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 -
If you hold that consensual transactions are generally good, whereas non-consensual taking is generally bad, then there needn't be any tension between opposing colonialism and supporting open borders.
As you note, colonialism violates people's individual rights by one group subjugating another against their will, expropriating their rightful property and reducing or eliminating their rights.
An immigrant entering a country need not do any of these things. He can enter into entirely voluntary transactions to obtain housing, employment, etc. These are transactions where everyone involved is happy to participate and ends up better off; no one's rights are violated.
It is also conceivable that a group of immigrants could band together into a political bloc and use their collective political powers to "colonize" the native population and take away their rights. But there is no particular reason why such an outcome is inevitable or likely. Moreover, such an outcome can occur without any immigration, such as if a country's native protestant population banded together to oppress its native Catholic population. The free movement of people across borders does not require the formation of group identities nor does it require any group to oppress any other group.
Every case of significant immigration I'm aware of has resulted in the formation of group identities for the immigrants. Claiming that such formation is not "required" may be technically true, but fails to account for the evidence we actually see.
Leaving aside the question of how to define "oppression, It's obvious that mass immigration often results in some level of conflict between natives and immigrants, and that such conflicts can both grow quite severe and be very long-lasting.
And sure, this doesn't have to happen. Similarly, car wrecks don't have to result in significant injuries. Why is this a useful way to address the underlying concern?
I don't think anyone can dispute that, but then there's the question of whether those group identities are at serious odds with the native one (beyond the small degree of natural friction that seems unavoidable).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What level of consent from natives is sufficient for the immigration being consensual ?
51% of the natives ? 66% ? 100% ?
.01% aka the monarch says "I invite ze Germans; this is now consensual?"
More options
Context Copy link
Historically a lot of that has occurred but modernly a lot of things that I see criticized by being called "neocolonialism" don't involve nonconsensual transactions per se
I think most of what gets labeled “neocolonialism” is not colonialism and is basically a good thing. Global trade has lifted enormous numbers of people out of extreme poverty in the past few decades.
I agree. But it is the case that there is a loud faction that is strongly opposed to neocolonialism and I think OP makes a good point that this faction mostly overlaps with people who support open borders and that does seem like a bit of a contradiction
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link