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 -
Okay, and why don't we have mandatory e-verify despite a Republican Congress and white house?
All of the obstacles you mention could easily be cleared with legislation.
I agree that it would be great to dismantle antidiscrimination law. It is not true that this could be "easily cleared with legislation" - among other things one would also need to eliminate leftist judges and other instruments of left wing anti democratic power.
Mandatory e-verify has nothing to do with discrimination. By definition, if you e-verify everyone, you aren't discriminating.
You're assuming court's follow actual logic. If "we apply this to everyone, so it can't be discrimination" the concept of "disparate impact" would not exist.
To be absolutely clear on this point - your position is that we don't have mandatory e-verify because Congress and the president know that the courts would make it de facto illegal to hire a person without work authorization? Do I understand you correctly?
My argument is that your previous argument is wrong, I made no statements about why no one tried passing mandatory e-verify. Where did you even get the idea?
I had the mistaken impression that you were responding to the substance of my argument. I apologize!
Let's try again.
Your argument is that mandatory e-verify would be ruled as illegal discrimination and that companies would be forced to hire people without work authorization?
I was. The substance of your argument was that e-verify can't have anything to do with discrimination by definition, because it would be applied equally to everyone, correct?
If not, I'm the one that should apologize. Though I hope you understand where my confusion comes from, given that you wrote "mandatory e-verify has nothing to do with discrimination. By definition, if you e-verify everyone, you aren't discriminating."
I have no way of knowing whether it would be ruled as such or not. The American legal system lets the judges rule whatever the hell they want. I'm just pointing out they already dismissed the "because it's applied to everyone" argument in another case.
You are perhaps correct in the broader sense of "if you do X to everyone it's not discrimination". However, you are obviously wrong in the narrower sense of "if you do work authorization verification to everyone it's not discrimination," which is the one that I was claiming.
It is completely standard for large American employers to do I-9 verification for all employees. My employer has in fact verified my citizenship twice because they somehow fucked it up the first time. This has never been ruled as illegal discrimination and, again, is completely standard for the kinds of businesses that don't employ illegal immigrants. Now, I realize that you can't be expected to know this since you are a Belgian (?). Nevertheless, the confidence about American discrimination jurisprudence in the context of work authorization seems misplaced.
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