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