Maybe, and not too temporary [Ed note: It was permanent]. Due to some resource issues with our domain host, I am having to cut down on bandwidth. Since this site is currently inactive, it’s a good way to save .2GB of bandwidth a day.

The site will come back up, maybe/hopefully with new content, in a couple of weeks.

I will be monitoring site activity over the next day or two and will make a decision then.

Category: Elsewhere

About the Author

19 Responses to Hit Coffee Temporarily Going Dry

  1. dan d says:

    But they keep telling my I’m crazy for think that support for immigration is motivated hatred of me and everything I enjoy. And it’s not a fringe comment 257,000 agreed with it.

  2. Trumwill says:

    I think you’re being overly sensitive here. My wife and I talked about the bland food of ruralia quite regularly, and even if one is skeptical of immigration in general food is one area where they do and always have been a cultural benefit.

  3. dand says:

    This is far from the only think but I’ve rarely seen it in writing in so few words. It’s the double standard that angers me. When working class people are uncomfortable with immigrant changing they’re as bad a Nazi’s but it’s ok for hipster to wear “Keep Austin Weird” t-shirts. It’s ok for hipsters to only want to be around people who share their culture but not proles. Hipsters constantly complain about the people in their home town most of whom have less social capital. I’m sick college educated urbanites acting like oppressed victim because people of lower social capital don’t like them. They talk about punching up then don’t like it when people punch up at them. Why are people outraged at mere existence of a chick-fil-a in Manhattan?

    It would be easier to write stuff like this off if people like this weren’t destroying the industries the people they’re mocking depend on, or passing soda taxes and plastic straw bans.

    Here’ an Ivy League professor saying that his side has won the culture and promising to punish the poles.

    • trumwill says:

      That Tushnet piece comes up pretty regularly in a couple chat groups I am a part of. I don’t think in and of itself is responsible for anything, but it certainly represents something that invited backlash.

      That said, a lot of what you’re referring to is the difference between cultural and racial responses. I think people often conflate the two too much and act like there is no reason for trepidation but racism, but when it comes to a lot of the people who are saying it’s actually about culture… I just don’t believe them. Just like I didn’t believe people when they said that they weren’t against immigration just illegal immigration right up until it came to reducing legal immigration levels which something like 90% of them favored.

      I agree the CFA stuff is pretty ridiculous.

    • Brandon Berg says:

      When working class people are uncomfortable with immigrant changing they’re as bad a Nazi’s but it’s ok for hipster to wear “Keep Austin Weird” t-shirts.

      I’ve been thinking about this recently, too. Many of the very same people who are throwing bricks at Google buses, or protesting “gentrification” in slightly less thuggish ways, nevertheless vigorously object to, as far as I can tell, any restrictions at all on immigration.

      What is a gentrifier but an immigrant to your neighborhood? Heightening the hypocrisy is the fact that many of the people riding those Google buses are actual immigrants from Asia, Europe, and even Latin America and Africa.

      I’m pretty strongly pro-immigration myself, but it’s hard to take their support for immigration seriously when they’re so vehemently opposed to immigration to their own cities.

  4. dand says:

    Look at the response to large scale Polish immigration in the UK, or look at the reaction to white immigration a century ago. I think langue plays a large role, I live in an area that’s a mix of working class whites(including a number of polish immigrants) Hispanic immigrants and native born Hispanics most of the people who have concerns about immigration based around langue have no problem with US born Hispanics. This mainly applies to people on the ground more than members of the pundit class.

    • Dr X says:

      I’m a bit skeptical that there is such a sharp divide in attitudes based on English mastery or lack thereof. I wonder if lack of English mastery, rather than being the cause of hostility, is instead a rationalization for negative attitudes that can be more freely expressed once there is a rationale that emphasizes a difference other than explicit racial or ethnic difference.

      It just seems to me that there’s something overwrought in the hostile reactions to language–a powerful resentment that exceeds any reality of inconvenience these foreign language speakers create. Is it unreasonable to ask what it is that powers the great contempt that I sometimes see for the person whose facility with English is limited?

      I’m second gen American, my grandparents were immigrants. One grandmother was here for 70 of her 90 years and, up until her death, spoke very poor English. The other grandparents did better with English. My parents are bilingual and my generation is English only, even though we heard both languages spoken at home every day. When I hear the contempt for someone like my grandmother, I wonder “how the F did she harm you?” She worked her butt off, she made cheaper clothing available to Americans, she produced four hardworking, law-abiding children who contributed not only in their work, but as volunteers in charitable causes. Between my parents generation and mine, there was a lot of military service and millions in taxes paid. Her grandchildren are successful in business, various professions and the arts. So what was the harm my grandmother caused with her limited English?

      I do know that when my grandparents came to this country and for decades after their arrival, they were considered to be of inferior genetic stock. There were stereotypes and jokes about their stupidity that I heard all the time during my childhood. Considering today’s more widely accepted social prohibitions of racial and ethnic bigotry, I think it’s fair to ask if lack of English mastery is the acceptable proxy for ethnic or racial bigotry when admitting such bigotry, to others or to oneself, is no longer acceptable to self-respecting and respectable people.

  5. dand says:

    IN 2000 the GSS asked about immigration from different places,there was almost no difference between Europe and Latin America.

    • dand says:


      1: INCREASED A LOT 3.1


      3: LEFT THE SAME AS IT IS NOW 55.0

      4: DECREASED A LITTLE 17.3

      5: DECREASED A LOT 17.8


      1: INCREASED A LOT 3.1


      3: LEFT THE SAME AS IT IS NOW 46.8

      4: DECREASED A LITTLE 21.2

      5: DECREASED A LOT 23.0


      1: INCREASED A LOT 2.8


      3: LEFT THE SAME AS IT IS NOW 48.2

      4: DECREASED A LITTLE 19.9

      5: DECREASED A LOT 23.0

      So people were more open to white immigration but not by much.

      • trumwill says:

        I would be interested in seeing those numbers today. Immigration wasn’t as touchy an issue then as it is now. Border hawks were a lot more lonely then. George W Bush was reinventing the party by speaking Spanish, and so on.

        Or maybe the numbers are actually the same. Even if so, that’s still about 10% of the population and a 33% increase in the opposition, if you look at the numbers that way. And that doesn’t cover increased intensity as well as the voices dominating the discussion on the border hawk side.

        Or, put another way, I don’t think the person who answers “Decrease” in the above poll is necessarily particularly racist, but a lot of the loudest people in the discussion often are, as are people who vote specifically on that issue.

        Which leaves us in a place where opposition to immigration isn’t inherently racist… but a lot of it is. Which has long been my position: You don’t have to be racist to steadfastly oppose immigration, but it helps.

        That said, your point about the Polish is well-taken and a reason why we should talk more in terms of “xenophobia” than “racism” as such when we talk about such things. And a different kind of xenophobia than “I don’t like yuppies.”

  6. dan d says:

    At last check there 76,000+ people liked the tweet so it’s not a fringe statement.

    Talking about “white privilege” is nothing more than a polite way of saying “low status whites are losers worthy of scorn who deserve to live in misery”. The contemporary left is nothing more than people using anti-racism as a mask to cover their seething hatred of those beneath them. The guillotines can’t come out too soon.

  7. trumwill says:

    Account suspended. Don’t know what it says.

    But there are indeed quite a few people who believe that low status whites deserve their misery. That’s unfortunate, and it’s an attitude I’ve criticized in the past and I get less pushback to my objections than your impression would suggest.

    Had a conversation about that view here, actually, and the hard core Democratic partisan and the hard lefty were both sympathetic to my objection.

    So equating anti-racism efforts and/or discussion of “white privilege” is a category error, in my experience.

  8. dan d says:

    A vox writer basically admits that is based on his pathological hatred of middle America, people like him are the reason I’ve become an immigration hardliner. Him and his ilk see immigration as tool for destroying everything they hate and i like.

  9. dan d says:

    Saul Degraw says

    But from what I’ve seen of xenophobes, they dislike the idea of living near people especially people different from them.

    This from the guy who has repeatedly stated that he would never live in Nebraska because the residents don’t have his highbrow cultural tastes and defended people who don’t want to live in rural areas. College educated urban liberals only want to live around people who are like them.

    Late Saul talks about who Montana could have more people in it and still be less dense than California. Does it not occur to him that people who live in Montana like the fact that it has a low population density? Saul simply hates the things that like and wants to see them destroyed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

If you are interested in subscribing to new post notifications,
please enter your email address on this page.