site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 2023

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.

Was there a unique contribution that Jewish women made to feminism

Is "being a post-industrial society in pre-industrial times" not enough?

Post-industrial peoples tend womanist because there's no longer any biological advantage to being a man, and considering Jews tended to make (or be made) people who worked in occupations that we would recognize as the dominant components of post-industrial (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) economies.

So it would make sense that this sub-culture would have felt this influence early thus been a vanguard of it as the rest of the Western world "caught up". Interestingly, this also (to a degree) will erode their position simply because "success in a post-industrial environment" is no longer limited to Jews, though they still have 200 generations that selection pressure relative to the general population so it's probably going to take a while for their overrepresentation to end.

I would expect their contribution to be high, because jews are wealthy, disproportionately represented in the media industry and live in places where voices are heard (LA, NYC).

Antler estimates that two-thirds to three-quarters of the women in these collectives were Jewish.

It could be as high as 40% (while being 7% of the population) and I wouldn't bat an eye. But, at 66% there certainly was something about being Jewish that led to the numbers being so high.

If Jewish conspiracy theorists would quiet down for a bit, it would be really interesting to do good faith studies into why urban WASPs and secular Jews behave so differently. But I don't think there is any world in which such a modest proposal gets interpreted as anything but anti-semitic.

When you’re done figuring that one out, let us know where themotte would be today without the involvement of jewish men. Presumably there would be even more of these boring questions hinting at nefarious jewish influence, but how is that even possible.

If there is anyone in the world that has the right to complain about Jewish women, it is Jewish men. For most of the world's masculines they are a folk tale told to scare impressionable youths but they (the Jews) have to live with and marry them. The closest thing in our reality to an actual monstergirl.

I don't know if this was a failed attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor or what, but if so, it failed abysmally.

"Jewish women are the worst" is about as low effort as a "boo outgroup" post gets.

Banned for a day. Don't post like this.

When I think of Eden Polani, Gal Gadot, and Bar Rafaeli, I don't think "monstergirl". Israeli girls are hot.

This is not intended as a dig against any of the named women but there is is nothing about being a monster that says one can't be hot. The black widow and femme fatale are tropes for a reason.

I think "monster girl" also usually has the connotation of "hot," so I don't know what crushedoranges is implying.

Was there a unique contribution that Jewish women made to feminism

Seems probable.

and if so, how would women's rights look today had there been minimal Jewish involvement?

Approximately identical.

Most western intellectual movements have been disproportionately jewish, including fascism at one point.

The most parsimonious explanation is that they are a small enough group that any significant representation is over-representation, combined with (in the Ashkenazi wing of judaism) higher average IQ and disproportionate representation in intellectual pursuits. New political movements come out of a very specific demographic, upper-middle-class intellectuals who view their lack of power and authority as an indictment of society, hence the drive for change. Jews in the west are highly overrepresented in this class, and thus in most political movements.

They are also over-represented among conservative intellectuals, anarchy theorists, communists, anti-communists, dadaists, SocJus inquisitors, etc. Pretty much any intellectual fad popular with that demographic is going to be "disproportionately jewish".

What is the evidence that Jews were over-represented in the development of fascism?

That’s pretty interesting. However, I don’t think it proves that fascism at one point was disproportionately Jewish, as a majority of the leading intellectuals and writers of fascism were not Jewish in Italy. Unless you mean, “Jews were more likely to be interested in the fascist movement”, but if the topic is “leading figures/influencers”, I don’t think that is evidenced. Fascism as a movement was, going by writers and major thought leaders, almost exclusively non-Jewish.

Given that Jews make up a very small portion of the Italian population, they can be overrepresented without constituting a majority of the leading intellectuals and writers.

I really think that the motte-and-bailey of many (often bad faith) questions like this is that "Jewish" is both a faith and several ethnicities.

Imagine if worship of Greek gods had survived to the present day--a religion of, say, 20 million, with half living in Greece but the other half in various diasporas around the world. In that hypothetical world, who is plausibly "Greek?"

Only the people who live in Greece? But, despite the ethnic cleansing of Turkey, presumably many Turkish people are ethnically Greek even today, at least arguably--it was only in the early 20th century that the purest of the Greeks were expelled. Besides, surely the Greek god worshippers would say "we're Greek too!" And what about people whose great-great-great-grandparents were Greek, and who still like to make pitas for lunch? Are they Greek, too? What if they insist that they are Greek? Also Greece has a long and storied intellectual tradition. The whole edifice of Western academia is literally named after an Athenian hero, because Plato's Academy was the Academy. Is academia "disproportionately Greek?"

In a way, the present day status of Greek versus Jewish (both ancient traditions and peoples!) is an interesting illustration of the costs and benefits of being cosmopolitan and culturally promiscuous, versus being insular and protectionist. Greece and Israel have similar populations today, both ethnicities have been subject to (differently executed, but nevertheless) centuries of subjugation, exile, and ethnic cleansing. Greek philosophy has arguably conquered the world; they literally invented formal logic, which no other culture ever independently accomplished, and laid the foundations of all modern sciences, including social sciences like politics and psychology.

(Indeed, Ashkenazi Jews--the Jewish ethnicity most often associated in popular perception with disproportionate intellectual prowess--are the Jews whose ancestry comes predominantly from southern Europe!)

And yet there are no grand conspiracy theories concerning Greek influence (though I admit I have never been to Turkey, maybe they have such things there?). Greek people in America are just treated as "white" people--even if they, as southern Europeans with noticeable genetic overlap across the Mediterranean, are suspicious about that classification! Meanwhile Jews of plainly and overwhelmingly European descent are often given a pass for claiming to not be white. That insularity and ethnic conservatism comes with a price (in particular, the kooks who allow Jews to live rent-free in their heads) but also with clear benefits.

(This same pattern can be observed about American culture in the era of mass media. Cultural differences, including linguistic accents, do continue to exist in the U.S., but American culture has become surprisingly homogeneous, historically speaking, given the size and population of our country--and much of the world has been caught in that phenomenon through mass media, as evidenced by e.g. people in the U.K. and (especially) Ireland participating in bizarre "Black Lives Matter" protests. Cultural "assimilation" or "integration" are interesting topics to me, I guess is what I'm saying here.)

Anyway, my main point is just that "disproportionately Jewish" is an easy target to hit in part because "Jewish" sounds to most people like a group with clear boundaries, but in fact it definitely isn't. It's a historical accident that they get any attention at all; Christianity started as a sect of Judaism, too, so arguably Jewish ideas have also conquered much of the world. But it's not at all clear to me how a question like "what would feminism look like without Christian (or Greek) influence" helpfully informs us about, well, anything.

A while back, in response to the so frequent it's hardly noteworthy claim that Jews dominate banking, I did a survey of the executive teams of the largest banks in the US and found that, while there was overrepresentation, it wasn't anywhere close to enough to suggest that there was any disproportionate control. A certain category of poster on here attacked my methodology; since I normally can't just look up someone's ethnicity or religion, I had to use names as the basis of my analysis, and I was assured that a lot of Jews have names that aren't immediately obvious (and I admitted myself that married women complicated things). Yeah, I know. But that wasn't really the point—if you're making a claim that a certain group dominates a certain industry that I'd expect, on the low end, plausible evidence that at least 40% of the people involved are members of that group. I thought I used liberal criteria, but even if I missed half of the Jews in the banking industry it would still be a long way from 40%.

I noticed something similar on whatever TheDonald is calling itself now during the height of the FTX debacle where there seemed to be agreement that Caroline Ellison was definitely Jewish. Ellison is not a Jewish name, and she was raised Catholic. But... someone noticed that her mother's maiden name is Fisher, and Fisher is a "typical Jewish name", and Judaism is matrilineal. Well, sort of. While I don't doubt that there are Jews named Fisher (or, more probably, Fischer), it's hardly dispositive. I've known several people named Fisher or Fischer and, to my knowledge, none of them were Jewish. I've also known people named Diamond, Gross, Stein, and Schwartz who definitely weren't Jewish. If you're going to claim that some industry is dominated by a particular group, the onus is on you to provide real evidence that that is in fact the case. And that's before we even start talking about what that's supposed to mean.

For anti-semites, Jews are a symbol. It doesn't matter if it's "a long way from 40 %"; they'll just say you missed the crypto-Jews. For those with more consistent concerns in the objective sphere, like fascists, it's just a stepping stone to saying that the majority can decide what proportion is too much.

as evidenced by e.g. people in the U.K. and (especially) Ireland participating in bizarre "Black Lives Matter" protests

While I agree that 'Black Lives Matter' makes little sense in a domestic context, protesting about American racial politics something the Irish left were doing decades ago, and it's no further from home than tagging along with the 'Free Palestine' (still a staple of Irish protests), 'Free Tibet' or 'End Apartheid' movements.

What's new is that while Israel, South Africa and Tibet are clearly foreign countries, Black Lives Matter has developed a cottage industry of finding racial injustic within Ireland. Their high points have been getting statues of Egyptian princesses removed a hotel because they mistakenly thought they were slave girls (the council later returned these statues to their plinths), protesting the shooting of a knife-wielding black man by police as if it were evidence of pervasive racism (given how scarce police shootings are this might be the first black man ever shot dead by police here), and calling for an end to the 'Direct Provision' system of processing refugees as the movement's Achilles heel is there not being many black people here in the first place.

It's a strange thing to look at. All of the infrastructure for making race an issue is ready to fire, the NGOs, the university professors and the street protesters, but with Ireland's immigrant population mostly consisting of Slavs (who don't really care about Irish politics and dream of going home) and well-paid Western Europeans whose only complaints are rent and petty crime, there is a severe shortage of discontented minorities. Give it a few years I guess.

They can’t just declare the travelers oppressed? Hispanics broadly not cooperating with left-wing socjus posturing doesn’t stop it over here, and it can’t exactly get dumber than posturing over the plight of mostly non extant black people in Ireland.

They can’t just declare the travelers oppressed?

You mean traveller gypsies? They have done that, but travellers are a very unsympathetic people and there's no European or American scale media/activism working in their favour to overcome that issue.

The spectacle of various European countries desperately trying to import enough disgruntled minorities to give them analogous race problems to the US so they can participate in the collective guilt has truly been incredible to watch.

The right sees it as a plan to import voters who will be reliably left, but I think it's even dumber than that. I think they literally have dysfunction-envy, and so desperately want to ape the US that they need a minority to oppress so they can hate themselves as much Americans do. How's a good self-hating Swede leftist supposed to denounce "socialist" Sweden as a right-wing racist hellhole if they don't have any other races there?

How's a good self-hating Swede leftist supposed to denounce "socialist" Sweden as a right-wing racist hellhole if they don't have any other races there?

By reference to Sweden's past in supporting ("white-on-white") eugenics and WW2 era cooperation with Nazi Germany, as is traditional.

I've been active in left-wing politics for a long time, I know (at least at some level) people very high up locally, and there's no "plan to import voters" or "desperately ape the US" or anything like that. For most local leftists, the whole immigration issue is quite low on the list of concerns, and insofar there's a concern it's mostly about maintaining a certain immigration policy to comply with international human rights treaties (of course there's a lot of variation on how those are interpreted). If that immigration policy leads to many immigrants, so it goes; if it doesn't, so it goes, as well. The most important thing is not the number, it's the human rights treaty compliance.

Sounds like a cop-out to me, bypassing the argument entirely. The 'it's the law' defense. Is policy X or Y preferrable? Well, X is the law, I guess that settles it forever. Progressives turn into paragons of legalism all of a sudden.

That reminds of a discussion we're having in germany right now, about the closing of the last nuclear plants. The greens harp on about burocratic hurdles as a reason not to keep them open. Oh no, the plants would have to renew their license! The paperwork, the paperwork! Guess our hands are tied then. Let's just keep that terrible burden in mind when they ask for a policy change.

This isn't supposed to describe an "argument" or a "defense", it's obvious that it's not that good an argument against someone who doesn't share the underpinning ideological assumptions. It's supposed to describe the genuine reason why whatever immigration-related policies are advanced.

And it's not just that it's the law; it's the human rights treaty framework, something greater and larger than law, kind of a global constitution that underpins the entire global liberal world-system. The linchpin of civilization, if we were talking about people who think in terms like "civilization".

I'm not sure rightists completely understand just how large a role the global human rights treaty framework plays in modern European left-wing consciousness.

A text is not a genuine reason, though it may contain a reason. They used to point to the bible, now they have this. If they won’t give the true reason found in or around the text, but instead merely refer to its authority, they are avoiding debate. If I want a genuine justification for ‘murder is wrong’, a reply pointing to the law, the bible, or human rights misses the mark.

I'm not sure rightists completely understand just how large a role the global human rights treaty framework plays in modern European left-wing consciousness.

Perhaps, but if so, that is a failure of pedagogy and debate on the part of the left, of the kind described above. There are plenty of liberals on the right, including, believe it or not, people who like civilization.

I wish such disagreements were settled more often with ‘you have a more restrictive understanding of the right to asylum than I do’ instead of ‘you reject human rights’, but we’d need to actually discuss human rights, not use it as an applause/boo-light.

I live among Nordic leftists, and I can tell you with certainty that they legitimately don't believe that mass immigration comes with problems.

Also, Sweden does have a historically-oppressed minority group, the Sami.

There another’s explanation, which is that Jews by the mere fact of always being a minority within a larger culture are often forced into seeing the wider culture in an outsider’s viewpoint. If you travel around, especially if you spend appreciable amounts of time immersed in another culture, you can kind of get a similar viewpoint. You can help but notice all the weird stuff those other people do that you don’t. Or weird things other people think that your people don’t. They aren’t raised to think of race the same way as whites do. Or women. Or poverty. So seeing a different perspective and perhaps not being attached to the dominant one let’s them poke holes in theories that others wouldn’t see.

it seems

Not so sure

everyone thinks

Definitely not.

I think race isn’t the issue with regard to immigration. The issue is that, especially after the civil rights movement, it became less expected for immigrants to assimilate. And the problem isn’t that brown people are coming to America. The problem is people coming to America with a bad set of cultural norms (laziness, lack of respect for education, less law abiding, etc.) and thus importing the attitudes, values and beliefs that make the poorer parts of the world poorer. And to some extent even whites are picking up those values. For example the meme of being entitled to a “good life” without putting in any effort to obtain it, or less emphasis on education or conformity.

Immigrants never assimilated in the first place. The original founding father WASP cultural norms were, through academia, media and finally voting, drowned out by a random collection of immigrants from Europe. Though the WASP's only have themselves to blame for opening the gates in the first place. 'Assimilation' is a self flattering fairy tale Americans, mostly white and conservative, have been telling themselves for a long time now but it's nothing more than that.

The fundamental illustration of this comes from those who self describe as the most culturally American, who also happen to be mostly white and conservative, are also the ones who have nigh unanimously failed to maintain any semblance of American culture from the previous generation outside of gun ownership. Every other value that could or should have been maintained has over time been crushed to appeal to those who have power and money. Leaving the expressed cultural tradition of America revolving around guns, submission and greed.

What white conservative Americans mean when they talk of 'assimilation' is whether or not the immigrant is willing to work under whatever conditions the white conservative American deems acceptable. With no regard for the fact that many immigrants are not as submissive and greedy as they are. Which doesn't help explain why conservatives are seemingly perpetually thunderstruck by the willingness of immigrants to support the political party that promises them more money and status. Leading one to conclude that the final lacking component that makes up the mythical cultural American is delusional arrogance.

Would you say that the culture of (for instance) 1950s America is further from/less compatible with the Founders norms than today's America vs the 1950s?

To me it seems remarkably closer, given that we are only ~60 years out vs two centuries.

I mean based on what? Any culture, even one that doesn’t accept immigrants will change over time. Japan today would be a culture shock to a Japanese person time-traveling from 1950. Musical tastes change (though a fair number of people consider country to be a continuation of traditional American music) which I would contend is something that conservatives have managed to conserve, alongside frontier versions of Christianity (which I see evangelical Christianity as a continuation of), traditional American cuisines and to some extent the traditional values and ethos. It’s not expressed the same way, but what conservatives believe and do can quite often be traced back to very long roots that go back quite far. I would contend that a time traveler from 1860 would recognize a lot more of modern Patriot/conservative culture than he would have modern Liberal/woke culture. But at the idea that it doesn’t count if the culture isn’t preserved in amber completely unchanged (which would probably not even be true of the Amish) to count as preservation is simply demanding too much. Conservatives don’t live as museum pieces, they live as people interacting with a real world.

Japan of the 1950's was in the throes of a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution. I'm sure the time traveler would be shocked but not surprised that foreign occupation had left his country without its sword. I think that highlights a blind spot to the 'cultural' ideology as a whole. At any point in time can you pinpoint whatever thing is happening and say: 'see, there it is, there's our culture' with no regard for what it was before or how it got to the point it is now. I agree that a culture changes with its people and technology. But that fact does not excuse every cultural change as being a fate bound product that inertly fell from the sky.

As for your overall point I'm at a loss. We seem to have gone away from a cultural definition of work ethic and duty and instead moved towards a cultural definition of what I would call trinkets and hobbies. I don't believe you are saying that if more immigrants listened to Hank Williams that they would be more inclined to work. So I don't understand where we are going with this.

As for country music and similar 'cultural' trinkets. For me, if it's not Southern, it's not really country. I don't mean that in a sense that it has to come from a certain area. But the fact that it has to exist as something opposite whatever it is the 'North' is doing. It has to actually be 'politically' Southern. Otherwise, what even is it? Blake Shelton pseudo rapping with his coolest black friends about tractors? I find it pathetic. Why does he mention in one of his songs that 'his boys' don't listen to the Beatles but rather Coe. Shelton is a living breathing embodiment of a Yankee pop star at this point. Country music didn't grab the South just because they liked the tunes. It grabbed the South because it was Southern. It was as much a product of musical talent as it was a product of a culture war that self described conservatives have long abandoned and disavowed in favor of fortune and fame from the 'North'.

I don't think a time traveler would pretend that the US is even a country after you showed him the state of things. I mean, in the past 50 years the US has seen over 100 thousand white people murdered by black criminals. Race mixing at an all time high. Jews and catholics running the show, the Church supporting gay marriage, a former black president. And to top it all off, conservatives are more likely to support these things than not, aside from gay marriage. Conservatives certainly aren't museum pieces, but I'd have expected their will, want and tradition to lead somewhere other than where they are today. Least of all that there are conservatives that unironically proclaim that the problems with Mexicans and blacks are 'cultural' and not rooted in the fact that they don't belong in the country at all.

Alright, quick mod request. Most of this is fine, but there's a few bits that are stated as fact and really need some backing up:

Japan of the 1950's was in the throes of a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution.

in the past 50 years the US has seen over 100 thousand white people murdered by black criminals.

Jews and catholics running the show,

I recognize you fleshed one of those out later, which I appreciate, but - "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be." - that's pretty partisan and pretty inflammatory and needs some level of backup.

I didn't feel like I needed a lot of supporting evidence since we were talking about what the perspective of a person from the 1860's would be when coming in and taking a look at the current state of affairs. I figured that such a person would not come to very politically correct conclusions about the world after interacting with a few basic facts about it in any case.

Looking at the US supreme court, it's majority 6/9 Catholic. Looking at Bidens and his cabinet, it's jewish and Catholic with Biden himself being a Catholic. I find this sufficient to say that a person from 1860 would conclude that jews and catholics are running the show. But maybe that's my bias shining through.

The '100k is past 50 years':

The problem is that those parts are phrased as fact, not as the person's opinion, and they do require a bit of justification.

Which you've done here! I am reasonably satisfied with those answers.

Link 'em in the original post next time, if you would :)

Where I’m going with the country comment is that as I said, sometimes culture changes quite organically, and therefore it’s not enough to say “it’s different, therefore not good” is really not an argument.

I think most of the trends are generally negative, and that we do have a serious decline in both civic duty and work ethic, civic nationalism, and even education ethic. Those things can be taught, and they’re not. In fact I think this is something the Chinese are doing right. Go to any forum where Chinese are talking about China and you just don’t hear the kinds of self-flagellation that you do in Atlanticist cultures. They are taught to love China and being Chinese. But, such things can absolutely be taught. Kids don’t come out of the womb with ideas about loving their country, studying and working hard, or civic duty. In fact, you can find differences among whites in various Atlanticist countries.

I obviously don’t see race mixing itself as a problem, so the rise of race mixing in an otherwise healthy culture wouldn’t be a problem for me. The issue is the bad memes, and those come from unassimilated immigrants, the media, and the school system.

I feel like I've already answered your contentions in my previous comment. You've not provided a distinction mechanism between what constitutes 'organic' change and what's not.

I guess, in total, I just fundamentally disagree with you on where culture comes from in the first place. Culture doesn't fall from the sky. It flows forth from people and the conditions they create for themselves. I can agree that US 'nationalism' is dead in the water. But I'd argue that being a product of its people.

It's not hard to teach a Han-Chinese to love his country when it is undeniably his country with thousands of years of history where he is surrounded by people who look, talk and think like him. It's a little different when you were brought to 'your country' as a slave. It's a little different when the countries media is dominated by people who don't look like, talk like or think like you.

I think the history of the US has taught us that you can't railroad over these differences. And that the same ingroup pathologies you would seek to harness for your greater American cultural project will work against it when people see themselves as having more in common with those who look, talk and think like themselves. I mean, regardless of all else, why should anyone pledge their hard work and duty to the US and not, say, Israel, Mexico, China or Africa?

The Japanese lost WW2, got nuked, and then had their constitution rewritten by a bunch of Americans.

The primary portion of the document that upended established cultural relations between the sexes in Japan was written, in part, by a jewish woman.

Far be it for me to subscribe to a theory of a single cause but the post-war era seem to have taken a drastic toll on the Japanese birthrate. Considering the revolutionary nature of the imposed constitution I'm more inclined than not to say that it has weighed the Japanese people down heavily. They had their own culture that was producing children and it was destroyed. That's not to say the old ways would have been impervious to technological change. But I think they were far more anti-fragile than the thing that replaced it.

I don't think the comment was banworthy, or even in need of a warning, but c'mon, a Jewish woman was involved in the writing of part of the new Japanese constitution, therefore it was a "Judeo-American" takeover? By this logic, anything a Jew is involved in ever is a "Judeo-" effort. Which, I know is kind of your thesis, but usually your anti-Semitic seething has at least a kernel of truthiness.

More comments

What the hell is supposed to be ban worthy about it? Some people argue for horrors like surrogacy, some people people post thinly veiled antisemitic jabs. Fight the guy or ignore him, but for the love of god spare me the Karening.

More comments

What game are you playing? You "ask questions" about jews yourself, then delete them.

More comments

Please don't post like this. If you think something is ban-worthy, you can report it. We don't need to clutter threads with "you should be banned*," "no, you should be banned!"

Just pointing out, the view of immigrants from Mexico in communities that host them is often very positive, while their children(who are citizens) tend to be seen negatively. The decline in human capital across generations is sometimes blamed on exposure to and influence from black culture, and sometimes on adopting American norms more generally. I have spoken to construction bosses who happily fake documentation to hire illegal immigrants but refuse to hire native born Hispanics for this reason.

Either way, the ‘Mexican culture makes them terrible workers and criminals’ is not really the lived experience of people dealing with first generation immigrants. It’s probably fair to talk about HBD, but it’s even more fair to point out that the standard right wing narrative about illegal immigrants is mostly posturing- aside from the obvious laws broken by being illegal immigrants, they’re more law abiding than the native born and seem harder working in any way that can actually be measured.

I mean our society being made up of mostly the children of illegals is not a good thing, but the immigrants themselves are mostly not the problem.

Either way, the ‘Mexican culture makes them terrible workers and criminals’ is not really the lived experience of people dealing with first generation immigrants.

Hypothesis: There's a bad culture effect and there's also a first generation immigrant effect. The first generation effect doesn't last to the second generation, while the bad culture effect does.

That’s certainly possible. However, while there’s vices that tend to be associated with more heavily Spanish speaking hispanic communities- like alcoholism or statutory rape- almost universal anecdata suggests that illegal drug use, laziness, or criminality are mostly associated to less heavily Spanish speaking Hispanic communities. This, to me, points to assimilation of negative aspects of American culture(maybe through rap music rather than directly from Americans) as the cause.

Obviously immigrants are a self-selected group and they’re mostly selected for things like ambition that correlate with willingness to work hard, which leaves plenty of room for them to wash out negative aspects of their culture like poor academic success. But I think that the balance of evidence points to Hispanics acting black as being picked up from blacks, not as being indigenous to Mexican culture.

Many of my coworkers and my wife are non-white immigrants. They are not making things worse. I don't think "everyone" is blaming societal problems on Indian and Asian immigrants.

Many people correctly blame some European crime rates on middle eastern and African immigrants. But here in America the middle easterners and Africans that I know have college degrees and houses in the suburbs. They aren't to blame for America's problems.

A lot of that is just having an ocean between you. So America gets the higher hbd of the population. Europe gets the lower class.

Yeah, they get unemployable refugees and we selectively let in Iranians and Nigerians with graduate degrees.

Opposition to high-skill immigration is usually framed in terms of "importing an overclass" as contrasted with low-skill immigration "importing an underclass." The former is a greater threat to your position if you are already at the top of the existing social order.

Wealth can insulate you from whatever dysfunction your new manual laborers have brought with them, but it isn't going to make your kids do better on the SAT than the Asian kids down the street of your gated community. There are also those who are motivated purely by racial animus (to wit, "I would rather live in Moldova than Wakanda").

I saw this in action when the UK govt announced a visa-granting program for Hong Kong-ers. The reddit hivemind that normally constantly fetishises importing as many low-/un-skilled browns as possible to own the conservatives was suddenly in uproar -- because these ones had the capital to buy houses and maybe even outbid them!

I think high skill immigration is a wage suppression scheme aimed at middle and upper middle class Americans. I think that the minimum H1B visa wage should be raised enormously. $60k/year is ridiculously low for a skilled worker that supposedly no American is available to replace. And their work restrictions are way too strict. They end up locked in at a job which helps suppress wages.

I've seen businesses refuse to consider hiring Americans fresh out of college and instead hire even more H1Bs. I think rules as written that's illegal, but apparently there's no enforcement.

On the other hand America gets to brain drain the world and import in really great future Americans and the parents of Americans.

It seems everyone thinks the world is getting worse across Western countries that have accepted non-whites.

Do you have a comparison class of those that haven't?

Yes, I agree that mass immigration is generally a bad thing, but I don't think that social pessimism in general is good evidence for its badness.

There’s parts of the USA with very few immigrants that could be a basis of comparison, though.

The closest things are Russia and the former Eastern Bloc, though of course there are too many confounding variables. Also Japan perhaps, if you squint hard enough.

I'm not sure that these societies have a sense of things not getting worse.

Social pessimism seems almost a constant across civilisations. It was better in the good old days - even in the old days.

Oh, I wasn't implying that they hadn't, as both are almost certainly more pessimistic about the future than Westerners. Only that they have been less accepting of immigrants, and even the latter is changing.

For a place where most everyone agrees things are getting better, I would look to Southeast Asia or some of the more stable states in Africa.

What changed in Western societies during the last century that lead to wide scale acceptance of non-white people?

It was imposed by law. You haven't seen photos of 101st Airborne escorting blacks into a white school ?

The US constitution was replaced by the Civil Rights Act, and over the next fifty years, activists were busily using state power to browbeat anyone opposed into compliance.

The government decided people can't segregate themselves by law, so they're now doing it financially. Federal government is disappointed, and has now resorted to mandating better loan conditions for people with worse credit scores.

I think these changes have been very positive on the whole

You think these changes have been very positive.

Ask whites in London or Paris how happy they're about these 'changes'.

The 'elites' in Europe are so braindead and so feckless in face of 'human rights activists' the continent is no doubt going to be taking in expected Bantu immigration waves by tens of millions, and within thirty years, the benefits of black bodies is going to be felt in every city from Madrid to Moscow.

The US constitution was replaced by the Civil Rights Act

Like hell it was.

Take it up with Christopher Caldwell's book.

Although it'd be more accurate to say that Wilson & FDR killed off a lot of the old one.

The US constitution was replaced by the Civil Rights Act

Like hell it was.

@No_one's claim on this count needed more effort, or at least greater exploration of why the evidence provided should be interpreted as pointing in this direction. But it would be helpful if you did not meet a low-effort claim with an even lower-effort, higher-heat claim; that's one sure road to quick degradation of the conversation.

I believe he is referencing this thread from Kulak.

The 'elites' in Europe are so braindead and so feckless

Please post about specific rather than general groups to the extent possible. Please provide effortful argument and evidence in proportion with how partisan or inflammatory your claims might be.

They believe humans are a fungible, interchangeable mass, and as policy are supporting 'replacement migration' to improve the age profile of European Union.

On 27 April 2022, the Commission presented a Communication setting out an approach towards a new and sustainable EU legal migration policy, attracting the skills and talent that the EU needs to address labour shortages and reply to the demographic change in Europe. On the same day, the Commission also presented a proposals to modernise the Long-term residents Directive and the Single Permit Directive. The main objectives of these recasts are to:

This is completely absurd because as we know, people aren't interchangeable, and analysis in for example Denmark found that migrants are not beneficial to public finances at all, and are making states worse off at fiscally.

Which other states are generally too pussy to even consider doing.

Moreover, European Union has a cargo-cult mentality related to education.

These people truly seem to believe sending everyone to university is a worthwhile goal that's somehow going to lead to a more qualified workforce.

The 'elites' in Europe are so braindead and so feckless in face of 'human rights activists' the continent is no doubt going to be taking in expected Bantu immigration waves by tens of millions, and within thirty years, the benefits of black bodies is going to be felt in every city from Madrid to Moscow

Am I the only one who notes that there’s some pretty substantial natural barriers between Bantus and Europe, and that there’s also a lot of countries that care much less about human rights in between?

Crossing a hard desert bigger than the continental United States which is also an active war zone and has no roads to arrive in an Islamic dictatorship which has typical Arab attitudes towards blacks before somehow crossing an ocean to get to the white countries which are getting steadily less friendly to immigration is a very different feat from taking out a loan to pay human smugglers to drive you to a border located in a productive agricultural region.

As long as there's money to be made ferrying them across, and there's media and elite support for the migration, these barriers are not very meaningful.

which is also an active war zone

In a few small parts, there is low level conflict. It's not like trying to cross the front in Ukraine, where attempting to sneak through at nights means you get blown up in complete darkness by someone far away.

steadily less friendly to immigration

The public may be, but the public doesn't matter much.

No one in Western Europe ever voted in a government with a mandate of 'increasing immigration', yet Paris and London look how they look.

The public may be, but the public doesn't matter much.

I recognize that this is a standard woke/alt-right talking point but I don't buy it.

I recognize that this is a standard woke/alt-right talking point but I don't buy it.

Then why is London, Paris full of nonwhites. It was never wanted by the public.

Have you read the Populist Delusion?

Because nonwhites wanted it, and they’re part of the public.

Nonwhites were present in numbers too small to matter.

Weren't rich either.

No, it wasn't the non-whites.

I believe it was the white left which got fed up with the working class not being interested in what they have to sell, and decided that minorities are a better base for future power.

So they embarked on a decades long project of increasing immigration, and largely succeeded.

Then how to explain the existing migration of sub-Saharan Africans into Europe?

As wealth has increased in Africa, immigration to Europe/USA has increased as well. A koisan tribesman has no way to immigrate to Europe. But a person living in Lagos might be able to scrape together enough money to be smuggled in.

We can see the massive growth in immigration from Africa in the last 2 decades and conclude that the Sahara is not the barrier it once was.

There is already a thriving trade in human smuggling from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe, and they're not crossing an ocean, they're just crossing the Mediterranean to Italy or France. The Arab countries will probably wave them through just to avoid them sticking around in their countries - let them be Europe's problem instead. The real deterrent is the willingness of European governments to ignore NGOs shrieking at them for policing the sea, and so far this deterrent is yet to appear.

The Civil Rights Act was passed by democratically elected legislature, the 101st was deployed by a democratically elected president. People have had fifty years to organize a majority to overturn the civil rights act and it remains broadly popular. It was legally imposed by the majority of the country on the South for sure, but why did the rest of the country support it?

It's interesting we've switched from 'politics is downstream of culture' to 'culture is downstream of politics' and politics is just whatever elites decide.

That's the same thing as I've said.

It was imposed by force, by the government, with elite support.

The public did not understand what was going on and what was going to happen to them, as one can expect.

For example, it was overwhelmingly supported by Northern democrats. And then, when put into practice in the North, caused things such as The Boston Busing crisis..

That your government uses 'democratic election', where an older government simply would say it's the "divine right" of kings doesn't matter much.

'Our Democracy' is a mechanism for obtaining legitimacy, not a mechanism for having voters have a say in policy.

Half of your electorate understands this perfectly and doesn't bother to vote.

See: "Manufacture of Consent" and "Political formulas".

EDIT: forgot a couple of words.

I don't think the constitutionality has much to do with what I'm arguing. If you're saying that this change in public opinion was imposed top down then you have to explain how, in a democratic society, people holding those views got to the top in order to impose them in the first place. The Supreme Court you can play the 'activist judges' card but legislation and presidential actions are harder to explain that way.

I'm totally fine with the old fashioned arguments that this is a sort of tyranny of the majority unconstitutionally trampling regional peculiarities and freedom of assembly. That's well trod ground. I just think it's shit social history to explain massive changes in social attitudes as top down action of a mysterious elite.

People have had fifty years to organize a majority to overturn the civil rights act and it remains broadly popular.

People, including a lot of people in the south, genuinely wanted it to work and expended a great deal of effort to make that happen. It's a shame it failed so absolutely, by the objective standards and definitions of its proponents. The social cohesion that made such an effort possible was burned in the process, and such efforts have little chance of being repeated. Instead you get metastasizing cynicism, withdrawal, polarization and extremism... But hey, how'd one of the old-timers here put it recently: Blues don't get held accountable for being wrong, or for the harm their bullshit causes. Fifty years later, they've written all the histories, so few remember what actually happened. It's a brilliant strategy that works marvelously right up until it abruptly doesn't.

How is "failure" being defined here?

Put very simply and rather reductively, Black people wanted better outcomes and an end to discrimination and racism, and white people wanted an end to black dysfunction and rioting.

Black outcomes are measured relative to white outcomes, and by that standard, their outcomes have not improved much if at all. They still have much worse educational outcomes, economic outcomes, marriage outcomes, vastly higher crime rates, vastly higher rates of single-parenthood, and on and on.

We've engaged in heroic levels of social engineering to try to eliminate discrimination and racism. To the extent that such elimination is actually possible, I'd say we've done it. Approval of interracial marriage is probably a good proxy here, and we've gone from supermajority disapproval to lizardman-constant disapproval. It doesn't seem to have mattered; black outcomes didn't improve, and blacks and their allies don't appear to perceive a substantive improvement, don't perceive that their demands have been satisfied. Usually in discussions like this one, people focus on the changes made, and ignore the deeper outcomes those changes were attempting to secure.

Black dysfunction and racial conflict remain intractable problems. All plausible methods of improving the situation have long since been exhausted, with no evidence of any significant effect. People are now pushing highly implausible methods like explicitly racial systems of government. Bad outcomes for the black community are used to argue for the continued existence of racism, but by this standard, one is forced to conclude that there is no detectable racism gradient anywhere within our very large and quite heterogenous society. By the consensus standards we've adopted to measure it, racism appears to be just about exactly as bad in California and Seattle as it is in Mississippi or Atlanta. This means that the fifty years of intense social engineering has worked exactly as well in the most stereotypically progressive places as it has in the most stereotypically racist and reactionary areas. The simplest explanation for how this could be so is that the engineering hasn't actually worked, even a little bit.

And of course the riots are still happening, and for the same reasons.

More importantly, what else should the federal government have done in the face of de jure segregation in the south? Should the US have waited around for several more decades until the south decided to get its act together?

What does "the south getting its act together" even mean? Again, there is no objectively measurable racism gradient between the south and anywhere else. Ending Segregation didn't fix any of the bedrock problems it was supposed to fix. It didn't even fix Segregation itself, since people simply found workarounds to ensure that they didn't have to share space with underclass blacks, who remain awful to live among.

There's a story where the Civil Rights era was a crusade against intolerance that struck down the legal and social discriminations that had oppressed blacks for hundreds of years, giving us hope for a brighter future. There's another story where nothing fundamental has changed, black people are still oppressed, our society is still defined by systemic racism and oppression, and radical change is needed. These stories, due to the particulars of their narrative, can't both be true. You have to pick one or the other, and blacks and the progressives who speak for them have picked the later.

I think that, given the state of the evidence, honesty compels us to concede the point. Blacks are still doing about as badly as they were before the Civil Rights movement, relative to whites, and none of the consensus methods of changing this have worked. We either have to accept the current state of affairs, or try something radically different than the path we've followed to-date.

black outcomes didn't improve

I don’t think this is true. I’m pretty sure that black educational and economic outcomes may not have caught up to whites(and may not ever), but that they’re a lot better than in the fifties.

A lot of this is due to declining standards to help them 'do better'. Everyone else pays that price.

I don’t think this is true. I’m pretty sure that black educational and economic outcomes may not have caught up to whites(and may not ever), but that they’re a lot better than in the fifties.

They are not appreciably better relative to white outcomes, which is the standard the champions of the Civil Rights era applied then and the standards their descendants apply now when they declare our outcomes to be unacceptable. I would happily agree with you that this is not the standard we should be using, if there were a way to consistently enforce some other standard in consensus discussions. There isn't one.

It's interesting we've switched from 'politics is downstream of culture' to 'culture is downstream of politics' and politics is just whatever elites decide.

Maybe, but from my perspective this is little more than the logical outcome of letting the Left-wing/Rousseauean mindset run unchecked. If your whole model of society is predicated on the idea that all social conventions and contracts are "imposed" upon an unwilling populace by "the elite" how could you arrive at another conclusion?

I think the causality flows the other way, when you're losing the idea that the whole game is rigged is really attractive. People see their values/aesthetic preferences losing popularity and their group losing status and want to find reasons to declare this illegitimate. The elite conspiracy position then becomes appealing. Fixation on elite-imposed values and manufactured consent as proof the game is rigged and there's no point in playing it is naturally the domain of the fringes who need to rationalize not moderating to gain popularity.

I think it's mistaken to conflate the broad idea of an external locus of control with elite control. There are lots of external forces that you can point to that influence individual or group behavior that aren't completely subject to elite control, market forces, and technological progress for example. You're setting up an internal vs. external locus of control axis, but there's also a separate tendency (cough cough The Paranoid Tendency) to view this external influence as the highly coordinated outcome of decisions made by a small set of human agents rather than as an uncoordinated cross-product of technological, environmental, and economic forces with some human agency acting at pivot points where path dependency is influential.

I have to disagree. external loci of control really is a hell of a drug, and it makes the notion of elite control obviously correct.

But it also falls apart the moment you introduce a potential alternative. After all what is "elite"?

As uncharitable as it may seem the old "NPC" meme has a certain amount of merit because the sort of Londoner or New Yorker who goes on about the BBC or NYT being "arbiters of credibility" genuinely seems to lack ability to not believe what they read in the newspaper. As 0 HP Lovecraft observes, the possibility that they may be lied to (or that they might not immediately detect an obvious lie) just doesn't occur to the average rationalist.

It was imposed by law. You haven't seen photos of 101st Airborne escorting blacks into a white school ?

That's not quite fair, they also escorted white students.

Is that really a picture of soldiers threatening a school child with bayonets? It's almost unbelievable that it's not staged or faked. Can't believe I've never seen this before.

Yeah. There’s also a bunch from the preceding days with the state National Guard blocking out black children. And a few of boring, unarmed segregationists following them around and booing.

These were the tactical moves in a broader state-vs-federal, south-vs-everyone-else power struggle. Maneuvering for photo ops was the name of the game, especially once the armed forces were involved.

It was "staged" in the sense that the pro segregation crowd went in with the full knowledge of the army's orders and were probably hoping to get this picture or something very similar plastered across the front page of every newspaper but that doesn't make it "fake".

Went in and did what?

Try to start a fight or make a scene

I guess to protest and make a scene, apparently with the knowledge of the optics of being held back at gunpoint by the Screaming Eagles(?).

As it turns out, nobody cared -- even back then -- if you fix bayonets and aim your rifles at an unarmed white kid. Optics is what the media says it is.

Public attitudes are downstream of power. What changed was legislation and court rulings establishing a new ideological regime, and endowing it with the power to enforce its preferences and inflict penalties on violators. The long arm of the law will reach right into your brain, and you won't even know it's there.

Legislation in a democracy is somewhat downstream of public opinion as well. How did the majority that enacted the civil rights act get elected?

Elections in a democracy are downstream of whatever is on TV.

That doesn't explain why Roe v Wade didn't result in a similar widespread change in attitudes towards abortion.

Wasn't it illegal in every state before Roe vs Wade? Seems like there's been a pretty massive shift in opinion since even though there are still people who oppose abortion.

Roe v. Wade p. 118 n. 2 lists only thirty states that at the time had laws prohibiting abortion. See also Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health slip op. pp. 23–24 ("By the end of the 1950s, according to [a source cited in Roe v. Wade], statutes in all but four States and the District of Columbia prohibited abortion 'however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother'.").

Wikipedia so grain of salt etc, but legal in 4, illegal with exceptions for rape, incest, mother's health or nonviable fetus in 13, illegal with exceptions for risk to mother's health in 2, illegal with exception for rape in 1, illegal with exception for risk to mother's life in 29, illegal no exceptions in 1.

I'm not aware of any pre-Roe public polling on abortion, but the earliest polling data came just two years after Roe. Since then, there's been no significant change. So unless public opinion on this important moral question massively changed in two years and held steady since then, I think it's more reasonable to assume that Roe changed nothing about people's public opinion.

By point of comparison, public opinion on interracial marriage gradually changed from before and after anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the court in 1967 in Loving v Virginia.

Wasn't it illegal in every state before Roe vs Wade?

No. Only Pennsylvania prohibited abortion in all circumstances.

Twenty nine states (Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) only permitted abortion in the case of danger to the mother's life.

One state (Mississippi) only permitted abortion in cases of rape.

Two states (Alabama and Massachusetts) permitted abortion in the case of danger to the mother's health, which especially in the case of MA resulted in essentially abortion at will because mental distress was classified a danger to the mother's health.

Thirteen states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, and South Carolina) permitted abortion in cases of rape, incest, likely damage to the fetus, or danger to the mother's health.

Four states (Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington) permitted abortion at a physician's discretion.

Thanks, I had no idea. I tried to google it but kept coming up with news articles about how women had to have illegal abortions. But it sounds like it would have been pretty accessible if you were willing to take a road trip?

IIRC the abortion bans were informally enforced with a wink wink nudge nudge in lots of states, too- california seems to have been particularly known for that.

Worth noting that out of the 4 legal states, Hawaii, Washington and Alaska also had a requirement of at least 30 days residency in state first. Only New York would have been a "road trip" option (though I suppose Hawaii was already ruled out of that regardless of the law).

Because Roe v. Wade wasn't similar. There was no unified post-Roe regime; different states had different abortion standards, and the federal government never threw its weight around on the issue as it did with so many other issues. Governors weren't sending the National Guard to carry women into abortion clinics, the FBI wasn't starting anti-abortion task forces to infiltrate and destroy pro-life groups, or any of the other measures the state used to enforce the racial regime of the Civil Rights Act.

But then you’re doubling down on any self-segregation. It’s the same with black-on-black violence: targets are rarely chosen from the general population, but from those close to the perpetrator.

Plus, there’s a difference between accepting other interracial marriages and feeling such attraction yourself.

the rot set in

I gladly accept the "rot" of not having Catholic moralists imprisoning people for distributing condoms. We should be very hesitant to use the police powers of the state to enforce rules at the point of a gun.

I know. Even things as little as parking rules are enforced by the credible threat of armed teams dragging you off to jail or shooting you if you absolutely refuse to comply.

I think some people are much too quick to advocate making all sorts of things illegal. That's saying "I want this rule enforced at gunpoint".

Without that threat, nobody would follow the rules.

Some people will return shopping carts. Others will block spaces with them. I think the tendency is mainly genetic, and that some peoples can get pretty far without threatening each other into decent behavior.

More comments

The counterpoint is that without a unified set of rules, you cannot build the high trust society that creates high civilization. If I believe that prostitution is just fine, and you don’t, this is a place where I cannot build a bridge. If we can’t agree on the basic shape of our moral life, what we build is not a unified national identity but a series of squabbling tribes each trying to take for itself the benefits available while denying them to everyone else.

Okay. I'll accept Brazil levels of low trust and social cohesion if it keeps the Pope from deciding where my penis goes and if I may put a condom on it. If moral busybodies and hard rejection of live-and-let-live were the glue holding society together, then we'll have to pay that ugly price to keep the government out of my bedroom.

The pope is not the only authority on the subject.

In the long run, the choice is between Sharia law and white Sharia.

While Brazil is coming to North-America, it was always over there if that's what you wanted.

It's not that ugly of a price, at worst few thousands dollars to move to your ideal society.

I think his point was that you don’t really have that choice- you have the choice between the pope telling you where you can stick your penis, and woke moralists doing the same thing.

It does seem like the woke have replaced the religious right as America's disapproving schoolmarms. I oppose them both and will maintain a consistent civil libertarian stance.

Though I rather doubt that opposing religious moral busybodies necessarily leads to progressive moral busybodies.

And I very much doubt that woke moralists will ever legally compel me to put my penis in someone I don't like. I'm married and monogamous. Noone can make me have sex with transwomen, etc.

More comments

Fifty years? My brother in Christ, we’re talking about the whole Enlightenment.

Back in the good ol’ days, moral outrage was less likely to decide your fate than plague or starvation. As state capacity grew and the world shrank, maybe that became less true. By the time of the European Wars of Religion, a little intolerance was able to deal a lot more damage.

It turns out enshrining some sort of tolerance frees up surplus. Common cause to deal with the real enemy, perhaps, or simply peace for those weary of war. The philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries went to great lengths to justify cooperation instead of defection. Sometimes they even succeeded, for a while, until the incentives to defect piled up.

By the American Revolution, states professed a morality of high-minded ideals. These dominated because they gave a real, material advantage over states with low tolerance. America’s North was willing to tolerate both the moral evil and the political threat of the South, because most people involved saw the sanctity of the Union as more valuable. When war came, millions bled.

The next century saw America rise to power as a (relatively) unified bloc. The more dire an outside threat, the more benefit could be gained from tolerating those close to you. Other comments note how WWII made major strides in American race relations, since an African American was still no Kraut. Across the globe, this was the century of ideological alliances, a first, second and third world. And the first world, the one preaching Enlightenment ideals, was the victor.

Pope Francis said that a man’s gayness was less important than whether “he searches for the Lord and has good will.” That framing of tolerance has always been one of the great advantages of Christianity.

I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.

1 Corinthians 3:5.

On the other hand, actual discrimination has taken a steep nosedive even if most people still harbor some racial prejudices and attitudes, so clearly something changed.

I don't think Emett Till's murder is comparable to contemporary murder by a jealous husband. Roy Bryant did not make an attempt to conceal his identity when he abducted Hill, and the people Till was staying with did not resist his abduction. My guess is that they did not believe that Till would be killed, that he would be abducted and whipped but let live. That is what J.W. Milam would tell a journalist their intentions were afterwards in his published confession in Look Magazine (though the FBI doesn't think the timeline he laid out there works given the distances he would have had to travel) It is also what the lawyer for the prosecution in Till's trial would say was the appropriate punishment for his transgression. Bryant and Milam were not even indicted for kidnapping even though they had confessed to it before the trial.

This suggests that there was a social convention that white men could abduct and non-lethally punish black men and boys. If they had just kidnapped and whipped him they would likely not even have been charged. Murder crossed a line such that they were tried, but an all white jury would still acquit them.

They were arrested for kidnapping but they weren't charged with it.

You've brought up two examples where arguments escalated into impulsive shootings where the people were caught immediately and plead guilty. That's not indicative of a belief that you have a socially agreed upon right to do this violence without punishment. Your third example is a drive by with no details of how the shooter was caught. A drive by may be a poor attempt to conceal identity but it's still an attempt.

Bryant and Milam acted days after Till's alleged whistling and in a premeditated fashion and still took no action to conceal their identities from Mose Wright when they knocked on his door (except for threatening him) and asked him to identify Till. Till's family did not resist except to offer a bribe, because they knew resisting would bring greater punishment and because they expected Till to be whipped but not killed, as the prosecutor suggested was the appropriate punishment for Till.

Yes men across different cultures do violence to restore honor. The difference is that this was a caste system where there was a socially understood right for white men to restore their honor with violence against a black child without resistance from that child's family and go unpunished by the state or society. That's nothing like two guys shooting each other in the club over a girl and then pleading guilty and being sentenced to 25 years.

I know that you want to believe this, but the evidence seems to suggest the opposite. They were immediately arrested, suggesting that kidnapping was not acceptable.

They were acquitted by an all white Jury suggesting they correctly predicted that they did not need to hide their identities because it was acceptable to the people who would be in the jury. They were not punished.

In the case of the Fire Chief they dropped charges because he claims to have used pepper spray in self defense on the man who beat him, but there's video of someone who looks like him using bear spray on a sleeping homeless person. The fire chief also won't testify in court, so the local prosecutor thinks they'll lose since the homeless person will claim self defence after being pepper sprayed on a public sidewalk. Both he and the transient appear white in the video. I'd like to see the local prosecutor be more aggressive but this doesn't seem like much of a case of a racial caste system.

There was a manhunt for the black man who fired at the white child grazing her cheek and police obtained warrants for counts of attempted murder first degree. He is in custody now. The white guy who shot the black teen and sent him to the hospital was allowed to go free on bail and has been charged with first degree assault. The legal system seems to have acted appropriately. Biden commented on the controversial case where someone was seriously injured and not on the uncontroversial case where someone was grazed.

The Alameda County DA issued a blanket memo (not benefiting any particular race) saying that prosecutors should not use sentence enhancements and seek the lowest available prison term, with an exception for sex crimes against children and murder. Jasper Wu's killers all have been charged with murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, possession of a firearm and two of them with conspiracy to commit a crime and "criminal street gang conspiracy". Google says the penalty for murder in CA is 25 years to life, so not exactly non-carceral.

The second paragraph of your 'mutual conflict' story says three charges were brought on one of the individuals involved and the State's Attorney says that the didn't invoke mutual conflict and CPD mischaracterized them. I'm don't know much about how self defense rights work in the case of large gun battles but it seems complicated to resolve who is the aggressor and who is legally defending themselves without video footage.

These are generic soft on crime stuff and not evidence of a contemporary racial caste system.

More comments

From the stories my grandparents have told, quite a lot changed in terms of day to day discrimination.

On the other hand, actual discrimination has taken a steep nosedive even if most people still harbor some racial prejudices and attitudes, so clearly something changed.

I take issue with the notion that actual discrimination has taken a steep nosedive.

I've lost contracts, both public and private, due to my race and my sex ("sorry, you've been fantastic, but we have a big push to switch to all woman-owned vendors"). And while I didn't choose to go to university, my children may as well not even apply to many elite institutions for the penalties held against them due to their skin color, their academic merit notwithstanding.

My town was hit hard by its own self-imposed lockdown, so they decided to subsidize new businesses in the downtown area by paying for much of the first year's rent, renovation costs, etc. Except, whoops, only for women and 'minorities' (which incidentally whites are in my state of California, but I guess that doesn't count). I've seen scarce medical care withheld from whites in favor of prioritizing members of 'marginalized communities'.

I've seen white men lie about being Chinese women to get their writing published. I've seen others agree that persons of their race should stop making creative content because "we've had our time and it's their turn now." I've seen major media producers explicitly announce that it is now against policy to make shows and movies about white families and communities for not being 'representative' enough.

I've seen white women express that it would be wrong for them to reproduce, and instead wax lyrical about adopting 'brown babies'. I've seen judges decide that Christians shouldn't be allowed to adopt children for their failure to conform to modern gender ideology.

I've seen schoolchildren emotionally destroyed over the guilt and hatred heaped upon them due to what 'their' ancestors purportedly did. I've seen gifted kids lose access to advanced education because the demographics of those who qualified weren't equitable enough and this might disadvantage the children who really matter. I've seen teachers penalized or forced into resignation for disciplining too many of the wrong type of children. I've seen whole fields of study at every level of education, some quite venerable and august; some, I would say, absolutely vital to our society; neutered or destroyed because they are too thoroughly associated with the wrong kind of ethnicity.

I've seen the media lynch white (and, actually, Asian) people for self-defense because the presumption of guilt can only run one way. I've seen police officers crucified for defending themselves and others against armed, dangerous, and aggressive blacks who sometimes were in the literal act of attempting to murder others. I've seen whites refuse to report crimes, even those which did them great damage, because they've been so brainwashed into thinking that it is somehow morally correct for them to do so by the education system, the media, and the state. I've seen communities burned, laid to waste, and seen this called justice because it was done in the name of the 'oppressed'.

I've seen governments refuse to hamper heinous criminal activity, from property crime to mass organized rape of children, because the perpetrators have what our old friend Autistic Thinker might have called 'Tropical privilege'.

I could keep going on, for quite some time, and we all know it.

Discrimination is pervasive, overt, systemic, and often explicitly codified.

Perhaps I should rephrase: actual discrimination against nonwhites has taken a nosedive. Given that that was the topic of the thread, I assumed I didn’t need to specify.

instead of nosediving it looks more like the polarity