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 -
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 does my outgroup push for obviously terrible things when we all know they don't actually believe the things they say they do?" Bonus: "Let me ask a leading question suggesting the uncharitable answer."
(Before you get indignant at my steelmanning the other side, I'll stipulate that I am not personally in favor of either open borders or lax criminal prosecution. Policy-wise, and probably even politically, I am probably much closer to you than the single college-educated women you so despise.)
Here's the actual answer: people in favor of open borders actually believe open borders are good. They are not nationalists and largely regard nationalism with distrust if not contempt; they believe freedom of movement, and particularly the freedom of people to seek better economic opportunities in wealthier countries, should not be hindered. They largely see Westerners living in wealthy nations as benefiting from a manifestly unfair birthplace luck-of-the-draw, and don't see why Guatemalans or Bangladeshis or Nigerians or Syrians should have to suffer just because they were not so lucky.
They (including even the women) do not think in terms of "military-aged men" (and definitely not in terms of "third-world men") and its implications.
They support lax prosecution of criminals for similar bleeding-heart reasons: they really do believe the rhetoric that fuels "defund the police" and BLM and "disproportionate impact on marginalized communities." They think they are being compassionate to the oppressed.
Stated more bluntly, you are asking "Why do they want to unleash hordes of violent rapists upon themselves?" You are "confused" because you don't believe that their motives are actually what they say they are, and you don't believe that they don't perceive the same outcome (hordes of violent rapists) that you do. Even if what you believe is actually correct, they don't believe that. They aren't endorsing it for some secret unstated reason they won't admit to.
I agree the OP post did seem like begging the question, but I think there is also the possibility of ulterior motives. Some principled leftists and libertarians may think open borders are good for humanity , but probably others see immigration as necessary for displacing white America. If the outcome is the same does the intent matter that much? Maybe but probably not that much.
During my over-a-decade experience in left-wing politics, I have in fact never, ever seen anone advocate for immigration for "displacing whites" in their own country. For full disclosure, over a ten years ago I was in a British Trot conference (SWP); apart from the whole business giving a good education on what Trotskyism is and why it absolutely is good there are almost no Trots in Finland, I listened to a speech by Tariq Ali where Ali offhandedly mentioned that white people are predicted to become a minority in US in the coming decades and the young British Trots cheered and clapped; then again, even in this instance, it was (at least for the clear majority) not their country that was being spoken of. (I'm not even sure if I should mention this anecdote since it feels like the sort of a thing where most of the replies to this comment inevitably would end up revolving around it.)
In a domestic context, though? Never, and I've had conversations on a wide variety of topics with people at all local levels, really, often with alcohol involved. The whole idea - and the right-wing obsession with this belief - is considered terminally strange.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link