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 -
I view western civilization as an idea and not a people.
I would best describe myself as a Christian and an old school neoliberal. I wouldn’t disagree with immigration at all if I believed in blank slatism.
I don’t have any issues with colonialism. But that’s because I think there are group differences in IQ.
Your idea of western civilization makes no sense. Democracy and being colonized are incompatible.
And also other basic human rights. Colonialism, and foreign conquest comes along and this applies today too with discrimination at their expense, demonization of their history, with the colonized being second class people. There can be more or less nasty versions of it, but it tends to be nasty.
Also, like western people carry their culture and sense of ancestry with them, so do people outside of western civilization who will bring their civilization with them and under the logic where western civilization is particularly guilty, it is going to be imposed. People carry civilization with them and those who support colonialism at their expense lack the attitude of those who manage in small numbers to assimilate foreign ethnic groups by imposing to them the native identity. This aint happening.
Of course western civilization did have a history of colonilization but at the expense of others.
When it was western (in the broad sense)countries being colonized, lets say that democracy didn't work well. The results of being under the thrall of Ottomans, Communists (with overepresentation of certain smart ethnic groups). Quite different to supporting being colonized yourself.
Also, the Germans have historically been more successful than their neighbors. Even now Germany has an important lead in patents per capita. Japan has also been much more successful in modernity than China. And yet their empires were rather oppressive and bloody. Being smart or even smarter than others does not give you a right to control their country and property, the smart slave master becomes an oppressor.
Of course, there is much to say about the historical trajectory of colonialism. Whether the Communist, or nazi or Italian fascist, or Japanese imperialist version it worked awfully with a litany of warcrimes. While other forms of colonialism which were more of a mixed bag included their own share of human rights abuses.
You aren't really making any sense and your dismissal of the enormous agency problems of foreigners mistreating those foreign to theirs betrays a lack of understanding of history. Or that you don't care about massive abuses that are the result of your pro colonialism ideology.
I find it funny that in the overton window of many in the motte colonialism is more kosher than immigration restrictionism. This type of political correctness to neoconservatism both lacks a moral highground and leads to the destruction of the people who abide by them. If you are going to be immoral, at least being selfish immoral is more understandable to me. This is worst of both worlds. Colonialism is good... now that it is at my expense.
The fact that over 90% of new corporate jobs of S and P 100 in accordance to bloomberg have went to nonwhites after BLM isn't only bad because of the IQ/HBD issue!
Property rights are superior to commie extremism in class, and national group rights are superior to the alternative which as we see ends up aligning with the evils of colonialism. Thank you for helping me make my point of where that logic leads to. An International justice which is about national self determination, sovereignity and nation states respecting each other rights, is the best system humanity has come with, and is a more moral and even progressive (but not leftist) force than multinational empites, or marxist nationalism that plays a motte and bailey between pretensions of universalism but also allowing tribalism and targeting specifically right wing associated ethnic groups for destruction and discrimination, by making their tribalism as specifically immoral.
Democracy and being colonized are not incompatible if intelligence isn’t equal between groups. In that case a utilitarian argument is fine for colonization.
Not it is incompatible, even when intelligence isn't equal between groups. You seem to be operating with a model of colonization that is hypothetical and not how it ends up applying in practice, and how it worked historically.
On net colonization was good. Your trying to make me own anything that was bad during the process which I do disagree with.
Most of the ex colonized world is doing better without colonization so no. Also, the benefits of colonizations relate to things that can be done without colonization, like the spread of institutions and technology. Funnilly enough, some places on net benefited from colonization and then also on net benefited from kicking the colonizers out which set up extractive institutions.
Things are quite different in a world which is already interconnected. At the end of the day you are proposing something much worse.
And Japanese imperialism and nazi and Soviet imperialism is part of the history of colonization.
Also colonization is incompatible with democracy for the colonized. You do own the bad things about colonization since you support it.
I do think there are certain areas of the world that are so badly governed and incompetent that they would benefit if they let competent foreigners run more things. But colonization includes in it quite more than that, and a framework of being dominated by a foreign empire which does tend to relate to abuses of the native population. That is different from eing self determinant but hiring competent foreigners to build things and run but still loyal to your nation state. Such arrangements are probably better off for various african countries than trying to make it so blacks run everything. What is happening with China building things there for example.
I don't think you disagree with the bad aspects of colonialism in the way you expressed yourself.
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
What's the idea, and how long does it take to inculcate? Because if it's significantly illegible or otherwise complex to transfer to new populations, which seems likely, you can still break it with a population transfer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link