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 -
Throwing in a quick post because I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed here (unless I missed it!), Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago sets up "ICE-free zones" in Chicago.
This comes on the heels of Trump sending in the national guard after Chicago PD apparently wouldn't help ICE agents under attack. I haven't read all the stuff about this scenario, but on the surface level it seems pretty bad, I have to say.
There's a video clip where that mayor is saying that Republicans want a "redo of the Civil War," amongst other incredibly inflammatory things. The Governor of Illinois is apparently backing the mayor up.
This refusal to help ICE and even outright claim that you're fighting a war with them I mean... I suppose Democrats have been doing it for a while. This seems... bad. I mean sure you can sugarcoat it and point to legal statues and such, but fundamentally if the local governments of these places are going to agitate so directly against the President, I can't blame Trump for sending in the national guard.
Obviously with the two party system we have a line and such, but man, it's a shame that our politicians have fully embraced the heat-over-light dynamics of the culture war, to the point where they really are teetering on the brink of starting a civil war. Not the social media fear-obsessed "civil war" people have been saying has already started, but real national guard vs. local pd or state military type open warfare. I just don't understand going this far, unless the Mayor of Chicago thinks that he can get away with it and Trump will back down.
Even then, brinksmanship of this type seems totally insane!
I suppose Newsom in CA has been doing it too, now that I mention it. Sigh. I hope that we can right this ship because man, I do not want to have to fight in a civil war I have to say. Having studied history, it's a lot more horrible than you might think.
Good. ICE officers have, in my mind, about as much legitimacy as federal officials enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act and it is every red-blooded Americans moral duty to resist them.
ICE is even worse than the ATF in terms of how much freedom it destroys, if you hate the ATF you should hate ICE even more.
ATF agents' main job is violating the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. ICEs main job is enforcing immigration law, and there's no "open borders" provision to the US Constitution, so no, one does not imply the other.
More options
Context Copy link
The only freedom at threat is the freedom to be an illegal immigrant, which is what Americans voted to see persecuted.
Living and working in America is not a universal human right.
This extremely basic concept that a very large majority of American voters agree with was painstakingly sidelined in all major institutions by the elite of both parties during my entire lifetime, to keep the tap of virtually unlimited cheap labor flowing.
Seeing people cry tears of blood at the enforcement of very basic immigration law is hilarious, but also a sad reminder of how far collectively we have strayed into decadence and away from the foundational job of a functional state; providing territorial integrity.
The question of who is a member of a community and who is not is so fundamental, it’s what is known as the “pre-political”; it’s the primer of a common political identity that allows for political action to be taken and sustained without violence from opposing parties.
There are people who decry the crumbling of taboos and polite conventions in politics and point their finger to this person or that person, but this is the very heart of it, and no return to civility is possible without resolving this issue because civility is based on group solidarity and group solidarity cannot survive past a certain threshold of diversity, because past that threshold there simply is no “group” to have solidarity with.
More options
Context Copy link
The same argument applies equally well to supporting Prohibition, however I'd wager you see the fight against Prohibition and its reduction in freedom as a good one.
…no? Prohibition was totally legitimate, attacking random police officers during prohibition would’ve been very wrong too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How is this not literal treason? I guess fuck having borders and laws and shit.
Treason is making war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Despite some attempts at stretching this to call illegal immigrants in general "enemies", that doesn't cover opposing ICE. But it does imply an full open borders position, which is not very popular in the US.
"...moral duty to resist them" can definitely stretch to treason. I don't think the recent attacks on the convoy or facility count (they're regular crime instead), but scale it up by 100x and it would.
It could also mean something as milquetoast as refusing to volunteer information and help, which is completely protected conduct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe it is but morality does not require "never do a treason." The founding of America was substantially treason against the British crown and they were right to do that.
Seriously, is it just the scary masks or do you actually think it's a crime against humanity to expect anyone to live in Mexico?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You seem to imply treason is inherently loathsome. Personally, I see it as one of the crimes against states which are morally different from crimes against men. Morality cannot exist between entities that are so different in power and nature.
… which of course is why there can be no possible moral objection to wantonly torturing puppies and kittens just for laughs (/s)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have plenty of complaints about the conduct of ICE but the legitimacy of their official mission seems fine? Even if you think having open borders is a moral imperative the US is clearly not set up to support flipping a switch from 0 to 100% on that without lead time.
Unless this is bait, in which case can you please not or at least choose better bait?
More options
Context Copy link
What was illegitimate about the Fugitive Slave Act other than the flagrant and duplicitous disregard for the law by free states?
It was morally abhorrent to enslave people and to return them into slavery. Legitimacy does not consist in "whatever the state says is legitimate."
Iis morally abhorrent to cross border without permission and to overstay a visa. To impose yourself in a place you don't belong and doesn't want you.
If we are talking about well-behaved gainfully-employed illegals in blue cities like Chicago (which is where the ICE raids causing the fuss are focused), then nobody is imposing. The illegals are in a place where their landlords, bosses, butchers, bakers etc. as well as a super-majority of the community are perfectly comfortable to have them there. The people who don't want them are the people (almost entirely from outside said blue cities) who voted for Trump.
Now as a matter of positive law, this particular group of intermeddling non-Chicagoans and the federal government they elected do in fact have the legal right to send goons into Chicago to round up and remove the illegals. But that only affects the morality of the immigrants' behaviour if you think there is a moral obligation to obey permissibly-dumb-but-not-evil laws in a democracy. I do, but my impression is that most Motteposters subscribe to the libertarian view that there there is no such obligation. Even if breaking laws is immoral, peacefully breaking immigration laws is immoral on the level of filesharing or handling salmon suspiciously*, not on the level of victimful crimes like burglary, so "abhorrent" seems excessive.
* "Handling a salmon in suspicious circumstances" is, somewhat notoriously, a crime in the UK. The purpose of the law is to make it easier to prosecute blatantly guilty poachers like this guy without needing to litigate the provenance of a specific salmon.
This is, of course, the load-bearing item of contention. To me, and to many, peacefully breaking immigration laws is some combination of trespass, home invasion and squatting. If I come to your house, and I eat your food and I tell you I'm never leaving, and the police back me up, it's not really your house any more. If 100 people like me do they same, it's definitely not your house any more. You are vestigial. Maybe there are photos of your family on the dresser - what do those people mean to me and mine? My children's photos will look much better there. Your furniture is ugly and doesn't represent my culture - let's throw it out, sell it, burn it for warmth.* It doesn't matter how peaceful illegal immigrants are, or if they do odd jobs around 'your' (for now) house. Demographic change is demographic change.
That's ignoring the face that lots of illegal immigrants actually turn out to be neither nice, peaceful or helpful, of course. But is it any wonder that voters react badly to breaking immigration law, or helping others break immigration law, when seen from this perspective?
*You might feel that this is catastrophising, or at least very pessimistic. I think that anyone pro-immigration must feel that way, but post-woke I can't agree. The outbreak of statue-vandalism, proposed name changes to get rid of all the old English names on parks and streets (most of which didn't get pushed through because there was no yet enough support), the direct import of specifically American racial grievances post-Floyd, the constant drumbeat of 'X is no longer appropriate for Modern (Multicultural) Britain' moved me heavily on these issues.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So now existing in Mexico is equivalent to slavery? Are we going to liberate Mexico and rescue them all, then? Can we put them where you live?
No, more precisely, having no access to the benefits of US welfare state is equivalent to slavery.
More options
Context Copy link
Wut
Federal officials enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act were returning people to slavery. ICE agents are returning people to Mexico. If you're going to have such a precious little time making the comparison, it would help if the two were comparable in some way.
They are comparable in that the state's actions are equivalent in their lack of moral legitimacy. I thought I was pretty clear about that.
No, that's not clear at all.
"Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.".
More options
Context Copy link
It's unfortunate that it seems like you have chosen to flame out, but taking your argument at face value - are you arguing for something to the effect of "A (enforcing the FSA) is immoral, and B (preventing federal agents from enforcing it) was an appropriate reaction to it; therefore if C (enforcing immigration restrictions) is immoral, then B is likewise an appropriate reaction to it"? In that case, setting A=9/11, B=the commando raid on Osama's compound, C=illegal immigration, under the reasonable assumption that the majority of US citizens agree that A and C are immoral and B was an appropriate reaction to A, are you arguing for commando raids to kill all illegal immigrants (and/or even those involved in planning their immigration)?
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah except you completely left out the part where you explain why they're, you know, comparable. You just walked out on stage and said "Slavery. There, now that I have moral legitimacy, I don't like ICE."
More options
Context Copy link
And why are those actions morally illegitimate? What is the source of moral illegitimacy in those two cases?
More options
Context Copy link
...and your stated reason slave officers were immoral is because they were doing their jobs, and their jobs are bad. Drawing the parallel that you believe ICE officers are immoral because they are doing their jobs, and their jobs are bad is the most obvious reading IMO.
I can't see how you could miss that. In fact, I can't see what else it could possibly be, so I'll ask directly: What is the connection between ICE officers and Fugitive Slave Act enforcers, that it's appropriate to compare their moral legitimacy?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it morally abhorrent for Mexicans to live in Mexico instead of becoming illegal aliens? Do you believe that every illegal alien has a right to your personal property in the same way that slaves have a right to their freedom? Do you believe that the law saying that have property and rights and not stripping them away from you to give them to illegal aliens is also illegitimate?
You are comparing two wildly different things; if your only response to this being pointed out is blank confusion, you should perhaps consider the properties of slaves and illegal aliens in more detail.
I do not think all actions of the state which lack moral legitimacy are factually equivalent. Hope this clarifies things!
You are aggressively ignoring every poster asking you to clarify why enforcing immigration law is equivalent to enforcing laws on slavery. This is just trolling.
More options
Context Copy link
Do they lack moral legitimacy because you don't believe borders should exist? Should the hypothetical Slave Catchers have instead of returning the escaped slaves to slavery, elected to take them back to Africa or to Mexico, wouldn't that have been less immoral than if they returned them to bondage?
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
Cool. Now imprint this feeling in your mind, so that you can recall it in detail when the shoe is on the other foot.
I think it is every red-blooded American's moral duty to do a lot of things you probably would not approve of. moral clarity is a rush but it does not keep the peace.
Is it the peace that is the absence of tension or the peace that is the presence of justice?
Neither. It is the peace where "they" get away with it for another day, for whatever definition of "they" we each prefer.
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