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 -
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).
As @porkpiehat points out, this picture is hardly representative of Texas demographics as a whole, nor do I think it represents some canary-in-the-coal-mine for mass immigration into the state. It is far more indicative of the fact that the University of Texas has become a good school. It has a competitive admissions rate that is only getting more competitive and recent rankings indicate it is well-within the top 50 colleges in the United States.
What does this have to do with Indians? I'm sure you can guess where I'm going with this. Indian immigrants to America tend to be wealthy and predominantly come from the upper castes of Indian society. They, much like other Asian groups, tend to perform better than comparable white students, and as far as I can tell, there is a strong cultural emphasis on academic and material success among recent Indian immigrants, resulting in them being more likely to travel out of state for college. All this amounts to the fact that they will be drawn to a strong academic program like UT. UT, in turn, wanting to have the strongest academic class, will admit relatively more Asian students, as most colleges these days tend to for the aforementioned performance reasons. Thus, more Indians at the University of Texas - estimates on U.S. News suggest 25% of the student body is Asian. I doubt most of these students remain in Texas, though perhaps they stick around Austin for a time for their first jobs. Hardly some mass migration ploy. These are skilled and intelligent students who are assimilating as best they can, seemingly successfully if they're at a football game having a great time.
Let's look at the University of Alabama for comparison. Alabama is a similar flagship state university, but it lacks the academic pedigree of UT. To no surprise, its demographic profile is more akin to the rest of the country: 67% White, 1.5% Asian, which is actually lower than Alabama's 1.8% Asian population.
A huge chunk of these students are employed in Dallas or Houston- Texas is not a few oil rigs with cattle wandering between them, after all, it has a huge white collar services sector that employs more college grads than it can produce.
UT Austin admissions are also, like most state flagship schools, non-meritocratic in a non-racialized direction- substantial preference for in-state applicants. This manifests itself, in the specific local case, as autoadmit for top six percent of the class at all Texas public schools, surely a much more dot Indian group than the state as a whole(also much whiter and more asian). The losers from that policy are mostly hispanics, who are underrepresented among top six percent students(blacks also don't benefit from that policy, but 'wholistic admissions' benefits them in practice, so this is probably made up for with non-autoadmit spots, at least partially). And indeed, we see lower ranked UT schools with very very hispanic campuses.
The argument in favor of the "top
tensixfive percent" rule was that high schools were heavily segregated in practice --- barely now within living memory, by fiat, but now mostly by school zoning area demographics. Ideally the winners are supposed to be poor schools in the Rio Grande Valley and historically-Black communities getting to send graduates from poorly-ranked high schools to top-tier UT Austin, but I've definitely read anecdotes of parents of means, uh, venue shopping come senior year of high school. I can't speak to how common that is, though.Lol, the winners are strivers at semirural schools. The innercity kids and valley tejanos fail out their first year and get replaced with Catholic school alums that transfer from commuter schools with a specific program for this.
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