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 -
Not a military invasion, no. You could use invasive species rhetoric, but that is quite a different thing. It would be like triggering NATO article 5 because of the nutria invading the US.
Employed illegal immigrants pay taxes, same as citizens. If they murder someone, they are put through the same legal system. These two facts alone set them apart from members of any invading army. If you get invaded by the troops of Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, GWB or basically any other commander in the history of mankind, the invaders will not pay federal income tax. The idea that during the sacking of a city, local policemen would go around arresting individual invaders for assault or murder seems totally absurd.
Where they pay taxes and where they are subject to the legal system, because both are tenuous to flatly assert, that they have the opportunity to pay taxes or the "opportunity" to murder Americans are contraventions of the will of the American people and with the effect of producing further contraventions of the will of the American people.
That this doesn't meet prescriptivist definitions of war doesn't matter because the only valid prescriptivist definition of war is the continuation of policy by other means. If there are such other means to effect the same outcome as war without doing anything that "counts" as "war" then sophisticated actors will employ those means. It is a continuation of policy by asymmetric means of demographic replacement to ultimately hijack ordinary means with that very demographic replacement. Americans have never wanted this, and the nature of the matter necessarily rejects input from its beneficiaries. An anchor baby doesn't get a say in whether they can stay, and because Americans have never wanted this, the ordinary and legitimate means of effecting political change have been superseded by myriad inherently illegitimate legal artifices, i.e.; policy continued by other means.
This is exactly what's being said by the idea of us needing something in the constitution specifying that the children of alien occupiers aren't citizens.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with this. The invasion-through-immigration is sensationalist terminology. Like the gazan and "trans" genocides. People are trying to cast themselves as the underdog, victim or injured party, or their advocate, and thus as justly outraged, in a well-worn and highly recognizable narrative.
Whatever is to be said about the "sensationalism" of the claim, the point at the end is there is now the prospect of benefit to calling them invaders.
If the courts say the exclusion only applies to the children of invaders, and so, they say, it's legal to do something about the children of invaders, then that's a strong incentive for those who want them gone to shift to primarily calling them the children of invaders. There is no sense of norms left to maintain and the sentiment is already rife among reactionaries. Now they have a reason to formalize and strengthen it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link