Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 52
- 1
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
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Canada
In a surprising turn, the ruling Liberal Party of Canada has announced changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers program that would limit the number of admissions; regions with an unemployment rate of 6% or more will not see any application processed for low-wage positions, companies will not be allowed to have more than 10% of their workforce be staffed through the program, and the validity of the program is reduced from 2 years to 1 year. The Liberal Party of Canada has also expressed, though without any commitment yet, that they might revise down their 500 000 immigrants a year target. This is on the backdrop of abysmal (and persistent) poll results for the LPC forecasting a severe loss in the election expected in 2025.
Critics have already pointed out many flaws in the changes, such as how it does not affect the foreign student pipeline, which is a large part of the migration influx. How the 6% unemployment rate restriction applies to the initial request but workers could be moved between regions after being approved.
Now as to the commentary... I mostly ignore provincial and national politics as the obliviousness of Québecois and Canadians to their problems was a source of major despair for me. it's quite surprising to me to peek my head out, check what the discourse is now, and see just how much things have changed. The MAIN (!) /r/Canada subreddit is filled, filled with nothing but messages about how the immigration is just too much and how the Liberals have ruined and destroyed the country. That maybe it's not even recoverable from before decades. Particularly shocking to people is how the TFW (and International Students) are used to staff fast food service positions, while youth unemployment is spiking. Most proeminently Tim Hortons, which seems to be all over the country staffed with almost nothing but Indians now. Most surprising to me is how it's now firmly within the Overton window to not just cite economic concerns with the influx of immigrants, but sociocultural ones too. Which is of course the polite way to say people believe we're letting in a lot of immigrants who are not a good fit for our way of life. The people saying such have found a neat little trick to avoid sharing the blame for supporting the LPC all these years; see, it's all big business' fault for corrupting the LPC to bring in all these people to use as quasi slaves to depress wages. They were told they were going to have Change with the Liberals. Of course, the Liberals did precisely what they were promising to do. And none of it is to blame on the narrative-following majority who for all those years treated unchecked immigration as an unalloyed good, something to be celebrated on its own merit and obviously the right thing to do regardless of if it even made sense economically (which they believed it did, despite the fact that only the barest simplest economics education is required to forecast the effect on wages and housing affordability).
On related anecdote, I went to get breakfast and coffee yesterday at the nearest Tim Hortons, and as my order was taking a long time I could observe the staff. As usual, almost the entire staff was south asian, predominantly women, with one middle eastern/northern african looking man acting as a shift manager and one single white teenager/young man. There must have been around 10 people running around behind that counter. The orders for the drive-thru service were coming out but people in the restaurants were piling in and only a trickle would get to give their order and no one was recieving their food. Now the workers all seemed to be working and to be very busy but still nothing was coming out for the clients inside the restaurant. The manager and the teenager appeared to be the only ones with agency in the situation, noticing the customers were starting to get impatient running from worker to worker, telling them what they should be doing so that they could actually complete orders. We're told that service in fast food restaurants is bad now because since COVID they got used to running with skeleton crews, people are underpaid and because the conditions are so bad working in food service now that it's unfair to expect people to work hard in them. But the area behind the counter in that Tim Hortons seemed very well staffed to me. And presumably, if the people there are immigrant workers then the working conditions there would have been appealing enough to move from across the world for. As I waited 20 minutes for a coffee and a breakfast sandwich, I really struggled to see how anyone except employers could have been fooled this was in Canadians interest.
We’re told the same thing down here, but it doesn’t seem to be true. I blame an increase in drug use/decline in testing driven by the labor shortage.
Here I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with it; it's never rough looking people staffing fast food restaurants. Proper looking immigrant women, student-age immigrants, or the odd elderly people. None of these I can imagine taking drugs.
For the women, I would suggest the theory that many of them (particularly those of traditional societies) weren't brought up with the expectation of doing serious work outside the home, but having moved here with their husbands, taking into account cost of life here, they find themselves forced to work and are unprepared for it, which could explain why they make for inefficient employees. It's just the intangible, hard to notice things that we learn from school and other preparation for work that make the difference.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link