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 -
Did all the talent going to Canada somehow make it catch up to America, or did the opposite happen?
If you actually disagree with what I posted specifically, please articulate it better instead of posting sarcastic snark so I don't have guess what you mean. But from what I can infer, I reject your premise because it's unrelated to what I was arguing.
You could say the question was rhetorical (because I already know the answer to it), but in no way is it sarcastic. It means exactly what it's straightforward, literal interpretation would imply.
I disagree with your claim, because I think it reverses causality. America isn't great because of all the skilled immigrants, skilled immigrants want to go there, because it gives them better opportunities than they have in other places.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't have the impression that H-1B is particularly rigorous, and I've seen Canadians swear up and down that their system is more restrictive.
Even if this is true, there's a few implications to it. One is that no one should even try to compete for immigrants, because they're all going to go to the top country anyway, and then ones you will get, will only cause economic stagnation. Another is that even for America this would probably mean mass deportations are a good idea, as you can just keep the absolute best performence, and get rid of everyone else.
However devoid of rigor you think the H-1B selection process was, the Canadian immigration system in the past decade was even more so. At least for H-1B, new approvals are capped at 85k max a year, and you need to have a job for which the median salary is over six figures. For Canada, it was infamously relaxed enough to let in millions of Indian students with nothing but an offer letter to a school.
I never said we needed to compete for immigrants -- just to let the talented and skilled ones in. I don't see evidence that skilled immigration causes economic stagnation. There are many immigrants or second generation immigrants here that contributed a lot to our economy. I already think it's a good idea to deport illegals, and economic immigrants who no longer meet the bar. H-1B already has a provision for this. If you are no longer employed at a job that sponsors the H-1B, you're gone.
So when you described the influx of millions of Indians to Canada as "talented", you were being earnest and not mocking? That's not a word that I would have used to describe them and I would not count them as skilled immigrants. If you were being earnest then I would like you to substantiate your "opposite" claim -- that the Canadian global competitive edge decreased because of the greater immigration, not that it merely didn't increase because of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link