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 idea that America's/the Wests standing rises or falls based on how it treats every migrant was a cope to deter critics and act as a self-esteem bolster for migrants themselves.
It clearly seems to have failed to stop the seething (even from totally unrelated migrants an ocean away) so one wonders if it should just be subject to the same critiques as the broader self esteem movement.
I don't at all (look at my post history) think we need to treat every migrant kindly -- especially those with facially bogus asylum claims. But I think we should have treated this individual migrant better.
Of course, there is no actual political movement for "be fucking reasonable, don't let a million Venezuelans and Hondurans in but also don't deport a guy that runs a legit business".
Yeah, this case seems ridiculous on its face. But then, Trump is a ridiculous figure.
All that needed to happen , anywhere, was for someone else to have picked the "be fucking reasonable" option. Part of the reason I'm so contemptuous of the moralistic line is that people seemed to have gotten drunk on their own Koolaid and made everything worse.
Not that I disagree. But the Biden policy was ridiculous even though their leader/figurehead (whichever, dgaf) tried to maintain that he was a serious person.
IOW, ridiculous figure or not, we get ridiculous policy.
More options
Context Copy link
The politicians who claimed to be picking the "be fucking reasonable" option turned out to, by revealed preference, favor the "let them all in, yes, even the obvious fakers and criminals" option.
Trump has mostly followed legal procedure. Legal procedure on paper for immigration law is actually quite harsh -- and yes, third party deportation is right there in the statutes. The big exception is the Alien Enemies Act stuff. (Maryland Dad was a violation of procedure, but almost certainly just a normal fuckup)
Maryland wife beater might have been a violation of procedure ( idk if it even was ) but was not a violation of the spirit.
More options
Context Copy link
I expect legal procedure is gonna converge on "you need to give meaningful notice to deportees unless they already have a final order of removal".
That's pretty much where it was except for the AEA stuff, and that's going the same way, yes.
(Maryland Dad DID have a final order of removal, he just also had an order that said he couldn't be sent to El Salvador specifically)
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