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 -
To be pedantic, I gave one example of a foreigner murdering an Irish woman or child. Aidan Moffit and Michael Snee were men, and the woman and child stabbed in November of last year survived.
That's not how I perform cost-benefit analyses. A few iatrogenic deaths per 100k population per year doesn't mean we abolish the healthcare system.
Out of curiosity, have you ever actually been to Romania?
Might I humbly suggest that your subjective feeling of "safety" might be belied by the facts on the ground? Romania's murder rate (1.109/100k) is nearly double Ireland's (0.654/100k), and Hungary's murder rate (0.774/100k) is likewise slightly higher than Ireland's. Germany's (0.823/100k) is likewise lower than Romania's. The only part of your claim that really stacks up is that the UK has a higher murder rate (1.148/100k) than Romania. "Dublin's trajectory is tracking towards Berlin and Birmingham rather than Bucharest and Budapest" - any of these four would represent an upward trajectory from Ireland's current murder rate.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
On the other hand, Bucharest specifically was ranked quite far ahead of Dublin in a list of safest cities in the world, so I take your point. (On the other other hand, Munich was ranked ahead of Bucharest on the same list; and anyway this list is based on user surveys rather than criminological data, a methodology they defend here.) But I strongly suspect that the primary driving factor for how safe a city is is its demographics, and I think it's fair to say that those are primarily controlled at a national rather than local level. If X% of Ireland's population is Roma/Syrian/Algerian etc., there's only so much Dublin city council can do to stop them from living in Dublin (and likewise if a Roma family wants to move from the Romanian countryside to Bucharest).
Much of the opposition to inward migration to Ireland and the UK is based on negative (but, in my view, accurate) stereotypes about Roma people (e.g. Jozef Puska is from a Roma background). In which case, Romania is a spectacularly bad example to use to illustrate your point: Roma people make up about 0.3% of the population of Ireland, but 3.4% of the population of Romania. And they are likewise massively overrepresented in crime, making up 17% of Romania's prison population.
"You Irish should stop letting in so many Roma people and become more like Romania" - like, what? Those two things are mutually exclusive.
Where do you think the word "Roma" came from?You're performing a
Gish gallopChinese robber fallacy by citing a dozen emotionally loaded stories of violent crimes committed in Europe by people who aren't European (conveniently ignoring all the violent crimes committed by Europeans) - and you're accusing me of "selectively" using the dispassionate, objective metric of the murder rate to make my case that Romania is in fact significantly more dangerous (and Ireland significantly safer) than you're claiming? Physician, heal thyself.I don't dispute that migrants to Europe are overrepresented in crime stats. I don't even dispute that immigration policy into Europe may have been too lax in recent years and may be need to be restricted somewhat. But I am not persuaded that Ireland or any other western European country ought to be an ethnostate. Hell, this entire discussion was prompted by me complaining that Anglophone news outlets cover migrant crime in a dishonest and knowingly misleading way. Why are you so mad at me, of all people?
Correct, I don't really care that much about racial identity. Pointing out that other people care about it does nothing to persuade me. Persuade me why I should care.
He's more right then you are. I added a reply to Hus comment with a link to a breakdown of German crime numbers by ethnicity, which is a better metric than the general murder rate.
If he asserts that Romania is safer than Ireland, I provide evidence to show that Romania in fact has a higher murder rate than Ireland - how does a breakdown of violent crime by ethnicity prove me wrong? I don't dispute that a disproportionate share of violent crime in Europe is committed by recent migrants from outside of Europe. That doesn't change the fact that Romania's murder rate is higher than Ireland's.
Isn’t it a bit more complicated compared to looking at just murder rates? Let’s say Population X worldwide commits crime at rate of 2/100. Population Y 1/100.
Country A has a tough on crime policy that lowers both rates by 10%. Country B has a lax on crime policy that increases both rates by 10%. But Country A has a materially higher rate of Population X compared to Country B whereas B has a higher rate of Population Y.
Country B will have a lower crime rate but it won’t be because of policy and indeed the more the demographics shifted the higher the crime rate of B will climb.
I’m not saying that describes Ireland or Romania. To be honest, I don’t know either well enough to make this claim. But the concept seems reasonable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link