site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   33723 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

and I'm still of the belief that Orbán and PiS' scaremongering about migrants is just that: scaremongering

Why? The crime data alone seems to show they, at the very least, have a point. And that's without going into values based criticisms like being opposed to homogenization.

The only scenario where there will be, post war, large immigration into Ukraine, would be scenario where war drags for long time with massive casualties (as Anatoly Karlin predicts with glee) and Ukraine receives afterwards huge (and this means huge, multi-trillion) reconstruction aid (from where?) and this boon is actually used as intended for reconstruction of Ukraine.

In this case, Ukraine will need far more work force.

Historical note: after WWI, France was the "le premier pays d’immigration au monde", with ongoing active recruitment of hundreds of thousands of workers from abroad.

If you see this scenario as plausible, you have reason to be afraid.

As I said, this scenario is contingent on Ukraine receiving massive reconstruction aid/reparations/loans.

I'm pretty sure the European law states refugees have to stay in the country they are originally processed. The fact that they want to move to richer countries, doesn't turn into a non-issue.

Anyway, looks like you don't dispute they actually have a valid point, so carry on.

Yes, the Dublin Regulation:

On 3 December 2008, the European Commission proposed amendments to the Dublin Regulation, creating an opportunity for reform of the Dublin System.[9] The Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) was approved in June 2013, replacing the Dublin II Regulation, and applies to all member states except Denmark.[10] It came into force on 19 July 2013. It is based on the same principle as the previous two, i. e., that the first Member State where finger prints are stored or an asylum claim is lodged is responsible for a person's asylum claim.[11]

Generally that means that Southern/Eastern European countries just usher potential applicants onwards to the richer countries to lodge the asylum claims there.

You don't seem to be arguing that these countries would benefit from more immigration, or disputing their claim that immigration would cause issues, so you're not contradicting their main point.

Maybe it's not a problem now, but these countries hope to eventually be rich and stable like Western European countries, and if they are, they'll have to deal with third world immigration then. And E-Europeans heading west to make money don't want to have to compete with Africans.

Imagine having leaders capable of thinking more than a decade ahead!

Their main point isn't getting less immigrants it's farming domestic votes.

Huh? Yes, people voted for anti-immigration parties, because they didn't want increased immigration.

where apparently Ukraine is about to be some hotbed of MENA immigration because.. Um, NATO! EU!

That is silly, but it's because the core EU soured on the whole immigration idea itself, not because they are above putting pressure on other countries, which they were doing during the Syrian refugee crisis.

For your vote to be anti-immigration, you must first have a pro-immigration party. Lots of Eastern European nations have those! Those would be their efforts to drag the people who migrated decades ago back in.

While the mods frown upon it, I happened to enjoy a bit of snark. I would only ask the snark contains something you genuinely want me to comment on. Somehow I doubt "you claim to be anti-immigration, and yet you want your own citizens to come back, curious!", is something that you actually want addressed.

People voting for MENA immigration are a rounding error off in Eastern Europe

This was not the case during the Syrian refugee crisis, and even now the parties seem to be divided into those against it, and those totally-not-for-it but who will call you racist for being against it. Also, we were talking about the EU putting pressure on other countries, so western Europe should be taken into account as well.

it's tougher to make a caricature of the place you live in every day

Your portrayal of the anti-immigration side seems to contradict this.

And I wish someone would tell that to the people running the news media.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats