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 leftists and progressives were that interested in that cause they would have
freed their slaveslegalized their illegals when they had the power to do so. They have had it several times in the past.They did not, and because of that inaction- that inability to make a deal with the rest of the country and get it Done- now their cause suffers. Perhaps it was because they'd be destroyed as a party for making legible that flagrant and absurd violation of the laws and norms of the country? Perhaps it was because they believed that holding "they'll be deported otherwise" hostage would curry greater electoral success by driving turnout? Perhaps it was because they could do the county-level equivalent of court-packing by counting them in the census and redistricting accordingly? Perhaps it was because they were of a demographic that (socially, politically, economically) profited most from being able to undercut domestic labor, being of the class that most often buys it? It's difficult to say.
Now, we can talk about corruption in the sense that some slaves are getting rounded up faster than others, or who it's being done to first/who's getting exempted. And I have sympathy for your material conditions; economic instability is, naturally, bad for business as finance for it depends in large degree to a now-frustrated economic forecast (and of all the criticisms of Trump this is the greatest and most grounded, and affects both the capital of the Empire and all of its provinces).
But a side doesn't get to claim it's some unique badness because it [mistake theory] never made the sacrifices and compromises necessary to fix the issue and in so doing revealed that side didn't care, or [conflict theory] where it intentionally made the problem worse.
They made their best effort. DACA, Dreamers, etcetera. Democrats have had a government trifecta extremely rarely over the past few decades.
Anyways, illegal immigration is better than legal immigration. I'm a neolib, not a leftist; anyone who wants to live here can come, but if they want to stay here they shouldn't ask for welfare.
What deal? Republicans view immigration as a capital-t Threat. Look at any thread on this site and you will see that there are plenty of near-single-issue anti-immigration voters. Democrats couldn't have made any deal that didn't hurt more than it helped.
It's not difficult at all. Illegal immigration is a good thing. I want as much of it as possible.
don't twist my words. I'm not claiming trump is uniquely 'bad' in some objective sense. I'm claiming trump is uniquely placed to oppose my values and interests. Sure, clinton is also a rapist and I admit I don't feel nearly as much vitriol against him. But as much as everyone on the epstein list deserves to be taken down, I think it's perfectly rational to motivate my ingroup to focus on specifically the biggest threat to our interests. Call that Trump Derangement Syndrome if you want, but emotions are part of motivation and motivation is a part of political change, so it's perfectly rational for us to be "deranged."
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.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link