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 -
I think this model will prove to be significantly more predictive of actual policy than pretty much any other model that I see people working with. When people ask, "if they were really for/against immigration, why wouldn't they do X?", the answer will frequently line up with whether it will be too mean or insufficiently mean rather than whether it appears to accomplish the stated policy preferences.
Can we call it too mean/too naive for a bit of equilibrium?
I think too nice/too mean provides better equilibrium.
Actually that would provide negative equilibrium, and it is the default I expect people would go to so I'm stepping in quick, because the equilibrium I'm looking for is in emotional valence. Too nice/too mean would solidify the manichean premise that one side are being 'good' while the other are being 'bad' and I think we see enough of that already. Some republicans might revel in the cruelty, but that's just the lizardman constant, some number of people are always doing that no matter the side. Republicans need a way to defuse that angle, and I think naive is a strong response - to the point without being too insulting.
Nah, Naive is too sophisticated for the concept I'm trying to get across, which is more emotional in nature.
Most Anti Immigration Republicans ultimately aren't choosing policies based on a deep consideration of what will lead to desired policy outcomes. They are emotionally repulsed from policies that reward lawbreaking because it is naturally unjust to reward lawbreakers. Seeing rulebreakers rewarded is as unjust as seeing the good punished, and is naturally emotionally revolting to humans. It is emotional, not rational or policy based. Parallel to how Democrats are emotionally repulsed by images of children separated from parents (one wonders, for example, how they felt about parents who attended Jan 6th being 'separated' from their children).
One can see this in the policy positions taken: a great many of Trump's anti-immigration measures seem aimed not at actually removing immigrants, but instead primarily at preventing immigrants from participating in open society, running the risk of creating an illegal underclass.
At the more sophisticated level of policy outcomes, the natural antonym to Naive here would probably be Misanthropic. So Too Naive/Too Misanthropic: Republicans feel that Democratic policies are too naive, assuming good natured immigrants who just want to work; Democrats feel that Republican policies are too misanthropic, assuming that all immigrants are criminals and welfare queens. But that ultimately isn't what drives the revulsion that each side feels, emotionally, for the policies of the other side.
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