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 -
It's not that I think there couldn't be self-serving motives, but I don't think the actual reality of American politics actually support any of them. All in all, I just don't think there's a very good reason to believe that opposition to mass deportations or other restrictive immigration policies is a cynical ploy as opposed to a fundamental values difference.
I have no idea why @Fruck is accusing me of being dishonest, other than that they have totally misread my argument.
I'm not saying that the incident rate is literally zero, but I am saying that it is not high enough to be political relevant or be a serious motive for immigration advocates. As a self-interested motive it lacks substantial payoff (and would be risky to boot).
I don't think the historical point has much relevance. It strikes me that when you're talking about mid-century American politics, there's a lot more general bad behavior when it comes to election integrity. I don't really know enough about Texan politics in the 40s and 50s to fact-check you, but it doesn't strike me as especially distinct other forms of election manipulation that were common then and are far less common now.
I don't think this is true. Hopes might be high, but expectations for a general amnesty are generally pretty low. I think there is an expectation that 2nd gen children of illegal immigrants will lean left, but - again - I don't think it constitutes a significant motivating factor for pro-immigration advocates. Pushing a controversial position now in the expectation that it's going to pay off for different people in a generation is a level of long-term planning that I do not buy from people who will throw allies out of the tent for 75% agreement.
There's a feedback loop were pro-immigration/anti-immigration parties (reasonably) expect that immigrants will vote for/against them. That doesn't tell you much about their reasons for being pro/anti in the first place. (Ironically, both views appear to be at least partially incorrect.)
Margins matter. Indeed, in the current political environment they matter quite a lot. Diehard nativists are not going to vote for the Dems no matter what (both because they won't trust them on immigration and because hardcore nativist is strongly correlated with other conservative beliefs), but the typical anti-immigrant voter isn't nearly that committed.
I agree that there's a significant body of immigration advocates who think any immigration skeptic is a write-off. Probably more than there are people pushing for moderating on immigration on the basis of marginal electoral gains, but I think that points away from cynical motives and towards ideological ones. It's taking on board the added risk of losing an election (and thus all your other issues of concern) because you prefer to avoid compromising on this particular issue when you could safely move right.
More options
Context Copy link