site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30437 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.

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?

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?

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.

27 percent women so definitely overwhelmingly male. I don't trust the self reported ages of the migrants but even if true 17 year olds are military age in the US.

The claim was overwhelmingly military age male, not overwhelmingly male. And, this indicates that most of those under 18 are under 13. Twenty-five percent of the total for the EU as a whole.

As an aside, note also that it indicates that most applications are rejected.

More comments

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