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 -
-I don't think it's reasonable for Democrats to create a massive mess, and then to expect Republicans to have perfection in how they clean up the mess made by Democrats. And I think that should be one framing that conservatives use- "sometimes bad things will happen when Democrats create a mess and we have to clean it up for them".
-I think conservatives should use incidents like this to raise attention to the fact that the media, and the left (but I repeat myself a bit), comparatively give so little attention to the victims of illegal immigrants and recidivist criminals out on the streets from liberal policies. The people getting into incidents with ICE are much less "innocent" than the random victims of recidivist criminal nutjobs or illegal immigrants let out on the streets by liberal policies.
-Conservatives tend to get into the weeds about whether or not a shooting was "justified", instead of simply pointing out that almost all of the unwanted tragic incidents that relate to politics are mainly committed by the groups which are the chief recipients of liberal sympathies.
Every time the left gives a massive amount of attention to someone getting into a confrontation with ICE and it ends badly, conservatives should be asking why Iryna Zarutska et al didn't get the same level of concern for not seeking out any trouble whatsoever.
-Speaking as a former leftist, if conservatives really want to get the media to not be such overwhelming propaganda outlets for the left, then I think they absolutely must implement 2rafa's idea of jobs quotas by ideology.
The simple reality, and many studies back this up, is that liberals are more bigoted against conservatives, than conservatives are bigoted against liberals. And the level of liberal bigotry is at an all-time high.
-Especially when it comes to the media, it's easy to portray it as a free-speech right. If conservatives can almost never be admitted nor hired by colleges, nor hired for media jobs, then they are cut off from major sources of "speech" in their country. (And colleges often have received federal grants, making it even more egregious that these institutions are taking tax dollars from conservatives, while refusing to admit or hire them).
-I think the jobs quota needs to be portrayed as universal protection for every ideology. And to emphasize that free speech is completely protected, I think quotas should be proportional to the ideology of the audience.
So, if an institution deliberately wants to only cater to a universally left-wing audience, that's fine, then they can hire only leftists, if that is their desire. And conservative institutions would have the same freedom to hire only conservatives, if they want to cater exclusively to a conservative audience.
But I can guarantee that nearly every single media and academic institution in the western world has more conservative audience members (and taxpayer funders), than the number of conservatives the HR-liberals are willing to hire.
-Everyone would then clearly be free to engage in any speech they want. This is just about hiring practices in cases where there is a clear discrepancy in who is getting hired.
But any conservatives by now should see that it's obvious that "policy follows personnel". As institutions have hired more leftists, they have become more leftist in their policies & in their speech habits.
-I would suggest that ideological hiring quotas should also apply for government jobs, which skew massively leftist in practice. Voters deserve a government which matches how they vote!
-Hiring quotas by ideology in government jobs would accomplish a lot of major conservative goals at once: 1. Significantly lower the risk of civil war. 2. Massively expand conservative power. 3. Reduce liberal enthusiasm for spending and for government power in general (liberals will perhaps suddenly lose interest in having their taxes fund lots of conservatives in easy government jobs.).
-A major part of why government jobs have consistently skewed leftist is that government jobs tend to be concentrated in urban areas that lean left. So, government jobs not only tend to be functionally hostile to conservatives on ideological grounds, government jobs also tend to have a massive regional bias against conservative-leaning rural areas in particular.
-"Regionalism" is underdiscussed as a type of bias which badly harms some people. I think this is because "regionalism" mostly harms conservative-leaning groups. A lot of liberals have been very good at making a massive fuss about some types of bias which evidence suggests harms relatively few people (like racism), while ignoring the more common harmful biases which can get wielded against people based on where they live, what religion they practice, or how they vote.
Interesting, but in practice this would be super hard and cause major problems for some institutions.
How are you going to get a 50:50 split in the police or military? Do you really want aome of these organisations to reflect the voter base, rather than the base of people who want to work in that field?
My understanding is that the military is already fairly split by voting preferences among active-duty military, e.g. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/.com
In general, in all nations, the military is a fantastic candidate for balanced ideology, since coups require the support of the military in 100% of cases (the support of the media is also essential).
But if the military is always split relative to the nation's voting preferences, then it's really hard to take over the military as a part of a coup of the government. It's a great way to protect democracy.
And regarding the police (and ICE), a great way to get the left to stop attacking law enforcement so much (and to hopefully improve community relations and improve the skewed perspective most leftists have about law enforcement), would be to get more leftists working in law enforcement. I'm sure there would be some negative effects, too, but there are some big major positives about ideological balance in law enforcement.
This is a good question, and I think that ideological fairness should be assessed in the same way that things like gender fairness or racial fairness are often assessed: that as long as you can show that the workplace is not hostile, and that no minimally qualified candidates were rejected, then if there simply aren't enough qualified leftist/rightist candidates that applied, then it's fine if there is a resulting imbalance.
The reality is that a lot of media/academic/government workplaces are massively hostile to conservatives, and a lot of conservative talent is not being admitted nor hired.
This has not worked out well for the UK.
More options
Context Copy link
No I agree that this would solve the problem you're describing, and I think it's an interesting perspective I hadn't heard of before.
But operationally, how do you encourage e.g. lefties to go to police academy or righties to go to the department of fairness and equality (or whatever).
Institutions bust their ass to get e.g. women into the police and they can't really make it happen.
It's another good question.
Since I come from a leftist activist background, I basically fall back on the types of suggestions that leftists make to increase "representation" in other areas:
-Advertise more in those spaces
-Increase representation in the media
-Reduce any hostility in the workplace for those kinds of people, if you reasonably can
-Make them aware that they have legal rights
-...and if all else fails, simply accept that if people don't want to do those jobs, even when fully aware of the opportunities, then so be it. People can't be forced to do things they don't want to do. But you can at least make the opportunities available and raise awareness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The typical victim of an illegal immigrant might be killed by an illegal the Democrats did not deport after he served some sentence for a crime (not sure what their exact policies were).
Note that the Biden admin generally did not use federal taxes to buy guns for illegals and paid them a federal salary to engage in behavior where they were somewhat likely to shoot people, so we might want to hold Trump's ICE to slightly higher standards.
Is that so? The central case of an illegal murdering someone is not a serial killer murdering some random women. It is likely either an acquaintance or romantic partner of the criminal or a member of a rival narcotics gang. Also, we do not generally rank murders by how innocent their victim was, so we do not need to get into discussing if a woman who elects to date a man who previously committed violent crime is more or less innocent than a woman who tries to hamper ICE through nonviolent means. A judge might be a bit more lenient when a murderer kills the rapist of his sister in revenge than when he guns down a random stranger in the streets, but at the end of the day either is murder. "He was a bad person, the world is better off without him" is not an argument we let anyone make in court, and I see no reason why we should let ICE make it.
I would not euphemize killings as "unwanted tragic incidents".
Furthermore, I think "killings that relate to politics", which I imagine you imagine as "killings by illegals, prior offenders whom liberals released, and killings related to political protests" is unfortunately a bit broader. In 2019 (the latest year for which the FBI has data), there were 13,927 homicides. Of these, 10,258, or some 73.6%, were committed using firearms. The degree how easily firearms should be available is clearly political as much as which offenders should be released. I am sure that somewhere in the 13927 murders, there is one which it totally non-political, not touching illegals, prior offenders, narcotics, firearms, sex work, domestic violence, housing policy and so forth, but for practical purposes it seems simpler to assume that most murders will touch policy somewhere.
(Your point technically stands, Blacks commit disproportionally many murders (mostly on other Blacks), and are certainly recipients of liberal sympathies. As most of the Blacks in the US are not recent immigrants, it just does little to motivate the removal of illegals.)
-I think the jobs quota needs to be portrayed as universal protection for every ideology. And to emphasize that free speech is completely protected, I think quotas should be proportional to the ideology of the audience.
I think you would need a new SCOTUS for that. Citizens United clearly established that companies enjoyed free speech. Seems kinda hard to exempt media companies from that.
To be honest, "X% of the NYT readers are conservative, therefore the NYT should have X% conservative commentators", seems rather un-American to my European ears. Are you sure you are on my side of the pond? In fact, it seems slightly worse than just extending affirmative action to political ideology, because it would incentivize consuming media to neuter them. Imagine millions of liberal college students hate-watching Fox News so that they can force them to carry their viewpoints.
Quite frankly, in human history, it has never been easier to broadcast your viewpoint than it is today. You have social media companies run by people with very different political leanings. Anyone can open a blog or substack or video channel. MAGA-adjacent billionaires are spending billions to acquire platforms to get political clot. Big Tech has kissed the ring of the Donald and seems unlikely to offend him by shadowbanning MAGA content. Crying that CNN would not hire you seems as petty as some pink-haired liberal crying that Fox News would not hire them. There are a ton of other options, and the audience only reachable by traditional TV is growing smaller every year.
If we actually care about innocent people dying, then no, we shouldn't care any more about someone that dies at the hands of ICE, than someone that died from some criminal the Democrats let out on the streets. And there are VASTLY more people that die from those Democrat causes, than at the hands of ICE.
If the left actually cared about innocent people dying, their crime and immigration policies would be vastly different. But from what I can tell, their focus is mostly on making life easier for convicted criminals, and known illegal immigrants.
Most members of the public do this, actually. Most people don't care that much if some gang member is killed by some other gang member. They care a lot more if some innocent child dies. This is perfectly logical and normal.
I'm not saying the people that confront ICE are bad people (though I think that they are misguided). I am mostly noting that someone that gets in a confrontation with a member of law enforcement wielding a weapon is knowingly taking on a big risk. They are not 100% innocent in the situation, like Iryna Zarutska and other victims were.
And since members of ICE are humans, and all humans make occasional mistakes, these incidents will keep happening as long as the left goads on enough people into getting into confrontations with LEO.
This is a major part of why the left is so incredibly complicit in these deaths. It isn't just that the left deliberately imported millions of illegal immigrants and forced the voters to elect Republicans to clean up their mess, it's the fact that they keep goading suggestible people into confronting ICE. These incidents will keep happening as long as the left keeps doing that.
Can ICE policies be improved? Sure. But it's actually a lot harder to perfect that side of the equation, than for the left to stop creating these problems and confrontations in the first place.
What I'm proposing would be massively beneficial to conservatives, and SCOTUS does lean conservative.
BTW, I'm not suggesting at all that corporations should be forced to make ANY specific changes to their speech. I am only suggesting that corporations should be forced to engage in fair hiring practices, and then expect that as the personnel changes, the speech will likely change, too, once conservatives finally get a fair shot in the workplace in the media, academia, and government.
I am an American, and I feel deep sorrow at once-astonishing Europe's slow slide into irrelevancy, so I will probably stay here.
Amusing :). I'm sure Fox News would be completely happy with that outcome, though, and so would most conservatives, to see liberals finally get more exposure to conservative viewpoints. (Studies show that liberals are generally much more ignorant of conservative media and viewpoints, than the reverse.)
The audience for traditional media is still absolutely vast. And all "new media" would also be included. And in some cases it would help to protect the left!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link