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 mean, I don't think we necessarily need to arrest the CEOs of Tyson Chicken and Walmart (though that would sure send a message). But as it stands, the Trump administration isn't willing to even make a token gesture towards recognizing the actual root cause of illegal immigration. Which makes me think they are fundamentally unserious about addressing it as a real economic/social issue and are mostly engaging in performative theater to please their base.
I would accept such an economic "correction" if they were really serious about it, even if that meant I felt some of the pain. But they won't do it.
I mean, the 'root cause' is mostly that social and economic conditions suck in other countries in both absolute terms and relative to the U.S..
In the purely materialist interpretation, its the same reason wind moves along a gradient from areas of high pressure to low pressure.
"Fixing" the root cause in that case would imply raising economic standards in those other countries (has been tried). Lowering economic standards in the U.S., or, maybe, just sprinkling enough excess U.S. wealth around that its marginally more attractive to stay put than to immigrate.
Or, if we don't find those methods feasible, imposing enough barriers that the flow is actually slowed down to a manageable extent.
And given how border crossings have slowed to a trickle with Trump in office, I'd say the barriers don't even have to be that imposing.
Anyway, lets say we do put a few CEOs in jail and this convinces other CEOs to avoid hiring illegals, which has a noticeable effect on, e.g. self-deportations.
What happens when the next Democratic president pardons them all, and then re-establishes the same status quo which allows them to hire illegals with relatively little concern for enforcement?
How do you get immigration restriction locked in at the political level?
I humbly suggest you gotta do more than merely slapping the employers around.
I don't propose we only slap employers around. I propose that if we don't address employers at all, the effort is largely wasted. Even without a future Democratic administration opening the borders again, employers who are not disincentivized will just continue to encourage illegal immigrants to replace the ones who were deported. The level of violence you'll have to inflict to really scare people out of coming is more than most Americans would stomach.
I think we disagree on which steps are both necessary and sufficient.
However I do think that punishing employers is necessary both from a practical and "upholding rule of law" perspective.
For better or worse (almost certainly worse) I think Americans are learning just how much they can stomach and how sharp but limited application of violence actually gets things done.
I think Americans have gotten less stomach for lawlessness and even basic property destruction after living through Covid times.
This isn't to say they're going to side with the government, but I see a general preference for order rather than chaos, and that can justify violent action.
(contingent on how long most Americans can actually pay attention to anything or really have an awareness of the situation outside their local area)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link