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 phenomenon you are describing, attraction to "forbidden knowledge", doesn't make the content untrue. HBD would fit this description, and a lot of people were probably drawn to this community because it is almost the only place where you are allowed to talk about it.
HBD and anti-semitism are things you can't say out loud. You would be banned from essentially any other space except for this one. Your books would be censored (Kevin Macdonald's Culture of Critique was recently banned from Barnes and Noble after having long been banned by Amazon, but it can be purchased direct through the publisher).
Anti-semitism is criminalized in much of the Western world, and historians and scientists have spent years in jail for the crime of Holocaust denial. The former head of CODOH (Germar Rudolf) has had his Green Card renewal denied by the United States, despite the fact he has an American wife and American children. His application for political asylum was also denied despite the fact spent time in jail for what would be protected speech in the United States, and would spend more time in jail for the same if he went back to his homeland. Germany also refused to renew his passport, so he is in hiding to avoid being deported to Germany where he would spend many years in prison. There are of course severe social sanctions even for American citizens, and Canada criminalized Holocaust denial only last year.
It is definitely true that there is an allure to "forbidden knowledge". It is to some extent a status game, by being an early adopter to forbidden knowledge- especially among a community like this that has a pride in higher sensitivity for detecting truth in forbidden knowledge. But the by far greater motivation is the belief that the knowledge is true, which is clearly what motivates people more than status-seeking. If they didn't think it was true, it would be far less-risky to status signal in a million different ways that would be less threatening.
The solution then, should be to avoid the topic if you find it boring or believe the interlocutor to not be genuine. Or you could engage in a debate on the "forbidden knowledge" if you feel inclined to do so.
Your implication that he was treated unfairly appears to be based on an incorrect premise. As Justice Alito said when he was on the Third Circuit "the concept of persecution does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional. If persecution were defined that expansively, a significant percentage of the world's population would qualify for asylum in this country — and it seems most unlikely that Congress intended such a result." Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir.1993). And see Foroglou v. INS, 170 F.3d 68, 72 (1st Cir.1999) ("The asylum statute does not inflict on foreign governments the obligation to construct their own draft laws to conform to this nation's own highly complex equal protection jurisprudence.").
Permanent residence status does not expire. Once a person becomes a permanent resident, he remains a permanent resident unless it is revoked or abandoned. The most common reason for the latter is being outside the US for more than 6 months in any calendar year. The card itself expires, but that is a different thing.
Having an American wife and children does not entitle someone to retain his status as a permanent resident if he is otherwise subject to revocation or abandonment.
Of course he is being treated unfairly. Your implication is that he is not being treated unfairly because his treatment is within the boundaries of the law, which relies on an incorrect premise that fairness and lawfulness are always aligned. This is from the CODOH update last month:
This content is not if one can just say it out loud, how cool and secret can it really be? It's dangerous to talk about, and those involved continue despite the risk of persecution because they think it's true and important.
What does any of that have to do with his asylum application?? You said, "His application for political asylum was also denied despite the fact spent time in jail for what would be protected speech in the United States," implying that normally, being threatened with imprisonment for engaging in speech which would be protected were it engaged in in the US establishes an asylum claim. I pointed out that that does not seem to be the case, and nothing in that long quote is even relevant to that issue.
Again, a green card is just a piece of paper. It is an important piece of paper -- without a current green card, a permanent resident cannot travel abroad and then be admitted on his return, nor can a permanent resident legally work without a green card -- but lacking a green card does not expose a permanent resident to deportation; as discussed in the link I provided, the status of permanent residence does not expire.
Might that have something to do with his 2020 convictions for indecent exposure and open lewdness? "Certain crimes are defined by US immigration law as “crimes involving moral turpitude.” Conviction of one of these crimes will typically bar you from receiving citizenship for five years after your conviction date (only three years if your permanent residence is based on marriage to a US citizen). If you are convicted of one of these crimes, you will have to wait for the five-year (or three-year) anniversary of the conviction date to file your citizenship application.".
The implication is that he is being treated unfairly and he has no recourse. I didn't claim any lawbreaking. It is highly unusual
Probation would be enough cause to deport someone with an American wife and American children? You clearly do not like his politics, so you are supportive of these decisions. But establishing that they are legal does not establish that they are fair. He is clearly being targeted for political reasons, and you wouldn't support the similar treatment of other people - denial of permanent residence where your wife is and children were born - based on such nonsense.
Please show me where I said I supported those decisions. As it happens, I support the right of Holocaust deniers or even outright Nazis to speak, and I believe that the US should grant asylum to anyone facing imprisonment for speech which is legal in the US. Unfortunately, the courts apparently disagree with me, and hence the claim that his asylum denial on those grounds is evidence that he has been discriminated against because of his views is simply wrong.
As I have twice pointed out, he has not been denied permanent residence. You are tilting at windmills.
He is clearly being targeted for his views on Holocaust denial, I don't know why you feel so compelled to deny that fact. "The courts disagree with me" is not a justification for the decision or make it fair.
He’s disagreeing with the arrest/deport bit. An expired green card isn’t getting deported.
I think a non-revisionist with an indecent-exposure conviction would also not be issued citizenship. And the cited case makes it clear that speech laws don’t necessarily count for asylum. Whether or not these situations are morally correct, if they would be applied equally, they are not be unfair.
This is exactly what has already happened to him.
It's unbelievable how much incredulity there is that you all want to insist that this is normal procedure for someone with an American wife and American children. I can't believe you actually think that someone with wife and children in America would face deportation with ANY PROBABILITY under these same circumstances.
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