site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   25999 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 20, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, all of that must go.

This shows a shallow understanding of the US immigration system.

Here are the common ways you can get a visa -> green card -> citizenship:

  • Illegal immigration -> anchor baby -> wait 25 years -> Green card (400k? closest thing to stats)
  • Refugees (150k/yr) (relatively low by historic standards)
  • Lottery (50k/yr) (constant number since 1995.)
  • High skilled visas -> green card (Green card sponsorship is rare unless you're making 6 figures) (300k/year)
  • Marriage and minor dependents (600k/yr)

So which of these do you disapprove of, how much lower should each of them be ?

No one likes illegal immigration, so that's a moot point. The rest seem to be more so about identifying legitimate cause (actual marraige, real refugees, real need for immigrant labor) than the nature of the visa itself.

No one likes illegal immigration, so that's a moot point.

Excuse me what? Have you not been following the news recently? Or do you not count the tsunami of illegal crossings as illegal immigration?

Illegal immigration -> anchor baby -> wait 25 years -> Green card (400k? closest thing to stats)

Why are you ignoring the anchor baby? You know, the foreigner who just got citizenship immediately for no reason.

Refugees (150k/yr) (relatively low by historic standards)

Why should I care about people who have been approved, and not those who claim asylum in order to enter the country legally, who have not yet been approved or denied?

Twenty-eight out of the last thrity-one months have had encounters increase year over year. I only stopped counting because they don't give me FY20 information. The increases in FY22 are practically doubling, and they still rose in FY23 and so far in FY24. That's not low by historic standards, that's an insane invasion by historic standards.

This number should be 0. Maybe once upon a time it made sense to allow refugees into the country. Maybe in the future it will make sense again. Today, I want it all shut down.

Lottery (50k/yr) (constant number since 1995.)

I do not think we should be letting anyone in via lottery, but I appreciate sortition as an allocative tool. If this were the only immigration I wouldn't care, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Marriage and minor dependents (600k/yr)

Nope, I don't want chain migration or more foreigners of any kind, for any reason. Certainly not children and women who aren't going to contribute, anyway. When we imported Chinese workers in the West, we didn't import their women. This was the correct choice, and we should reinstate it.

No one likes illegal immigration, so that's a moot point.

Incorrect. Revealed preference shows many people, mostly Democrats, like illegal immigration. Other coethnics like illegal immigration. NGOs who get paid by the feds like illegal immigration.

Given your misrepresentations already, especially about refugees, I have a hard time addressing this in good faith.

Chinese men and women immigrated to America starting in the 1850s. I don't have stats on the proportions, but some amount of women also came over similarly seeking economic opportunities and fleeing the economic mess that was China circa 1850.

My understanding is that the ratio of Chinese men to women in 19th century America was something like 20 to 1. Add to that the fact that many of those women were prostitutes in Chinatowns and it's pretty clear why there's hardly anyone left descended from that particular wave of immigrants, apart from a few white Californians who have an Asian blip on their 23andme results.

"Your understanding" is, respectfully, "just trust me, bro". But yes, some significant portion of 19th century women immigrating to America were prostitutes. Chinese included.

There's an obvious point that young men are most willing and able to immigrate or take other massive risks. Are you claiming a particular point about 19th century Chinese immigrants supportable by historical evidence? Or did they bring the standard crew of mid-19th-century immigrant women with them?

My source was the following passage I remembered reading from The Chinese in America by Iris Chang:

Back in 1880, on the eve of the Exclusion Act, the male-female ratio in the ethnic Chinese community was more than twenty to one—100,686 men and 4,779 women. By 1920, deaths and departures had reduced the male Chinese population, while a small number of births had increased the female population, but there were still seven Chinese men for every Chinese woman. One significant cause of this disproportion was that U.S. immigration policies prevented Chinese workingmen from bringing their wives into the country. The law automatically assigned to women the status of their husbands, so if their husbands were categorized as “laborers,” their wives would be, too, making them ineligible for admission to the country. Only the wives of bona fide Chinese merchants were welcome.

So the arrival of any Chinese female in the United States was a rare event. From 1906 to 1924, only about one hundred fifty Chinese women secured legal permission to enter the United States. Then the Immigration Act of 1924 was enacted, prohibiting the entrance of any foreign-born Asian woman. Aimed primarily at ending the practice of Japanese mail-order brides, it hurt the Chinese American community as well: from 1924 to the end of the decade, not a single Chinese woman was admitted to the United States.

No one likes illegal immigration, so that's a moot point.

I think everyone would prefer if those illegal immigrants were legal immigrants, but there are some people who's order of preferences are legal immigrants > illegal immigrants > fewer/no immigrants, and some people who are fewer/no immigrants > legal immigrants > illegal immigrants.

Who are the people whose preference is "legal immigratns > illegal immigrants > fewer/no immigrants"?

Open-borders libertarians, I think? They'd prefer lots of immigration, all legal by default. But as is, they're heavily sympathetic to people coming to America, any way they can, to make a better life through hard work and free enterprise. The first place I looked was "Reason", and their top article right now is "Trump's Mass Deportation Plan Is Anti-American", making the case largely on moral grounds:

But this conversation is about much more than monetary costs. It's about the government wielding force against largely peaceful, nonviolent residents who help create vibrant American communities. It's about whether deploying police officers, National Guard members, and the military to extract undocumented immigrants from their homes and workplaces in raids is consistent with American values. It's about the civil rights and due process violations that will inevitably occur if this plan comes to fruition.

In the interest of completeness, don't forget "legal immigrants > fewer/no immigrants > illegal immigrants."

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats