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 -
Enforcing any law is going to have an element of cruelty. I'm prepared to tolerate it when the objective is important and the cruelty is minimized to the greatest extent that is feasible. In this case, I don't actually think we are being particularly cruel (with a few exceptions). My main objection is that we are being stupid. We are saying we are hard and cruel (loudly and repeatedly), dressing up ICE mall-cops like they are Delta Force operators, and then putting them in situations where they end up fighting with US citizens.
This is partially fair. I don't think it's really the people like myself putting out the tuna (I genuinely don't want marginal and negative value immigrants here), but the shrieking activists, or really, the people organizing them? Yeah, they are providing material support to illegals that makes it more likely they will stay.
To which I say, fine. If they like the illegal immigrants so much, let them provide free housing for every single one of them, since they will no longer be able to pay rent. Let them provide breakfast, lunch and dinner every single day. Let them organize healthcare and childcare and recreational activities. They can take the whole of the burden of supporting millions of people. You might counter that the more extreme immigration activists would be totally prepared to do this, and they'll use our tax dollars (at the state level) to do it. Maybe so. But these extremists only exist in a few deep blue states and cities, and now they are going to get an entire nation's worth of illegals looking for handouts. My political instincts tell me this will not be popular with the masses, even in Minnesota and California (even people who like cats mostly don't want to have fifty cats). In the long term, the extremists start to look more unmistakably like the zealots we already know they are, and the regular population grows increasingly resentful until they decide to boot the extremists out of office, or else the extremists moderate for the sake of self-preservation.
Will this be a slower, more drawn out process? No, I think it could actually go faster. To move things along, take the money we are now saving from not running the stupid cosplay immigration raids and pay a self-deportation bounty with it. Claude tells me we are about to fund DHS with 191 billion dollars. Take half of it and give it to out to the first 5 million illegal immigrants who self deport. That would be $19,000 per person. A family of four could collect $76,000 and buy a house in whatever country they came from. Or perhaps better still, run the self deportation lottery: "Deport yourself and you get a ticket that enters you to win 1 million dollars! And because the United States is so generous, there will be one winner for every 100 people who self deport! You heard that right, one winner for every hundred people!" Now your cost is down to $10,000 a person, and you have enough money to incentivize nearly 10 million people to self deport. And the best part is, either approach still leaves DHS with its full normal funding, so it will have plenty of resources to ensure nobody is coming in while this offer stands.
At the end of the day, the problem is either stupidity, or more likely, a desire not to actually succeed at scale.
Sure but how do I make sure I don’t pay for them? How do I ensure my tax dollars don’t pay for them (money is famously fungible)? How do I ensure that when another party comes to power they don’t just make them all citizens that can vote who will now swear everlasting fealty to the party that has been giving them tuna nonstop!
How do I ensure when blue states go bankrupt I don’t have to bail them out?
More options
Context Copy link
I understand and empathize with your desire to use more apparently humane methods to get illegals to leave, but I think your proposed solutions have serious issues.
The extremists would likely pledge to take care of and pay for illegals and then say, oops! The illegals ran away and we can't find them! Meanwhile, blue states will continue to quietly provide free social services to these "misplaced" illegals and make no effort to find them. We'll end up back where we started. Feigning incompetence and cluelessness is ]a powerful weapon.](https://x.com/i/status/1893134391322308918)
As for paid deportations, it seems extremely obvious to me that those people will just come straight back. Worst case they might have to wait for a Democrat president to take office. The cans of tuna will still be calling.
I agree with your claim in your OP that we should focus on removing the tuna cans. Although I am strongly anti illegal immigration (and most legal immigration) I have a hard time getting mad about the free tuna in blue states when the red states refuse to punish employers hiring illegals. It's a pretty big blackpill. One party is captured by rabid open borders activists, and the other party is subverted by "conservatives" who prioritize economic growth and personal gain above the preservation and flourishing of their nation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link