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 -
Multiple honest posters here have claimed that the lack of E-Verify mandate means that everything else is unserious and that failure to do so is why "many conservatives who actually care about immigration are pissed at Trump".
For the specific combination that employer mandates are the only reasonable approach and that going after illegal immigrants is cruel :
...
...
Do you think any nuance exists in these objections? Perhaps something less absolute than "going directly after illegal immigrants is cruel and should be verboten"? Is it possible the presence or absence of certain qualifying adverbs might impact the meaning of such statements?
I think nuance could exist in objections similar to the ones provided: a post that considered things like how sanctuary city policies have actually interacted with enforcement of deportation orders rather than The One Time Someone Got Caught, or whether immigration lawyers might lie in pleadings or asylum filings. I don't think it was shown, here, or that it'd be consistent with PmMeClassicMemes' other recent public positions.
There's nothing wrong with holding those positions. There's nothing illegitimate with arguing them! But they exist, in their strongest form; they are not strawmen.
I do not think @The_Nybbler was referring to "their strongest form." I am aware there are people who genuinely believe immigration laws should not be enforced and everything ICE does is illegitimate. @PmMeClassicMemes does not seem to be saying "immigration laws should not be enforced" (in fact he says the opposite), and I don't know of anyone other than the most radical leftists who'd agree that literally no one, not even a convicted felon, should be deported ever. @The_Nybbler seems to be merely taking a shit, as he usually does, on people who have moderate-to-strong opposition to the maximal position.
The other posts you quoted seem to be generally agreeing with my own personal position, which is that immigration laws should be enforced, but the administration is unserious about really doing that because they are more interested in setting up confrontations on the streets than applying any pressure at all on the businesses who continue to incentivize illegal immigration.
... are you using "strongest" here to describe most extreme, or most defensible? Because I'm talking about the former.
That's nice, and all, but it's a formulation literally only you have ever said, here, and it completely swallows the difference between Nybbler and PmMeClassicMemes' position since both eVerify and direct deportation are immigration laws (hell, even Biden-esque operations are technically 'enforcing' the law, just not in any serious way). If we go back to Nybbler's actual claim, that people believe "going directly after illegal immmigrants is cruel and should be verboten", we see that PmMeClassicMemes clearly does not want immigration law used against actual illegal immigrants, even illegal immigrants with previous criminal histories. Nor is that specific to PmMeClassicMemes, as we can see by the regular refusal by sanctuary jurisdictions to refuse to honor immigration detainers at jails, or the unending panics over Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Yes, you can imagine the actual enforcement that might be accepted or acceptable to you. But you're the one that had to bring up convicted felons. PmMeClassicMemes hasn't even used the term "convicted" or "felon" in the last month; no example brought here acts as a case where Go 100% Deportation. Maybe he agrees with you, maybe he sets the line a little higher (I don't particularly care if someone sold bootleg cassettes, for example) or a little lower, whatever.
But Nybbler's statement wasn't "literally no deportation against anyone, ever, in any situation, no matter the case". He said "going directly after illegal immmigrants is cruel and should be verboten". That's not the same thing.
Perhaps, but coincidentally he's also pointing out that people claim that eVerify policies would be just, that deporting immigrants is not, and they happen to come from immigration maximalists, and they're not very credible about that first point.
We happen to have an immigration maximalist in this thread making these specific arguments.
You're calling it a strawman.
It is not clear to me that that is true, but I tire of trying to engineer semantics to cast what someone "really" means (especially when this is done to me) rather than just asking them directly.
I suppose in fairness I should ask @The_Nybbler directly, then. Does "going directly after illegal immigrants is cruel and should be verboten" mean one believes no illegal immigrant should ever be arrested and deported under any circumstance?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But this is the claim you were responding to:
Which is perfectly consistent with what you're saying now. Notice that you changed "going directly after illegal immigrants" to "immigration laws should be enforced".
The two statements you quoted are not perfectly consistent.
Adjectives, adverbs, and qualifiers alter the meanings of sentences.
Rhetorical flourishes don't really change the meaning. The way you changed the terminology was much worse in that regard.
I wasn't using rhetorical flourishes. I was using words to communicate things that I actually believe.
You read my statement and your conclusion is that I believe "going after the employers is the best and only reasonable way to do anything about illegal immigration and, as a result, going directly after illegal immigrants is cruel and should be verboten."
Is that correct?
I was talking about Nybbler.
You were also paraphrasing his argument in a way that was no longer faithful to what he actually said.
No, I read the Nybbler's statement as an accurate paraphrase of argument to be exaggerated but accurate portrayal of the arguments being made here. Your personal opinions on the topic don't enter into the conversation. This is just about your claim that Nybbler's statement is a strawman.
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