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'll just link to the comment I made on @Dirty_DemSoc 's "WHY BOTHER" post. Since its relevant to the protests AND the assassinations.
Quote:
Right now we're in a phase where a minority faction is fomenting chaos for want of being able to achieve their goals via electoral process.
In a sense, this is ALSO one faction that is demonstrating that it has motivated, competent shooters on its side, so if something real DID pop off they are at least capable of carrying out deadly violence. The capacity for this violence is no longer just theoretical.
Of course the basic motives will be more complex than that, but the goal of having mass protests is ALSO to demonstrate "we are numerous, we are organized, and we could turn violent if things don't change in our favor!"
But we had a spate of lefty-coded assassination/killing attempts going back at least to Trump's earshot, and THAT trend is a bit scarier because the people of his tribe either ignore it (tacitly approving, I'd say), line up in support like with Luigi, or actually denounce it and try to lower the temperature and root out the radicals among them who are willing to get froggy.
Anything other than the last option will mean MORE attempts going forward. I'm waiting with a TON of consternation for the first FPV drone-based assassination that succeeds.
PLEASE try lowering the temperature, Dems.
I agree, but let us also remember to pin some blame on Trump for doing the ICE raids as flamboyantly as possible.
Obama deported 410,000 people in 2012 and managed to avoid cameras far better.
I am convinced Trump wants liberals to overreact because it's the best campaign ad and the mobs are happy to take the bait.
Yes, black bag the illegals in the dead of night and try to suppress news coverage of the "dissappearances."
Quiet, stealthy operation.
Do you believe the left would sit quietly by for such tactics?
There's a huge gulf between that and what Trump is doing currently. Trump is making these raids as much a spectacle as possible.
Did we forget the Studio Ghibli rendition of the crying handcuffed deportee tweeted by the White House? What about videos captioned "ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight"?
He even has fucking Dr Phil accompanying raids now.
And I'm suggesting that it wouldn't really matter.
The riots in 2020 were triggered by one guy dying under sketchy circumstances.
If Trump didn't give them am impetus, I think they'd find one.
It's not particularly surprising for Trump to run on a mass deportation platform... then make a big deal about fulfilling that promise.
This seems like a spectacular failure to grasp the deep, unresolved tension in the US over how law enforcement conducts itself. There were anti-police protests in 2014 under Obama as well. You can't attribute these things to a single police murder.
This is not making a big deal out of enforcement. It is ostentatious cruelty (one might even say the cruelty is the point :v).
You've also got things like ICE going after valid visa holders, calling immigrants "invaders", and the DHS declaring intent to "liberate" LA from the socialists.
So what's the deep, unresolved tension surrounding keeping noncitizens in the country?
Is there any reason other than "it helps us win elections?"
The competing interests and preferences of nativists, anti-nativists, employers, consumers, etc... combined with a deadlocked political system that effectively leaves immigration policy up to the caprices of executive discretion.
What is that supposed to mean? Illegal immigrants can't vote, so the "importing voters" theory doesn't hold up so well, and their mere existence alienates the xenophobe vote, so it's hard to call it a winning electoral strategy. Even if you think they're wrong, you should probably take immigration advocates at their word when they offer humanitarian and economic justifications for supporting immigration.
I do not like @Fruck's antagonism (borderline, but saying your argument is dishonest is allowed even if I wish he'd be more charitable). However, while I think immigration advocates mostly do believe in humanitarian and economic justifications, your arguments that there can't possibly be any self-serving motives seem either naive or, well, the less charitable option Fruck pointed at.
I will make three counterarguments:
*. "Illegal immigrants can't vote." This is true, and I tend to mostly think claims of widespread voter fraud are unsupported. That said, to claim it absolutely does not or could not happen, and cannot be an intentional policy, is to ignore history. I've mentioned this before (because it's one of my favorite books) but Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson talks a lot about his 1948 Senate race in Texas. It was quite eye-opening. At that time, shipping large numbers of Mexicans across the border to vote illegally was in fact something party bosses did routinely (both parties). Everyone knew this. And it certainly wasn't happening only in Texas.
I'm going to say this probably doesn't happen today, at least not on a large scale, but the fact that it did happen within living memory, and clearly there are politicians who would be quite happy to game the system like that if they could find an exploit, means I do not think you can so casually dismiss the possibility, and the concern. I don't know if pro-immigrationists are finding ways to get illegals to vote in significant numbers, but I believe they absolutely would. Especially given that many pro-immigrationists basically believe in open borders and we've seen more than one politician openly advocate for letting illegals vote, since they literally don't think anyone should be "illegal."
*. Even charitably assuming most of them aren't angling to get illegal immigrant votes, most of them do expect anyone who comes and settles here illegally to eventually be legalized. They don't want anyone to ever be deported, and again, they don't actually believe anyone should be illegal. So yes, people who can't technically vote now are very much seen as future votes, at least.
*. "The xenophobe vote." This assumes they would not advocate for more immigration and illegal immigrant rights because it would hurt them electorally; the "xenophobes" would vote against them. Sorry, but Fruck is right here. The xenophobes are already not going to vote Democrat (or Green, or Peace and Freedom, or Socialist). They aren't losing any votes they might otherwise have gained. Maybe if the Democrats were actually the party of the working class again they'd have to worry about blue collar and farm workers worried about their jobs, but they don't actually care about those people anymore, and haven't for a generation.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link