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 -
An AI facial recognition model trawled through 1.5 million mugshots and determined that the Hispanic crime rate is underestimated by 30%
The Hispanic crime rate has been discussed in the context of the immigration debate. I recall that the relatively insignificant difference between the White and Hispanic rate has been used as an argument in favor of migration from Hispanic countries. The math changes if the Hispanic crime rate is 30% higher than previously believed, and the White rate ~6% lower than believed.
Additionally, the analysis above needs to be supplemented with an analysis of the crime clearance rate. Not every crime is solved, meaning that not every crime is logged. If the Hispanic clearance rate is lower than the White clearance rate, due to myriad factors like documentation issues and hesitancy to work with police, then this must be factored into the crime rate too. Indeed, there is a substantial 19% difference of clearance between murders where the victim is Hispanic and murders where the victim is White, with more “Hispanic victim” murders going unsolved. What to do with this information is a little bit tricky. Most homicides are within-race and gang homicides are especially likely to go unsolved. So it’s reasonable to assume that nearly all of the 19% difference in homicide clearance are homicides committed by an Hispanic offender (we can only tell the race of the victim here). This is somewhat complicated by the possibility that unsolved white victim homicides may be more likely to have an Hispanic offender than the solved homicide rate, but figuring that out is annoying.
Putting this all together: the Hispanic crime rate is likely 50% higher than expressed in the official and common crime data. This weakens the argument that Hispanic migration would be a net economic positive, given the high cost of crime via secondary / tertiary effects.
It would be interesting to find out what proportion of these murders were committed by first-generation migrants.
After the last few high profile violent crimes committed in the UK, there has been a curious rush to publicize that the offender was a second or third generation immigrant, usually a British citizen. This is apparently motivated from a desire to push back against anti-migrant sentiment: "See! He grew up in the UK. He wasn't an immigrant! You can't hold this terrible event against immigrants". It's one of those cases when the mainstream left demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend what their opposition actually believes and why.
It would be kind of like someone trying to publicize an instance of police brutality as proof of how bad black communities are: "Look! This is how brutal you have to deal with these people! This proves how irredeemably uncivilized they are". Of course, there are no doubt some people who actually do think like this, but even they would never try to use this argument against a left-winger because they understand how it would be interpreted in practically the opposite way.
Yeah. I'm similarly baffled when I see people mentioning that the perpetrator of latest mass stabbing incident was a British (or in one case, Irish) citizen (by which they mean someone who secured citizenship during his lifetime), like they're laying down a trump card.
So you mean our processes for immigration and naturalisation are so lacking that they can completely fail to identify and weed out a deranged knife-wielding lunatic? Way to tell on yourself.
If they're second or third generation, the immigration/naturalization process can't have weeded them out (at least not directly).
No, it's not the same thing. But it's the same kind of weird deflection. What makes you think the most effective means of combatting anti-immigration sentiment is to point out that the perpetrator of a horrific violent crime was a legal immigrant? That's even worse than if it was committed by a refugee or asylum seeker!
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