site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35439 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Blue states already share the cost, and annoying municipal officials is not going to persuade Democratic legislators to spend vastly more on border security (which Abbott and Desantis already know).

It will certainly make their case for the need for more border security vastly stronger when even the Democrats are declaring it a crisis, albeit indirectly. So when they take office the political road to action is already well-paved.

How else can they draw attention to the issue given that National Media (Fox excluded) alternates between ignoring it entirely and bemoaning the "extreme" tactics employed by border patrol and the plight of detained migrants themselves?

How would YOU suggest they raise awareness?

Hey, do you know if they're still keeping kids "in cages" at the border? Remember when that was a national outrage? Anyone? Bueller?

I'm assuming that faceh is not only talking about economic cost but societal too. And well as to your second point: "The beatings buses will continue until morale border policy improves"

As has been noted repeatedly, immigrants mostly live in blue states. The "societal costs" are already shared. That's not the issue. The issue is that nativists don't want any significant immigration at all.

"The beatings buses will continue until morale border policy improves"

The overwhelmingly pro-immigration voters living in areas with already high immigrant populations are not going to change their mind because a few more show up. It just doesn't affect their lives that much. You're more likely to see the Feds cut a big check to affected blue states than you are to see a major opinion shift. This policy is grandstanding by Abbott and Desantis to further build their lib-owning credentials.

immigrants mostly live in blue states.

That's a bit of a misleading phrasing. "Immigrants" as a class are different than the types of persons who have no other option but to "sneak" in.

The ones crossing the border are almost certainly a much, much larger burden and net drain on resources than those that follow "proper channels."

Hence, even that one Democrat mayor in Texas is shipping migrants out.

I challenge you to show that blue states, especially Northern ones, have as many undocumented immigrants as Southern border states.

"Immigrants" as a class are different than the types of persons who have no other option but to "sneak" in.

All immigrants, legal and illegal, tend to wind up in blue states. Red states tend to be lacking in economic opportunity and the comparative lack of major cities or pre-existing communities makes them relatively unattractive.

The ones crossing the border are almost certainly a much, much larger burden and net drain on resources than those that follow "proper channels."

What's your model?

I challenge you to show that blue states, especially Northern ones, have as many undocumented immigrants as Southern border states.

"Southern border states" includes includes California. If you mean "traditionally southern states" (or just red states on the border), that's literally just Texas.

As for where illegal immigrants end up:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/11/us-metro-areas-unauthorized-immigrants/ (this is measuring by metro area, rather than state, and some of the cities spill across state borders - New York being the most prominent)

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/Pop_Estimate/UnauthImmigrant/unauthorized_immigrant_population_estimates_2015_-_2018.pdf

Per DHS numbers, out of the top 10 states, we have

Blue States (CA, IL, NY, NJ, WA): 4.33M

Red States (TX, FL, GA, NC): 3.33M

Purple States (AZ): .33M

CA and TX account for about half of their respective categories.

An older (2016) study from PEW gives us the tally below for all statse: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/

Red States: 4.22M

Blue States: 5.76M

Purple States: .62M

If you want to compare Texas to the northeast, that's 1.6M vs 2.3M (states counted: CT, DC, MD, MA, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA)

These are good numbers to use, but I suspect that as soon as I scale them for the population of the respective states it will make things a little clearer as to how each state has been faring in shouldering their share of the influx.

Here's a 2016 study from Pew that estimates the total number of 'unauthorized' immigrants and their percentage of population on a state by state basis:

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/

See also @netstack's post below which indicates Texas and Florida have far more immigrants in absolute numbers than anywhere but California, and that as a percentage of the population its heavily skewed towards border states.

To get REALLY specific: based on these numbers, in order for Martha's Vineyard to have a similar share of immigrants in their borders, which I've arbitrarily set at 3% to approximate the ratio of the whole U.S., the community of 15,000 people would need to have 450 illegal immigrants living there.

They declared a crisis over Fifty. So they really aren't prepared to shoulder their fair share at this rate.

Do you disagree?

Per the PEW study I cited, the top five states by percentage of population are: NV, TX, CA, NJ, and MD (in that order). In absolute numbers: CA, TX, FL, NY (FL and NY are separated by an estimated 50k - 775k vs 725k). And CA has a lot more than TX in absolute terms. The DHS numbers are broadly similar, at least at the top.

The core point I am getting at here is that the narrative pushed by American nativists that conservatives are bearing the financial and social "costs" of liberal xenophilia is not supported by the information available. This entire conversation appears to really pivot on Texas specifically.

Martha's Vineyard

The obsession with places like Martha's Vineyard is why I think this entire endeavor is about lib-owning.

Piping in to confirm faceh’s read on my numbers, except for AZ, which is more akin to NJ or WA. FL is also weird; its moderately high absolute numbers don’t match its low percentage. Really, this is a conversation driven by the two obvious outliers.

I will disagree on Martha’s Vineyard. We don’t know how many already do live there. Even if there were already ~450 changing that population by >10% is nontrivial, especially when none of the newcomers have jobs or much savings. A 10% surge in a Texas town would mean either seasonal labor or diffusion to neighboring towns. Neither was practical in the short term on MV.

This report shows the top 10 states by illegal population in Table 3.

The only Southern border states are

  • AZ (360K, 5.1%).

  • FL (660K, 3.1%), if you count it as a border

  • TX (1940K, 6.6%)

Note that Arizona went blue. Against that we have

  • IL (450K, 3.5%)

  • NJ (460K, 5.2%)

  • NY (560K, 2.9%)

for unambiguously Northern blue states, and

  • WA (290K, 3.9%)

  • GA (380K, 2.7%)

  • CA (2610K!, 6.6%)

in the other-blue category. Percentages are proportions of total state populations per this 2018 estimate. The other state from the list is NC, which is neither blue nor border nor northern.

In conclusion, TX and CA dominate the conversation both in absolute numbers and in percentage. Of the northern states, NJ is closest in percentage, and NY in total population. FL has a higher total than any of them, but a lower percentage than IL or NJ.

On one hand, you could add up all the blue northern states, plus WA, and still not clear the number from TX. On the other, they are all dwarfed by CA. Take out those two big outliers, and I don't think AZ or FL really outpaces the north.

It's possible that this is skewed in some way, especially since it's pre-COVID, but it does agree with Texas' own numbers (p.27).

The fact that California is on the border and has such huge population of illegal immigrants tends to support the narrative that there's a border 'crisis.'

What I really want to see, but didn’t have time to assemble, is illegal population vs. winter temperature and vs. arable land.

I may try and write this up for this week’s thread, but my theory is that immigrants have enough mobility to get where the jobs are, and thus populations reflect that more than border proximity. If so, busing more to NYC is going to be ineffective as long as the jobs remain in TX and CA.

The question of a border crisis is a bit different. I’m open to the possibility that attempts are surging. On the other hand, I’m skeptical of claims that title 42 is the only real deportation. I’m still looking for title 8 numbers from ~10 years ago, which would let us estimate the actual influx.

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