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 -
This is just as often reversed on immigration, though.
Lib: We need immigrants for economic growth, to bring in young productive people to support social security programs, to do jobs that are otherwise difficult to fill. Immigration makes America stronger!
Con: What does American economic growth matter if it doesn't benefit Americans? I'd rather see the American economy grow or collapse on the strength of Americans, than sell out my country to foreigners to get stronger.
Purity is typically a conservative basis for morality in Moral Foundations Theory. Refusal to compromise on one's beliefs is the essence of having beliefs, of having principles. Life for the sake of life is the philosophy of bacteria, the life has to mean something, be something.
Speaking as an anti immigrant person, I’m concerned we let in people who are ill suited for our culture and who aren’t the brightest. I don’t think the brazilificarion of our nation will lead to economic growth per capita even if it might increase overall gdp; I think it will per capita make it worse.
I'm not addressing every single person who holds a position. People think things for many reasons!
Surely you can recognize that there exist some anti-immigration individuals who would not care if the GDP went up if it meant the Great Replacement occurred.
Of course. But you made a claim about the mass of conservatives. I think a big piece is that there will be a net decrease in utility. Some of that is eco ionic and some of that is cultural.
At some level though what OP is positing is equally mixed: libs believed that torture was bad, that it wasn't useful (delivered no usable Intel), and that even if it did it would still not be worth the compromise in morals. The degree to which the middle term is driven by motivated reasoning is the battleground.
Similarly, anti immigration folks claim immigration is net negative in every way, pro immigration folks tell me it's positive in every way. The degree to which motivated reasoning, or per op simple dishonesty, is present is the battleground.
I don't think the broad mass of conservatives are motivated purely by economic concerns. That isn't contradicted by somebody popping up and saying well actually me personally... And even you yourself admit that some of it is cultural for you, so once again we're in the battleground.
To me, there is a difference between pecuniary and the common good. I can imagine some communities that are slightly poorer compared to other communities but better places to live due to non pecuniary reasons. Of course, the larger the pecuniary gap the more difficult it is for the non pecuniary benefits to outweigh the pecuniary ones.
There's a reductio ad in either direction right?
On the one hand, replacing every American with a higher-IQ Chinese or Indian person might raise the GDP by 15%, but it's weird to say to say it would be good for "America."
On the other, admitting Jensen Huang to the country obviously benefits America, even if it dilutes the pool of Americans. 1/333000000 dilution, versus a roughly $500 estimated increase in GDP per capita.
I've seen people who would argue this, in two different types. First, there's the open borders set; the sort who, when someone talks about how current trends will, say, destroy France, respond with "What, is it going to sink into the ocean? Iberia will be turned into an island somehow?" To them, "America", or any other country, is just a chunk of land, an arbitrary geographic division marked by "imaginary lines," utterly independent of the people living on it. That the job of a country's government is to provide administration for the Universal Human Rights, both "negative" and "positive", of all people within its particular arbitrary domain, without discrimination — they have a duty to treat equally everyone who happens to be living there in any given moment, regardless of how long they've been there, or any arbitrary fiction like "citizenship." Further, their view generally sees the existence of separate countries as a historical mistake, a remnant of the xenophobia of our ancestors, who failed to see past superficial cultural differences to our universal humanity, and thus drew borders instead of politically unifying into a larger and larger multicultural polity that would come to embrace all humanity; and thus that existing nations should at the very least, in practice, be reduced to mere administrative subdivisions of a de facto or de jure one-world government.
(There's also a slightly more libertarian-leaning technocratic subset, who see the duty of the state's administration as less about the welfare state, and more about maximizing their territory's GDP. A corporation's leadership has a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, thus, if a CEO thinks firing the entire workforce of the company and replacing them with new hires will make it more profitable, he isn't just allowed to do so, he's required. Analogously, if a government thinks replacing the "legacy" population of the country with immigrants will increase total GDP, well then, 'line goes up equals world more gooder.')
Then there's the people who would reject the idea for other countries, but would make the case for America specifically, because the USA is not like other countries — "America" is an idea. America is a system of government, laid down by the Founders (some argue via divine inspiration), and enshrined in the (sacred) Constitution. Wherever those ideals exist, there is "America." So, yes, you can replace every American with a higher-IQ Chinese or Indian person, but so long as the structures of the federal government remain, so long as the Constitution is still there, then it's still "America."
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
It's religious conservatives who believe every life has intrinsic value, though
Every life has intrinsic value.
Yet, Christianity honors the martyrs who refused to renounce God even in the face of death.
There is a value above life in this view. There are forms of continuing human civilization that would not be worth it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link