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 -
Its interesting, I'm sure that some time in the not that distant past, a huge group of almost-entirely-male foreigners moving, uninvited, as a horde into your country's declared borders would be decreed an 'invasion' or whatever your linguistic equivalent was by the leaders of your territory. I'd guess this word would apply even if they were motivated by economic necessity or some natural disaster forcing migration, rather than military conquest.
If your team was able to organize and repel them, you'd retain your sovereignty in that area, if you were not, then likely you would lose control/access of that particular piece of territory to the 'invaders.'
But we now have a system of Democracy overlaid on the territory that provides a means for the 'invaders' to be legitimized and deemed citizens of the nation if they can convince a certain number of the existing residents to approve it. So this creates an interesting incentive for the horde of foreigners to appear as sympathetic as possible to maximize the chances of existing citizens to take their side. So now its an advantage to claim economic distress and oppression, and military conquest is not even a necessary condition.
And thus, a given territory can be 'lost' whilst still remaining nominally a part of the nation, because the governmental system just absorbs the newcomers into the system and grants them de facto equal status to everyone else there, at least in terms of their influence on the system itself.
My point is mainly that I cannot imagine than any autocracy would tolerate the behavior on display in that video. No dictatorship, fiefdom, Junta, or monarch would say "oh sure let a couple thousand of them come storming in, we'll get some aid workers on site to make sure they have a place to stay, and after a year or two we'll discuss granting them full citizenship."
This seems borne out by looking at the relatively few remaining autocracies out there and how they treat foreigners.
The danger such a group poses is clear when they might decrease your ability to effectively govern unimpeded in a domain you're charged with maintaining. If, instead, they can bolster your side's political grip and you can slough the costs off on the citizens as a whole, that calculus changes.
More options
Context Copy link