and the fact that their holy river has suffers from "severe contamination, primarily caused by billions of liters of untreated sewage, industrial runoff, agricultural chemicals". The H1B system abuse is also not winning hearts and minds.
Until India develops properly and has somewhat sane HDI and Gini, Indians won't be seen as equal peers, no matter their personal qualities.
Is it racist, unfair, bigoted and biased - yes. Is this humanity default mode of operation - also yes. It matters where you were born and raised and how you look like.
There is developed country origin privilege - people from the whole of the world give you some credit of goodwill that people from the underdeveloped areas are not afforded.
More options
Context Copy link
I live in the middle of nowhere, and I've lived in dozens of deeply rural towns. It's not bad. Sure, I might not have access to the "best" jobs, but I have a good job in an area with a low cost of living. I went to "shitty" schools, but I got a degree and managed to learn things that have served me well for the rest of my life. Dating might be harder, but I still met a woman who I love with a burning intensity that has never faded as the years have gone by.
Maybe I've been wasting my life, but it still seems pretty nice out here. Maybe you should give it a try.
More options
Context Copy link
What are you defining as medium-sized? On a very lazy Wikipedia check, College Station, Abilene, Amarillo, McKinney, are all majority white, although Wikipedia's numbers are a bit old so that may no longer be the case.
And (obviously) most "non-white" Texans are Hispanics, who are hardly an alien culture in the Southwest.
More options
Context Copy link
To be clear: it wasn't a crowd of Indian students. It was a group of like a dozen Indian students in the foreground, but the wider shot shows a crowd of mostly white/hispanic students (which is what you'd expect for UT's student demographics). The students in question are themselves almost certainly American.
The actual problem here is the division people who view America as a white nation for white people (and who thus see any non-white people as a threat to the integrity of the nation) and people who view America as defined primarily by values. You can still be xenophobic and still cleave to the latter view on assimilationist grounds, but it's hard to sustain particular objections in the face of clear evidence of assimilation. However, if you're just a white supremacist, no amount of assimilation matters.
Where are all the white Texan refugees who have been expelled from their land? Did the non-whites kill them all? Is the mainstream media covering it up?
Having racial preferences in this manner has been seen as pretty sketchy for at least half a century. As alluded to above, even most racist people are not racial supremacists. While it's been long understood that the white supremacists didn't evaporate into thin air after the civil rights movement, it was the sort of thing you usually kept to yourself.
They expelled themselves through not having kids and importing other people from other areas of the world. The mainstream media, and people on message boards, are quick to jump on anyone noticing that demographic change or the trends that are highly suggestive of it.
That is until it became extremely popular to blame whitey for all of non-whitey's problems. Seems that when your institutions start talking about and emphasizing race, people suddenly start talking about and emphasizing race.
So…the literal definition of an own goal.
Yeah, big time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If the Indians comprise 0.1% of the crowd but they just so happen to all be concentrated in one corner of the stadium, then this by itself is proof positive that they are unassimilated. What "assimilation" looks like is for each subgroup to be evenly spread throughout the population in proportion to its numbers, which is evidently not what's happening here.
I'm not saying that this even dispersal is what causes assimilation; rather, someone who is culturally assimilated will naturally find that their circle of acquaintances (such as the people they go to football games with) is representative of the population.
(I rather doubt that anyone on Twitter is making this argument. The interpretation that the whole crowd is 90% Indian is more provocative and thus more likely to go viral.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems worth mentioning that that was one part of a stadium holding 100k people- not in itself evidence of an Indian majority crowd- and that challengers to the racial harmony and integration ideal in Texas focus on the (noticeable but small)population of dot Indians rather than the very large Hispanic population. There aren’t objectively very many Indians, but they’re far and away thé most controversial minority group in the state.
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose this is this week's race discussion thread; could someone actually steelman the "white supremacy" takes, for lack of a better way to put it after a minute's thought, that seem all the rage on the Motte lately? For example, this post from last week's thread, and the OP.
I can quite well understand the theory of mind of people who complain about mass immigration, or even immigration in general.
I can also understand the theory of mind of the HBD realists and the scientific racists who go on about the Hajinal line or Ashkenazi selection pressures or whatever. If you're actually a WASP nativist or something then alright, at least you have something cohesive going on there.
Yet when people start going on about whiteness it just seems really silly to me. Just in the last hundred years Greeks, Italians, Slavs, Irishmen went from distinctly "other" to "white" to all but the most dedicated haters. Likely in another hundred years assimilated Hispanics, Indians and East Asians will probably be considered "white" for all intents and purposes.
If "white" is just a Schelling point for the things you actually care about (culture, immigration, governance, whatever) then complaining about some dudes wearing cowboy hats just makes you sound like a base racist that misses the point entirely.
I wasn't alive a hundred years ago, so their categorisations mean nothing to me. I'm not inheriting their ideology, I'm not defining myself by their beliefs. That their beliefs bear superficial resemblance to mine doesn't matter at all to me.
What I am looking at is the reality of keeping these pet minorities around. The culture they bring with them, the habits they cling to, the enclaves they form to avoid dispensing with any of those things. The relapses their subsequent generations have when they "rediscover" their roots and reabsorb all the worst parts of their ancestral cultures. I look at these things and I see no benefit to myself or the people I care about, so I want them gone.
I don't want Indian hygiene culture in my nation. I don't want the Indian work culture of just lying about things. I don't want interethnic rivalries on my streets. I don't want to hear word one about Israel or Palestine or Pakistan or Somalia or any of those; nobody here should even be able to point to those places on a map. And I equally don't want minorities wearing my culture like a skinsuit, partaking in my traditions as if they're their own, I don't want to see ethnics morris dancing while the media propagandises to me about how they're the new face of Britain, just as British as me, these people who washed ashore five years ago, while I can show you my family name on war monuments and in town hall records and point out buildings my grandparents helped build. It is gross, debasing propaganda intended to humiliate.
It is simply not my problem that their forefathers weren't capable of building countries worth a shit; that doesn't entitle them to mine.
We can eliminate racism by simply removing the other races.
More options
Context Copy link
The steelman is that assimilation is not guaranteed. There are many instances of countries where assimilation hasn’t occurred over thousands of years. In America ADOS have not fully assimilated and right now we have zero signs assimilation will ever occur. India itself is not an assimilated country. Castes still exists. Brazil is an example of a country that is not assimilated. You end up with a result where different tribes in your society vote for group interests and not society interests. If assimilation fails then your end result is permanently worse politics.
This is bad for a lot of reason. High performers in unassimilated countries are less productive. Brazil had a lot of Italian and German immigrants and they are poorer and less productive than the groups that immigrated to America.
Once you have permanent groups that are not assimilating you can not unring that bell and will be stuck with poorer governance forever.
Also it seems weird to me to say that Hispanics will likely assimilate. Most Latin countries are not assimilated. And certainly to a far lesser extent than America had a dominant uniculture when I was a kid.
The question is, didn't this already happen 100+ years ago with the aforementioned "Greeks, Italians, Slavs, Irishmen"? The Jeffersonian ideal gave way to Tammany Hall, the Mafia, union politics, etc. - so we see that that assimilation project was not successful either. Perhaps, the immigrants assimilated America to themselves, and not the other way around.
I think that's a fair assessment. The gravity of each group pulls itself towards the other.
What people often get wrong about Italian immigration is the presumption that nothing was done about it and it all worked out in the end. That's not true at all. People were extremely upset about it and that's why we passed the National Origins Act in 1924 which all but banned further Italian immigration. We shut the border for 40 years. By 1970, the foreign born population of the US had fallen below 5% and most of the earlier groups were finally assimilated.
Even in 1965, when we opened the border again, it wasn't because people wanted more immigration. It was just assumed that is was no big deal and the overall composition of the immigrants wouldn't change much. And wow were they wrong about that.
Immigration advocates want to skip the step where we struggled for decades and move right to the part where everyone is assimilated. That's not going to happen with continuous waves of new migration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's also a lot easier to keep a balkanized social fabric and cultural landscape in today's smartphone era. I can continue using my language and speaking to my friends and family essentially anywhere on Earth now
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it isn’t white supremacist per se but a belief that culture and attitudes are in part inherited (probably both via nature and nurture).
Thus, white people writ large and Western Europeans more specifically may want to keep their culture because (1) it is familiar and (2) it has on the whole been one of the better cultures.
Now that doesn’t mean that aren’t other good cultures. For example, Japan and China have achieved a lot. I wouldn’t want to live in such cultures but it isn’t obvious they are overall worse and in some ways (but not all) are clearly better.
But some cultures are seemingly objectively inferior and/or some cultures have a hard timing blending. Indian culture seems to prioritize clannish behavior that prioritizes Indians at the cost of whites.
I know this is all generalities and I’m sure if we dug in at each premise there would be objections etc. But this is, in broad strokes, why I think reversing immigration is generally good while at the same time preserving some degree of immigration from populations with cultures that are on par with the western cultures and can blend well if numbers are small enough.
Japan is an odd example here because general claims of "Japanese success" happened mostly after a dramatic period in their history in which the Western culture was aggressively adopted by (local!) top-down fiat.
I'd be remiss if I suggested that Western ideals were the only reason for this success, but it certainly complicates the example. China has also had its own run-ins and adaptations from Western ideas too (literally Communism! Although that's not the only one).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
'We are all the same brotherhood of man, we should let everybody in and kumbaya'-ism is an incredibly cheap value to hold when you're from a country that's essentially never going to be asked to actually let anybody else in. And the majority of countries that mass-immigration advocates are hailing from are actually super restrictive on naturalization with a very strong implied understanding of 'what a person from here is'. Sure, not every white sub-race is equally good and there'd be a bunch of arguments to be made regarding 'Would you rather have Japanese immigrants or Albanians' but the people who managed to build the nice things that outside groups are now trying to forcibly socialized should be able to say 'No, go build your own' without mass wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Okay, but this is the opposite of what we see. The most rabidly xenophobic nations are generally the ones people are least interested in migrating to, while the people most likely to embrace the brotherhood of man are the people most likely to be getting immigrants.
When a man's material health is taken care of, only then does he care for his spiritual health.
People have the luxury of virtue signalling when their lives are comfortable. It's a form of guilt amelioration.
More options
Context Copy link
This partly depends on your definition of xenophobia. I've known no shortage of weebs dismayed that Japanese immigration laws are basically "no". I'm sure there are KPop stans that have similar situations.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah but the immigrants from those super xenophobic countries instantly turn on a dime the second it aligns with their interests.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is just not true. They were always considered white, and anything saying otherwise is just misinformation. A lot of people have been fed this lie, so I don't blame you for believing it, but it is objectively not true.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200612063842/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/22/sorry-but-the-irish-were-always-white-and-so-were-the-italians-jews-and-so-on/
Maybe in the US, where Black in general has been its own distinct category. But in Europe, southern Europeans were seen as darker skinned, more temperamental, and just overall different from those in the north or west. People specifically started worrying about black people once we saw immigration from the middle east and Africa.
So this may simply be a cultural issue, where an American places different meanings on "Black" and "White" than Europeans do.
Yes, they were seen like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_race#/media/File:Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg
But they were never seen as black. They were always seen as Europeans, just lesser white Europeans. It's also anachronistic to think about current racial categories in the "Irish became white" meme way because Europe was essentially 100% white during this time period and full of different white ethnic groups that saw each other as distinct. Winston Churchill for example talked about the Anglo-Saxon race.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's crazy is that Texas really isn't like this. Only 2.7% of people in Texas are South Asian. It's similar to the Somali thing in a lot of ways. It's a very small absolute number, but it's concentrated, so the changes seem huge.
It's basically this quote, but for ethnic spoil systems:
Now obviously its unfair to compare these Texas fans to Somalians. They are probably, individually, quite lovely people. And, when voting, they are going to fall somewhere between Dennis Kucinich and Mao.
Almost all recent immigrant groups have voting patterns which are far to the left of longtime populations. It doesn't matter how "good" Indian and Chinese immigrants are if they vote for open borders. Our institutions won't save us. Even low single digit numbers can tip the scales. If Texas goes blue, the Republic will fall.
Texas is a big state and there are generational differences that are going to concentrate the effect at universities. The 20-year difference in DFW schools is... interesting.
More options
Context Copy link
Canada's different in this regard, or at least Ontario is (was?). IIRC, Indian immigrants were a big reason why Ford won again, voting for reasons that would be very legible to conservative voters.
That does raise the question of why Chinese and Indians are so far left in the United States. Naively, we might expect the opposite. India and China are far-right places. They are so far right they could fairly be called fascist or theocratic by western standards. I'll propose a couple possibilities.
Indians and Chinese assimilate well and correctly recognize that leftism is the high-status choice in the US
Indians and Chinese care more about racial solidarity than about other things like abortion, taxes, and crime
Indians and Chinese are mostly non-Christian in a group where the right-wing party's support base and agenda continues to correlate relatively heavily with Evangelical Christianity.
Agreed. I'd put that in bucket #2, I think. Identity >> policy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The actual history of minority groups in America is to tend to become voters for the most moderate democrats available eventually.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The ethnic enclave in the stadium is scary. But overall they looked assimilated. I’ve repeatedly said prior generations of Indians some times do seem to assimilate very well to the point no one even notices they are Indian anymore.
The scary thing to me is if Texas could do a full Californication process. Despite California’s wealth it seems like it’s much more third worldification than elsewhere in America. I think the data is fairly clear that the State doesn’t work for the middle class anymore which is witnessed by population leaving every year. I tend to think demographic change has greatly influenced California’s political culture which is something we do not want to spread. I guess California has always been to the left of Texas but it was cowboy land too at one point. How do we maintain an Anglo form of government as demographics change? It doesn’t seem local level California governance has dealt with this well. By Anglo governance it feels to me like California has a lot more class/tribe politics than Texas.
Yeah, it's a big concern. California was a solid red state until the early 1990s. For a long time is was the Republican state. If you were to poll white people born in California before 1960 and their descendants, it's likely they'd still break strongly Republican, meaning the political changes in the state are not people becoming more liberal, its just demographic replacement and evaporative cooling.
Despite everything, there are still more Republican voters in California than in every other state, even Texas.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Only tangentially related to your overall point, but what I've noticed is that a large portion of people essentially desire to be passive contributors to a community. They want to a community that fits their exacting standards but they don't actually want to contribute anything more than passively paying taxes and maybe if they are feeling generous, show up to events other people organize. Unfortunately that doesn't work. Communities need active participants, people willing to get their hands dirty, run for local office, organize the social events, run third spaces. Is it any shock that the community is transformed by people who do want to participate? These larger areas have access to better things because there are just more people participating. in large part because there are more people.
The other point is that you need to decide what is important to you. If you want all the best amenities then you are going to have to compromise, that or build your own Texas-but-whites-only with blackjack and hookers. I have a conservative friend, in our largely progressive city. He constantly complains that his dating options are basically zero because all the women here are progs. He, like plenty of my other conservative friends, could move more out to the country where it is just generally more conservative. But then he'd have to give up his FAANG job, his FAANG salary, all the great amenities he can buy with this FAANG salary etc. He is obviously against that. He wants our area to just become more conservative, through the power of wishes. God forbid he actually become an active participant. He wants to eat his cake and have it too. People making this complaint about Texas and it being Non-White central have a similar vibe.
I am unsympathetic to that line of argumentation.
There are whole portions of Williamson County that used to be deep read that are now majority South Asian. Those people moved out to the country to get away from Austin libs and they just followed them there (plus immigrants). Now it us diverse urban sprawl. What could he have possibly done to change this at the local level? These decisions are made in big cities by powerful people, not in bum fuck nowhere by conservatives trying to organize locally. They have to just accept those decisions. There's nowhere to go now unless you want to move to like Maine or North Dakota, and even those have large non-white populations. There's tons of African refugees in Fargo, ND. I've seen it myself.
More options
Context Copy link
Not sure this was your intent, but it reads like you are framing this as "white people less likely to actively build community" when data suggests the opposite is the case.
Domestic migration patterns in particular bear this out. People of all ethnicities constantly move towards white areas and away from non-white ones.
Absolutely not. White people build plenty of community in America. However it feels like a large section of modern American citizens are essentially coasting through life on everything. Resting on the laurels of their ancestors, be they white, brown, yellow, grey, green, purple, idk. A large cross section of people have lost the desire to put in active efforts. On my own hobby horse, the tree of liberty is dying, many people who benefit from it, have decided that actively fighting for it is just too much work, requires too much sacrifice, so are content to make it someone else's problem. They still complain about it dying, but they are unwilling to put any effort into it.
Can you blame them? The government is not receptive to the changes people want. People can have some local control, but they are unable to turn back the tides of the decisions made in Washington:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187
Anything they try to do will be shot down. We have 0 control over our government and the apathy is a rational response. If you want to make serious change, you will have to make great sacrifices and dedicate your life to it. Most people just want to go along to get along, and it has always been that way.
YES!!! And people have always had to do so. It has never been the case otherwise. People now want great change without having to make serious effort.
It takes time, it takes a continual effort. Your legs have atrophied because you refuse to get up off the couch, pretending its time to run a marathon is fantastical. People have rested on the efforts of their forefathers for too long.
Yes and if you just want to passively exist your way through life then you are at the mercy of those who are active. Call it a variation of: "The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must"
Moving to the middle of nowhere to build a conservative community accomplishes the opposite of what you are encouraging people to do. It's just running away, and is actually more self destructive. You are doing nothing and lying to yourself that you are doing something. A conservative SWE at Google has more power to affect change than a whole town of conservatives in Nebraska. Your strategy is literally they worst strategy possible. The only way to make changes is to get into the most elite institutions or build alternative ones. Anything else is a waste of time.
That would require him to be an active participant. I think my two suggested solutions were: either move, or be the change. You are just agreeing that "being the change" is a better strategy. "being the change" might be more effective but it can also be more lonely. The pragmatic answer is "do you want to be happy now" or "make it so others like you can be happy in the future"
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
I think there's also a certain trend where 'white people are capable of building genuinely egalitarian communities, which minority groups working together can then somewhat exploit due to clannishness that white brain isn't really designed to counteract'
It's more that white people have bought the tabula rasa arguments a bit too much, not realizing that western people are WEIRD and that clannishness is actually the norm, and it needs to be defended against.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Moving out to the country does not prevent women from having internet or accessing dating sites. Attractive girls don't often stay in their small towns either. Especially now that they can have infinity dating options that they can access through the tips of their fingers.
Your conservative friend is correct, and your comment implicitly says as much. You can have a conservative girl, just abandon everything in your life that makes it materially better, and hope that there is a diamond in the rough that hasn't been warped by modern day society. For most average Joes, you cannot be materially comfortable and in a spiritually comfortable relationship and live in a highly populated area. You can have the material goods with your decent job, but you are still competing against the field when it comes to attractive women your age. The alternative, which you present, is that you can move just out to the country and find that diamond in the rough. That is mostly false though.
Funny I have plenty of conservative friends in the country with conservative spouses. Turns out conservative women are not liberal women, and actually have conservative values... So rampant materialism, consumerism, progressive values, striver culture, has not really "infected" them.
Or you can just move to some mid sized midwest city or large town and it will be fine. It's not like its the sticks. Yeah there isn't a FAANG job paying 400k, you'll have to settle for a decent midwest software engineering salary of 60-90k. No SWE is an average joe either, in many ways they are below average in some areas but above average in intelligence. Which is why the Bay (Mecca of SWEs) places such an autistically high emphasis on intelligence as its metric of grading.
Turns out urban areas optimizer for more strivers. One would expect strivers in one area to often be strivers in other areas. Meaning they want the best. Complaining that you are super competitive in one area but lackluster in relationship/sexual/looks/social areas is you wanting to reap the benefits of being a capitalist where you are strong but a communist where you are weak.
This is hard to really quantify in a way that is productive. If you want some mega hottie, LA-10 then unfortunately you are trying to optimize, you are going to have to compete with the rest of the optimizers. I personally don't think my friends wives are all that attractive, but they are not-fat. They look like normal women, for normal men. If having kids and starting a family is important as many of the more urban conservative men I know state, then they need to get their head out of fantasy land. Look for compatible conservative values, of which, more will exist in conservative value ecologies. Which are not large urban areas.
I know plenty of women are not 5'4''. That is, however, the average height of a woman in the US. Point being, your examples don't counter broader statistical trends.
You comment comes off like advice, and if it is I appreciate the words of encouragement. To clarify though, I am married to a non-leftist blonde woman, I live in a moderate to large-size city that is trending leftward, and (at least to my eye) she is attractive. I am a lucky man in this regard. On an individual basis, it's not hopeless to find a woman like mine, it's just that the general trends have undeniably gone in the other direction.
The incentive structures are such that you must often choose between a materially comfortable life or a wife and children, and the potential wife pool (especially for normal and attractive ones) is slim pickens. It's achievable, but you have to really want a wife and kids and be willing to sacrifice those other, material (and sometimes spiritual) comforts to get it. Again, on a societal level this is just not happening.
Worse still is that to whatever extent this is true for modern men, it is even more true for modern women and their incentives. Dating for them is like shooting fish in a barrel. Online dating and career advancement has led them to not value their potential male partners and it has made men in general too expendable in their eyes, except of course for that top 10 or 15% of men that are killing it. This is the setting young, average Joes are up against right now.
What you are saying isn't wholly false, it's just generally untrue for the masses now, and that has major societal implications.
More options
Context Copy link
I have to travel for work to rural red areas all the time. There are not a lot of attractive, conservative white women there that are young, intelligent, and fit. This is shown in statistics too. This just isn't a reasonable option.
Regardless, doing this is admitting defeat. You will basically just see the changes maybe one generation later. Every single city in the US is diverse now or will be soon. All these areas in Texas were areas white people moved to to get away from the changes in CA, NYC, etc. 30-40 years later, it's just the same. The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.
Pick two or something. I think commonly intelligence means that you move to an urban area to get a better paying job.
Idk without straight up doxing my friends wives, I'm not sure what there is to say. I think 3 of them met their wives on dating apps, it was their first date (both wife and husband) they liked each other any just started dating.
Who cares, people should focus on achieving a level of happiness with their own life first.
In my experience, living near a city that has a massive dump of NYC-ers. They bring about the changes when they move here. They want it to be the "good parts" of NYC without the "bad parts" but the bad parts often follow from the same policies as the good parts. They are like a fungus. They create the environment that causes them to spread in the first place. In the NYC-er's case they bring their shitty pizza with them too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Instead of a conservative girl, how about one that doesn't make politics the front-and-center of her personality?
Every woman I know like this is also semi-conservative when you discuss "vibes" or "feelings of behavior" to the point that I think political chillness is a conservative-ish value in a colloquial sense.
More options
Context Copy link
The best kind of girl there is. Although, I don't see that being avoided in a general sense when the gravitational pull of leftist politics in urban areas is so strong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What sort of negative consequences do you expect?
Ethnic spoils system (which of course only whites can't participate in) and a divided society that is basically just an economic zone. We are arguably already there.
More options
Context Copy link
Not OP, but there is a perception that Indian-run companies discriminate against non-Indians. If they are doing this despite being a tiny minority, imagine what a country with an Indian majority will look like for white people. Canada might find out, lol.
If this were an alternate reality where everybody else was trying to get into the dominant economy of the earth, India, I have zero doubts that they'd be treating foreigners substantially worse than foreigners have treated Indians attempting to leave their sphere.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link