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 -
UK, are you OK?
Labour councillor calls for people to 'cut the throats' of 'Nazis and fascists'
Suspended Labour councillor arrested over video ‘urging people to cut throats’
Probably anyone reading this is familiar with the story so far: three gradeschool children in Southport were knifed to death, and ten others injured, on July 29th at a Taylor Swift-themed holiday club. The alleged perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, is reportedly the son of Rwandan immigrants and was 17 years old at the time of the incident, but has apparently since passed his 18th birthday. The events, allegedly in part as the result of some false reporting concerning Axel's identity, led to a number of protests, which led to a number of counterprotests.
Why would you counterprotest a protest against the knifing of schoolgirls? Well, apparently the original protests were racist. It's pretty important to not be racist. Sufficiently important, I suppose, that people would rather talk about that, than about the dead schoolchildren who, but for recent immigration from Africa, would likely still be alive. Not that Axel is an immigrant, of course. He was born on the magic soil of the UK, so it's apparently racist to notice that his parents weren't. I saw one article suggesting he might be autistic? Good sources are hard to find.
That brings us to the current events! Labour councillor Ricky Jones apparently found some inspiration in Axel's extracurricular activities, as he is very clearly articulating additional knife violence as the proper response to people protesting the murder of little girls. I actually had a surprisingly difficult time finding the original video; most of the articles throwing around the word "alleged" did not judge me fit to judge for myself. I assume Ricky was born tone deaf because throat cutting seems like an especially poor choice of words given the circumstances--though I guess I don't know for certain that Axel managed any literal throat cutting in the process of (EDIT: ALLEGEDLY) butchering schoolchildren. The UK does not have any particularly meaningful or toothy Free Speech legislation, either, though in this particular case I can imagine Mr. Jones facing consequences even here in the United States. Remind me, is it still okay to call for the punching of U.S. Nazis? Was it ever? I seem to have lost track.
Axel's knifework is not being treated as a terrorist attack (yet?), but here's where things get weird.
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:
Taylor Swift shows in Vienna canceled over alleged planned terrorist attack
Suspects in foiled attack on Taylor Swift shows were inspired by Islamic State group, officials say
Will we hear more about Axel's motivations? I suppose Taylor Swift is just so famous that at this point any plot to kill large numbers of people would, statistically, run into Taylor Swift events eventually. But now I'm wondering if Axel was just, you know, reading the same weird terrorist handbook as the Austrian terrorists. They were even the same age--the two arrested in Vienna are 19 years old and 17 years old. If I had a nickel for every time a 17 year old boy tried to murder Swifties en masse, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice!
I'm sure much smarter and well-connected analysts out there are way ahead of me on this one. And probably it's nothing! And it wouldn't really matter if it was something, beyond maybe bankrupting a handful of Taylor Swift event ticket scalpers in the near future. But it's all very weird.
Especially the part where counterprotesters started literally calling for and cheering on more knifings.
The anti-immigration argument expressed in this post seems too strong. It seems to be along the lines of if there is any kind of downside from immigration then immigration is bad. But I don't think this is a realistic benchmark for any government policy. The positives have to be weighed against the negatives. Maybe certain classes of immigrants are net-negative and a better immigration policy would be able to discriminate against these people but I don't think the UK is at the point where all immigration is net-negative.
There's a bit of a weasel going on with this argument.
I am actually willing to admit that immigration taken completely as a blind, nonspecific, aggregated economic phenomenon is probably a net positive, although this assumes an overly simplified utility function/value system. And perhaps ignores likely long-term second-order effects.
But the negatives (increased housing costs, increased crime, depressed wages for low-skill labor, and loss of social trust) are almost entirely borne by the middle and lower economic classes. They can't afford to move to native enclaves and they have much less political influence to keep immigrants out of their existing communities.
The positives will disproportionately accrue to the upper class professionals/elites whose skilled jobs are not threatened, who can send their kids to selective private schools and can use their clever NIMBY policies to keep the actual immigrants away without triggering accusations of racism. And the neighborhoods they live in are already too expensive for immigrants anyway so it doesn't even put much upward pressure on their housing costs. Cheaper labor and goods and political influence and the warm and fuzzy feeling of giving a disadvantaged minority a leg up are all unalloyed goods for them, so of course they will continue to support the same policy.
And this is of course exacerbated if the government's formal or informal policy is to favor immigrants for monetary handouts, jobs and/or slots in the good schools. Or if they implement policing/justice policies that treat immigrants with kid gloves while natives get the full force of the law.
Cheaper labor costs is generally a benefit to a nation so long as it translates to lower prices for critical, basic goods and services. But the specific kind of labor immigrants provide in this case is almost universally unskilled, which means both that high-skilled (i.e. the kind that produces the most value/unit!!!!) labor does NOT become cheaper... and in some cases demand for skilled labor like doctors or bankers will increase with immigration which will push those prices UP! Immigrants need medical care and financial services regardless of their contribution to society.
So the phrase "immigration is a net positive" can be true in a broad sense but still not accurately describe how the actual citizenry experience it in their day-to-day lives.
If it turns out that it's a net negative for ~50% of the population, an almost neutral factor for another 30%, and then a MAJOR benefit for that last 20%, overall it could be characterized as a positive if you collapse it down. But then the question is *why should 50% of your countrymen be forced to absorb the costs?"
And more to the point, if 50% of the country absorbs the cost, they may be motivated to vote against immigration, but if the other 50% of the country believes its a net positive, they'll vote in favor of it happily... and in a democracy that probably means the half who are getting the shit end of the deal keep losing the votes.
There's also the question of whether or not you count the wellbeing of the immigrants themselves in the equation. Because a third world migrant moving out of a hellish ghetto in their home country to a slightly-less-hellish ghetto in a wealthy country where they get a small welfare check is indeed better off, and so including them in the equation makes the case that immigration is good stronger... but also feels like cheating.
"If we import 1 billion foreigners who are each made 5% better off by migration, and 10 million natives are made 25% better off by migration, but the other 90 million natives are made 50% worse off, its a massive net positive to the group as a whole and thus morally required!"
"Okay, but explain the assumptions about why the 'import 1 billion foreigners' step was necessary at all? Surely there are other options we could try that don't impose such costs on the natives?"
"I just told you, it makes them better off on average."
"Right but it seems like you're conflating the interests of the 1 billion foreigners and the 100 million natives even though you don't have to?"
"Shut up, bigot."
"Also, I can't help but notice that you are likely to be one of the 10 million natives whose life is better off..."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link