site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30407 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Two leftist policies where I can understand the power dynamics but not the attitude: open borders for military-aged third-world men, relaxed (or none at all) prosecution on criminals, especially military-aged minorities who commit brazen acts of murder/assault/robbery.

As is always the case, these policies exist because a lot of parties benefit. Open borders is supported by capital, homeowners (keeps housing prices pumping), and leftists who gain the patronage of the newcomers. Criminals also help various parties. They drive out right-wingers (i.e. families). They use a huge amount of services that employ leftists. Like immigrants they become patrons to the left, to some degree.

I can see why these things are allowed to continue, but the above analysis is missing the source of intense passion that these issues receive. I don't think Amazon ever pushed for open borders, they just didn't complain end enjoyed the cheap labour. Homeowners don't go to open borders rallies because they want another point of appreciation. Chesa Boudin wants prisoners released because it's strategic. On these two issues specifically, there is only one source of intense passion: single, college-educated women.

This is confusing. Women are more risk-averse and place a higher value on safety, but at the same time they are advocating for violent criminals and random foreigners. There is also a strong element of hatred towards their own countrymen present in this, which makes sense given the policy but does not make sense given that they're ladies. It's similar to the pit bull owner thing. What's up with this? I've seen the meme around pseudopregnancy before and it fits OK, but it's not clear why criminals and foreigners would be the subject of this affection over anything else.

Maybe if a women feel rejected by or reject their own tribe themselves, they attempt to undermine it in the hopes of getting conquered by a different tribe? That seems overly complicated though, the answer to this should feel simple because it's emotional. Help me out here.

Why are you using the term "military-aged"? For whose military? If I look up the USA, the age range for conscription is 17-45. Are we to be concerned about all these 45 year old men?

Ah, but wait: apparently there is a thing called the Selective Service System for men - included illegal immigrants - in the age range 18-25.

So let us say you mean "men aged 18-25". Why then not say "young men", "young adults" or a similar term?

I think there is meant to be an effect here with word choice: "military aged" has the connotations of the military. Soldiers. Active fighting men. Violence.

Hence, "military-aged third world men/military-aged minorities" is meant to evoke immediately, bypassing the brain and getting the limbic system riled-up, the image of "violence-prone, aggressive, fit and capable of fighting and hurting you" non-white men who are involved, or likely to be involved, in crime and violence. Not alone will they take er jerbs, they will take er wimmin too! And beat you up, then laugh and call you a cuck as they leave you bleeding on the ground and steal your car to drive off in with your kidnapped daughter. Or even worse, not kidnapped, she goes with him voluntarily. As does your wife, because they both want bad-boy young alpha cock.

Can you be a little less obvious about trying to put up a scare? Maybe this age cohort of men are something to be worried about maybe they are involved in crime and fraudulent use of resources, but making it sound like "wink wink, they are actually an army you know or at least a militia" is not the way to discuss the topic of immigration (I do think the US should be cracking down hard on it, but "the brown men army is coming for our wimminfolks!" is not a good angle).

Because the common rhetoric surrounding asylum seekers and refugees is that they are almost all fleeing women and children, when this is demonstrably untrue. Additionally, if their home countries are at war and they are military aged men, should they not be fighting, as in Ukraine?

No. The sorts of was as the Syrians had, or the Lybians, or even just the Yugoslavs thirty years back, is not the sorts of war where more men on any one side would've made anything better.

I do not fault military aged men for GTFOing along with their family if they do not believe there is anything good left to defend. (Or if there is hardly any defending required of them, as is the case in Russia).

I would have gotten the fuck out if I was Ukrainian, tbh

Leave the rest of the internet at the door

Somebody, somewhere, resorting to dishonest rhetoric is not a license to retaliate here.

No, it's not reasonable to do that.

Not every man is a steelman. If the vast majority of people believe something for stupid and ill-founded reasons, then when talking about the discourse surrounding the subject, it's simply not representative of reality to behave as if everyone has only the most ironclad reasoning for their beliefs. Even in this space it's rational to acknowledge reality as it is, not only as it could be. Else all we're doing here is making hypothetical arguments that don't actually relate to the real world in any meaningful way.

I have nothing against talking about other people. I'm against using their behavior elsewhere as an excuse to be rhetorically dishonest here.

OP was specifically asking about people who are not in this space, and I was talking about them and their reasoning. I fail to see the nature of your problem.

Any thesis about ideological groups requires an array of opinions wider and more numerous than themotte posters. Allowing oneself to only have opinions about groups represented on themotte and have those opinions shaped exclusively by these representatives, would miss most and misperceive any.

I don't have a problem with reporting other people's opinions. It's saying "it's okay for me to portray my side in the most slanted terms possible here because I saw my opponents do it on Twitter" that I object to.

That the pro-immigration faction doesn't put the majority demographic of asylum seekers, young men, in a role in their public messaging commensurate to their numbers, is true. Not a weakman.

The picture of a dead kid on the Turkish? coast wasn't twitter it was mainstream newspapers.

Yes. Immigration's strongest proponents would never accept titanic rules (i.e. only women and children can come). Why not? Why do they want men? It's certainly not employment.

Why do they want men

Perhaps they don't "want" anyone. Astrahagant was referring to asylum seekers and refugees; perhaps they think that men, too, have a right to seek asylum, which should not be a surprising belief to hold, given that it is true. More broadly, perhaps they believe that keeping families united, rather than excluding husbands/fathers, is good policy.

men, too, have a right to seek asylum

It isn't "men, too" it's "men, almost exclusively".

Assuming it is true -- the UNHCR says that 40% of refugees are children -- why does that matter to the question of why proponents of admitting refugees hold that view? If Fred says, "we have a moral obligation to help refugees," how would the gender breakdown be relevant?

Since the story of the fired swedish dentist I don't take any official data regarding Assylum Seekers at face value. Do you have reason to do so (like the dentist was lying or something)?

I don't know if he is lying, but I note that he is actually a dental hygienist, not a dentist, so I wonder about his expertise. And RT is hardly the most reliable source. But, regardless, as as I noted elsewhere, the data I linked to is not about asylum seekers. It is about refugees and internally displaced persons. And, as I also noted elsewhere, the EU says that most of the asylum seekers it lists as under 18 are under 13; it is pretty tough to pass off someone that young as an adult.

More comments

We're talking about refugees in the west. The 40% stat on that page is of all displaced people everywhere. Most of the displaced people are displaced in their own country according to that website. And of refugees most don't end up in the West. So it could be totally true that 40% of people displaced globally are children and that the vast majority of people arriving in Europe are military aged men. I think that's the case based on videos of them arriving, and of the ones who are classified as children I think many are lying.

Yes, it is possible -- despite some of the rhetoric, I am pretty sure that males are more likely to be the victims of the sort of violence, etc, which tends to engender flight, and re those who exit looking for work, it is often young men who go out to earn money to send back -- but Pew found in 2015 that 29% of asylum seekers in Europe were under 18. Forty-two percent were males 18-34. So, overrepresented, yes, but not the majority, let alone the vast majority. And this estimates that 46% of illegal immigrants in the US are female. The DHS estimate for 2015-2018 is similar: 5.54 million female out of 11.39 million.

More comments

I don't see any reason to believe that stat when pro-refugee people prove themselves to be so wilfully ignorant as to do things like this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/asylum-seeker-uk-age-school-boy-ipswich-school-stoke-home-office-a8649696.html

Fact is, if you wash up without documents, you can say just about anything to make an asylum claim and these NGO types will nod and believe you wholly. At no point in the process is there any skepticism. Claim to be gay or have undergone a flash conversion to Christianity (right after your application was rejected, curiously!) and they will not nod and smile and submit appeals forms for you. There's no reason to suspect any kind of diligence is done at all.

You clearly don't understand what the data refers to. It is simply a count of people who are displaced (btw, mostly refugees, rather than the asylees to whom you refer). It has nothing to do with whether or not they are entitled to asylum. And btw the majority of asylum claims are, of course, rejected. See data here

Who, if you ask them why they didn't bring their family along, say the road was too dangerous, and it was better for them to stay where they were.

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


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats