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 -
Columbia Student Hunted by ICE Sues to Prevent Deportation
A 21-year old, third year Columbia student is wanted by ICE. She's a legal permanent resident who has lived in the United States since she was 7 years old. This is different from the case of Mahmoud Khalil in very notable regards:
As someone who has been very aware of the growing body of European hate speech laws making antisemitism illegal, and the regulatory and legal tactics which are being pursued to tacitly put Americans under the same rules, even I underestimated the extent to which antisemitism would be overtly criminalized in the United States. Although I warned of the US adopting the IHRA definition of anti-semitism years ago on TheMotte, even at the time I didn't think it would form the basis for arresting protestors.
Great! American visa policy should be based on the principle that visa or permanent residency approvals are intended to further the interests of Americans and the United States. Removing people whose presence does not advance those goals should be normal and routine. Admittedly, I'm aware of the argument that this sort of thing just serves the interests of a particular ethnic group of Middle Eastern descent, rather than those of the United States more generally. Ultimately, I see the general principle as more important. Let's agree on this before fighting among ourselves over who exactly ought to profit the most from this way of doing things!
Something I can't identify sticks in my craw. I think it's the "interests of Americans and the United States" bit.
Like, what even is that? Who could possibly agree on what it is? I think by your definition we'd be deporting (non-citizen) supporters of Israel too.
Frankly, I thought coming to the US and saying whatever hot garbage you wanted to say was part of the allure. I am finding it impossible to see this issue as something that we can somehow carve out from the broader mission of liberty. I think people are just mad they can't punch college students in the face for being wankers.
Why is speech the problem anyway? Isn't the actual problem that there is criminality--vandalism, attacks, things that clearly counter school policies. Why not focus on that?
Then I would ask what is your vision of the first amendment? What principle(s) underline how we enforce it? What limitations are acceptable and how do we determine when a line has been crossed?
More options
Context Copy link
The problem isn't just speech, although that is part of it. It's also the fragmented culture and supercharged social media algorithms that allow bad-faith actors to exploit our free speech norms that undermine the society that protects them in the first place. It's a constant stress test for free speech. It's not really a healthy culture anymore. It's hyper-partisan factions or individuals, often times anti-Western ones, operating freely within a cultural bubble that was designed for good-faith debate and disagreement without totally trashing our society. We do not maintain that bubble anymore. We either need to get back to maintaining that bubble by enforcing a double standard against foreign, anti-Western dissenters, or we can slide toward some form of soft authoritarianism just to keep the wheels on. We are trying both it seems:
• The Dems and the left played their totalitarianism-light method by policing speech and suppressing right leaning ideas to achieve a more egalitarian one-size fits all environment, aka equity.
• The Republicans and the right are more keen on re-establishing and applying a double standard when it comes to Westerners and Western ideals in general. They're especially this way when it comes to Israel-Palestine.
I believe both societal trajectories are authoritarian, except one prioritizes the well being of its people while the other prioritizes an idea that ultimately suppresses its people. I prefer the double standard method. It's imperfect, but it establishes a national identity and what is and is not accepted on a cultural level. I do find it highly irritating though that this double standard is applied selectively for one ethnic group and one country that isn't this one.
More options
Context Copy link
We're reading a news article. One from the New York Times no less. Who's to say that there wasn't criminality at the root of this case?
The New York Times and SecureSignals, who are selecting what you see here, did not focus on that because it doesn't make a good story.
EDIT: She was charged with "obstructing governmental administration", so there was some criminality here. It was very likely against school policies, but I'm not sure if that's enough to count next to vandalism or attacks.
I was speaking broadly. The criminality is what bothers people, not the speech.
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