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 -
So tell me, is Sweden deporting Swedish citizens (naturalized or children of naturalized) of non-swede ethnicity, or are they revoking residency status of non-citizens?
Because that sounds a lot like a bailey and a motte. The plan that was proposed here as far as I understand was to do the first one, a severe betrayal of the deal that was offered to those who took it, which for those who have renounced previous citizenships might mean stripping them of the only citizenship they have left, and then trying to send them back against their will to a place that doesn't have any inclination to claim jurisdiction over them. That Sweden can do the second one, a move that, despite liberal tears, was always uncontroversially a possibility for non-citizen residents has very little relevance.
No I am not going to tell you because I don't really care what they decide on.
But. If they do decide to deport a bunch of them, they can do that without killing them all and/or bringing about the fourth reich.
If they did decide to deport Swedish citizens of non-swede ethnicity, they could technically avoid killing them all or bringing about the fourth reich, in the way that you could drive a car into a crowd and avoid killing anyone by just driving around them. It is not literally the fourth reich but you would be embarking on the path that led to the third reich, which happened not because of some freak moral failing of the german people, but because making laws that explicitly treat differently people based on their ethnicity, with the goal of getting rid of the unwanted ones, is inherently a morally treacherous path. How do you define unwanted ethnicities that deserve being stripped of their rights as citizens? Are ethnic finns or norwedgians to be expelled too? What about western europeans, like french? Southern europeans? Maybe you'll need to explicitely say which ethnicities are "good" and "bad"? Just by asking questions that arise naturally from the proposed process, the parallels emerge on their own. Eventually you'll be asking yourself if the Japanese are still honorary aryans.
In 2013 the Dominican Republic stripped birthright citizenship from every Haitian born in the country. Their stated goals were to get rid of an unwanted people, and those people were not wanted explicitly due to their ethnicity. They applied it retroactively, all the way back to 1929. They stripped citizenship from people who had only ever known the DR solely because of their ethnicity. Since then they have deported hundreds of thousands of Haitians.
None of the things you say will happen in Sweden happened in the DR. They did not genocide. They did not turn into the fourth reich. Doing this was not some impossible pedestrian dodging task.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link