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 -
The period starting December 2024. The problem is, the clips on TV couldn't have started in December 2024, nor could they have had much of an effect even in January 2025 on account of Trump being sworn in on the 17th of that month.
Now, perhaps you will claim that it was in fact the threat of the Trump presidency that caused numbers to drop even faster than they were already dropping. Perhaps, but that's not the claim you made and the claim I'm arguing against.
I'm with you on this part. Pushback in Congress started in January of 2024, but before that Ron DeSantis orchestrated the Martha's Vineyard publicity stunt all the way back in 2022. Outlets like CBS News were documenting record high daily crossings in May of 2023. After that, local reps and officials started making public demands for federal action shortly after. It was a gradual accumulation of outrage from the right and the undeniable reality of a border crisis that even left leaning outlets couldn't ignore.
I'm not with you on this part, and I will indeed claim that it was in fact the threat of the Trump presidency that caused numbers to drop even faster. The Democrats trying to get the border bill through in 2024 affected groups from an optics standpoint. For the immigrants, it showed Democrats might do something about the border. For undecided moderates, it showed that Democrats were willing to come to the table about the border issue.
All of these things had an impact on illegal immigration from an optics or "TV clip" standpoint, but the most impactful were the "TV clips" showing that Donald Trump was elected president. As far as that not being the "claim I made" I might be misunderstanding what you're saying.
Come on. @fmac was obviously talking about clips of ICE raids, not of Trump getting sworn in.
I see. I'm not talking about "TV clips" as just being ICE raids. I'm talking about "TV clips" as being part the optics, or even the "aesthetic" (like the other commenter mentioned) that goes into what I believe to be an effective anti-illegal immigration strategy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link