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 -
Suella Bravermans Tory conference speech caught my attention as it seems to more bluntly come out anti-immigration and she specifically says don’t be afraid of being called racists. Here is the key quote with a lot of other red meat in the speech.
'The wind of change that carried my own parents across the globe in the 20th century was a mere gust compared to the hurricane that is coming.'
As far as I can tell Sunak did not slam immigration as much. He did have one-nanny state policy of banning cigarettes (which I sort of support) but was also very clear on gender ideology (a man is a man a women is a women parts). A politician would not have those two policies in America.
Back to Braverman there are a few things I find interesting. The specific phrase “hurricane” seems to have far more meaning to my long term views on Europe and immigration. Along with her using the term economic migrants. Africa’s population is the one place in the world with absolutely booming population. In the next 50 or so years the amount of people acting in their own best interest and economically migrating should absolutely boom. There will be a hurricane of migrants.
The issue for Europe and I do believe in HBD is the desire to economically migrate won’t disappear because the economic gaps between Europe and Africa won’t disappear. And while some of these people will end up being quite smart and successful there will be an addition of a large low hbd population.
The end result of this would be a South Africanization of Europe. If my view of this is correct and I do think demographics are destiny then I expect as time goes by and the negatives of mass immigration become more apparent that eventually Europe will fully adopt Bravermans views. The question is will they realize this before it’s too late. Europe already has their right wing political parties gaining support all thru Europe.
I do not see the same sort of risks for the US. South Americas population doesn’t have the same boom dynamics. And the US has shown an ability to partially integrate Hispanic communities into US society. The data I’ve seen in the past has the Hispanic community eventually reaching mean white criminality levels of the US but with far lower educational attainment. I believe we should reduce illegal immigration but I don’t see the same fears of immigration as I would have if I lived in Europe.
The other thing I find interesting is the rise of Indian voices in right wing voices. Sunak, Braverman, Ramaswamy. I have my theories on this - one is a fluke, two is a coincidence, 3 is a pattern.
Article includes video of the key quotes https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-andrew-boff-home-secretary-labour-tories-b1111176.html
Completely unrelated and not worth it’s own post this caught my eye today as I have no idea what it means. El Chapo’s son bans any fentanyl in northern Mexico https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/el-chapos-sons-allegedly-ban-fentanyl-production-northern-mexico
Could be nothing. Could indicate a CIA/Sinaloa deal.
Edit: wouldn’t be surprised if people find the fentanyl stuff more interesting. It seems this was the catalyst.
https://insightcrime.org/news/extradition-fentanyl-prohibition-mexico-tries-counterdrug-reset/
That Indian (politicians) in the UK have gone anti-immigration doesn't shock me. As a group, they are wealthy, well-educated, law-abiding and immune to accusations of hating brown people. They're natural Tories. Of course, that doesn't mean they actually reduce legal or illegal immigration, they just talk stridently about it.
What I'm curious about is why so many of the native Tories (Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron) were so open-bordery. Aristocratic disdain for the native proles? Desire for cheaper servants? Regular cosmopolitan posturing?
Maybe because they genuinely believe it is the best thing for Britain?
This is so fucking boring, and at least an uncharitable as 'accusations of hating brown people' towards anti-migration politicians.
It would be easier for me to be sympathetic to the open border case if British politicians ever actually made that case.
Instead they strongly argue that we must reduce immigration for myriad reasons, and then immediately increase it.
Even pro-immigrationists don't seem to make a case for it, they just make the case against any type of restriction or enforcement of the law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link