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 -
Doesn't everyone? You, on the other hand should look at the reactions to the Martha's Vineyard, be it in threads here, or on other place forms. No one seems to actually be pro-immigration.
You must live inside the most well-fortified filter bubble known to man. Do you seriously believe no one is pro-immigration? Are you such a mistake theorist that you think literally every leftist/liberal is simply ignorant of the downsides?
For myself, I understand that not everyone benefits from immigration. I understand why people in particular cultural-economic positions might rationally want to reduce the number of migrants. But I am not one those people. Immigrants directly benefit me and my ingroup. We want more of them.
Quite the opposite, I'm a conflict theorist who believes the only reason the left is "pro" immigration is that it's bad for their outgroup. This also explains the sudden change in attitude when they're at the receiving end of it, in situations like Martha's Vineyard, or Lukashenko shipping Middle-Easterners into the EU.
What? The left is pro-immigrant because they have an overly naive desire to help everybody (at least those who do not hold a set of beliefs they despise). The left was mad about Martha's Vineyard because reportedly said immigrants were given a bunch of promises that Maryland never made, and that a relatively small town doesn't have a lot of capacity for helping a lot of people arriving at the exact same time.
They don't want to help, because given the chance, they didn't. It's not about size, because New York cried uncle too, and they got sent a tiny portion if what the southern states have to deal with. Being upset about promises would make sense, but being upset at getting sent the immigrants does not, if they actually believe what they say this they do.
And what were the fake promises anyway?
Depends what you mean by "didn't [help]." From what I can tell, many were transferred to Cape Cod and moved to other parts of the country. A few ended up staying. I can't find any articles saying they were deported, though the usual caveats of liberal media apply there. California does put a lot of resources and protection towards migrants, for better and worse.
As for the promises:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I live in a location with tons of migrants-- both internationally (from latin america, and india) and internally (colleges nearby). It's great. Tons of services, no discernable effect on crime, plenty of new capital moving in to energize the local economy.
I sincerely don't care about how immigration hurts conservatives, and I mean that in every sense. I'm not encouraging it just to hurt you... but if it does, tough luck, buttercup. I'm pro-immigration because cheap labor is awesome, and network effects make it even better. I would probably be more anti-immigration if it was my labor being cheapened... but as a software engineer that works remote, my field is already at the upper end of globalization. You cannot threaten me with immigrants taking my job. If they could, indians in bangalore would already be doing it.
That's great, but I still want to know why the reaction to Abbot's and Lukashenko's shenanigans wasn't an amused confusion. If immigration is really so great, shouldn't the recipient jurisdictions be saying something like "thanks, you're only making us stronger"?
It's great in the aggregate, but not for every individual in particular. I recognize that there are people rationally opposed to immigration. But I have no reason to prioritize their interests over the interests of either myself or the (immigrant-inclusive) collective.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And which location is that?
Does it perchance happen to have a bit of a history of possibly White, possibly Christian people either from a homogenous culture or engaged in the process of forming a homogenous culture building it up? Is it still, or was it until very recently, majority non-immigrant?
Possibly not. Maybe you're in Singapore. But as a matter of probability, I doubt it.
We'll see what's left of your location after a generation or two of Multikulti.
[Generic Midwestern City]. Founded by fur traders interacting with native americans, then settled by an admixture of english-descended and german-descended immigrants (who were definitely not a homogenous culture at that time), then settled again in successive waves by the great (african american) migration, by the italian and irish migrations, by latin american migrations, and now most recently by an indian migration. We've been what you call "Multikulti" for pretty much our entire existence. And that's essentially ordinary for anywhere that isn't some podunk town in the middle of nowhere.
I rest my case.
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