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 -
Immigration rates would have to fall by at least 80% for Canada to have a chance, no Western country has ever reduced immigration by even half that amount in recent (post-1980) history. Even Denmark has only held steady (numbers shot up last year, but mainly because they took 35,000 Ukrainian refugees), and Danish polices of forced assimilation, tracking the population of "MENAP" (essentially all Muslim countries) descent, paying people to go home and banning almost all asylum seekers from ever settling permanently are almost unimaginable for Canada.
To give you an idea, the anti-immigration movement in Denmark won in 2001 and non-Western immigration continued to rise through 2019. It took almost 20 years for them to fully grasp the levers of power. The all time asylum seeker record intake was in October 2015. And this is in a country where it is considered broadly politically acceptable to say "the majority of people in Denmark should be 'Danish-minded'" (the term is translated directly, indirectly it essentially means ethnic Danes). Imagine a mainstream CPC politician saying "the majority of Canadians should remain ethnically French or Anglo-Saxon". They might well be expelled from parliament. Even the hardcore Quebec nationalists on the far right of the PQ dance around this stuff.
The Canadian Tories have mulled maybe possibly potentially possibly reducing immigration by "a bit". In reality, the most they seem likely to accomplish is keeping numbers where they are (a feat given family reunification is an ever-expanding process by default, especially without US-style caps on greencard numbers by country of origin). That's 2.2 million immigrants a year (900,000 of which are students, but only 40% of international students seem to leave Canada upon graduation) in a country of 38 million people.
Yeah, demographics are like that. The bullet has already been fired. It just hasn't hit the target yet.
Canada is already a white minority country, they just don't know it yet. Every year the cohort that dies is nearly 100% white, while the cohort which is born is less white every year. Even if all immigration stopped tomorrow, this wouldn't change.
And even if the Conservative party won every seat tomorrow, all that would happen is a slow reduction in the extremely high rate of immigration.
The die is cast. Now we just watch the natural progression of the inevitable.
It remains to be seen what type of country Canada will turn into, since it's never been tried before. Their immigration has, until recently, been very favorable. So I don't think they are going to come Brazilified, like the United States will. Maybe a mix of Indian, Chinese, and white people could eventually become mixed together into a new Canadian national identity.
A major confounding factor would seem to be fertility rates, is it not? Chinese and Indian immigrants seem to have really low fertility, even compared to native whites(and Canada has plenty of red tribers even if they’re a minority, so it seems like there should be a white and aboriginal demographic core that keeps on chugging).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link