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 think that a policy that effectively and relatively bloodlessly (such as payments surveillance/targeting corporations that hire illegals/etc.) removed all illegal immigrants from the united states would have disastrous economic consequences, and would be horrendous policy. However, I wouldn't favour protesting such a policy, would not call it fascist, just label it as "something I don't support", the same way I am passionate about YIMBYism but don't think NIMBYs are evil.
I am broadly in favour of immigration, but I think allowing a bunch of illegal immigration instead of legal immigration is very silly and inefficient and leads to all sorts of ridiculous problems.
The fundamental reality is that the demand for labour in the united states is higher than the supply of labour, because the government has capped the amount of labour that can be provided, so employers and labourers enter into illegal arrangements to provide labour. I would rather they be able to have legal arrangements, but a policy that cracked down on illegal ones without focusing on heavy handed tactics would have my acceptance and I think broad political legitimacy, although not my support.
I think that if I were a democratic congressperson, I would be willing to actually vote for a bill that implemented the policy even though I think it would have disastrous consequences, without requiring a legislative trade (ex: amnesty for some, increased immigration levels), because I think that in short order (1y-2y), immigration policy I prefer would be demanded by the public on its own.
I also think that it is in everyone's interest to argue for efficient and well-ordered, predictable governance, even when they don't agree with the policy goals. For example, if Mamdani spun up a police unit to specifically to arrest landlords who committed crimes, and directed that all such arrests occur in midnight no-knock raids, I would take criticism of that implementation in good faith from people who oppose rent control!
The demand for labor at $0 is infinite. No matter what you set your immigration target at, companies will still kick and scream about having a "labor shortage" by which they mean a shortage of labor at the price they want to pay. Taking their claims at face value is ridiculous. They are optimizing for their company's own individual benefit, ignoring externalities that impact the public. Low-wage workers have a massive burden on social services like medical care, schools, welfare programs, etc. For some farmer to get a $7/hour agricultural worker, everyone else is paying tens of thousands of dollars per year to subsidize their ongoing existence in the US.
I think most people here would take issue with previous governments intentionally turning a blind eye to illegal migration, rather than the current administration's effort to actually enforce federal law as intended by Congress.
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for the response; I appreciate the thoughtful earnesty
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link