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 -
I'm sure he is left personally and socially, but from what I've heard of him on the old fivethirtyeight podcast and now the gdpolitics podcast, he always seemed to have the thumb on the scale with regards to latino voters and report what he sees without embellishment. I distinctively remember him raising the early "alarm bells" about Latino voters moving towards Trump. I know everyone has an agenda, but I think a commitment to the truth and facts on the ground means everyone will at least be directionally moving in the "right" direction.
Yes we still should. Different people can raise different level of salt though.
As I said, I do think border patrol is an anti-inflow measure. Gattsuru has warned me though so maybe it's not as much an anti-outflow measure as I thought it is. When I talk about failing, I wasn't talking about meeting the policy objective, but of how the voters view your policies. As I already mentioned, voters rank border patrol very high for Trump, it's the other parts of the immigration agenda that is considered unsavory, and therefore, a failure.
I think that's a pretty extreme view of what the position could be. Closed borders is part of immigration law, so already some immigration law has to be enforced. But anyway, I wasn't talking about not enforcing immigration laws, what I'm talking about is choosing immigration laws that would meet the objectives (keep immigration low/manageable to get the best stock, high inflow is fine if it's also matched by high outflow) AND is tolerable and acceptable to most voters (therefore ensuring a lasting regime that continues to be successful no matter who is in charge).
More options
Context Copy link