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... big win for AfD last night: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4zejgz3z9o. How important is this?
Since I'm not one to closely follow European politics, at first I thought this meant that they had won control of the entire national parliament. But then I noticed that, no, it's just one state election, and they're still short of a majority. In every other state, they have far less support, and every other party is still maintaining a rule to never work with them, so the AfD is still effectively shut out of power everywhere.
I suppose it's another sign of their trajectory, though. They seem to win more and more votes in every election. I remember when, not long ago, they were an extreme minority fringe party. Now they get enough votes that it's difficult for the other parties to form a coalition without them.
Is this a sign that the people of Germany are secretly longing to Nazi again? I doubt it. They seem to still be, on the whole, an extremely leftist-liberal nation. Pro-immigration, pro-welfare, anti-militarism, anti-nationalism, and anti-nuke. So I wonder how much this surge in support for AfD is driven by immigration, or how much of it is just them being the only real conservative party that gives voters an alternative to the status quo?
I also wonder what the AfD would actually do if they came into power? There's a big range between "slightly restrict immigration" and "force all the immigrants to pack up and go home." I suspect they haven't entirely figured it out themselves, since for now they're still just a protest vote. Not to mention how they'd have to figure out their policy on every single other policy issue. It's easy to make big promises when you have no actual power to deliver on them.
But I don't know! Maybe I'm wrong. I really don't know much about German politics, I just saw this and I thought it was interesting. Anyone else have thoughts?
Europe is seeing an increased support for anti-immigration policies. Not only is there a desire to limit future migration and increase requirements for applicants, a significant amount of people want to kick out people who managed to achieve citizenship without assimilating, alongside descendants who also did not assimilate. As I understand it, this kicking out of citizens who should not have gotten citizenship in the first place is the goal of AfD and similar parties on the continent.
This makes sense to me on some level; If you hate all of western society and want to rebuild the caliphate, then you have no business here. The middle east can have you back for all I care.
On the other hand, this seems like a slippery slope that draws into question what citizenship even is. Making it possible to kick out people recognized as citizens seems like a dangerous Chesterton's fence to tear down. For one, it gives the government the ultimate power to kick out citizens it dislikes. This seems like a real danger to a democracy where people are supposed to have disagreements and come to agreements through dialogue. It also draws into question what it even means to be German in the first place. Would anyone be safe if such a law was allowed? Is there any amount of generations that a family can live in Germany after which it becomes German? Or will everyone have to watch what they say in fear that their opinions may one day be recognized as against the national interest?
It makes sense then, that the existing conservative parties would be concerned about a newcomer which wants to make such radical changes. At the same time though, I don't understand why they seem so disinterested in at least limiting future immigration. There is a real concern here from a substantial proportion of the population, and political parties are supposed to represent their constituents. If the established parties would take on the more reasonable parts of AfD policies (limiting immigration and increasing requirements for applicants), that would probably net them a lot of voters and weaken AfD, without having to concede to the more extremist demands of kicking out legal citizens.
A polite fiction, at this point. At least paper citizenship is. It means nothing. It's worth nothing. It's been given away so freely to so many that should never have had it. It's like degree devaluation, but worse.
Only those with alternative citizenships. Which is completely fair; paper citizens should always be at risk of removal, to keep them in line. Ideally there would be a way of preventing them from renouncing alternative citizenships before we can revoke their granted ones. (Well, ideally, they should never have been invited in in the first place, and I will still never understand the impulse to economic and social self mutilation that did so.)
Well, no, not if their concern is towards the actual people of the country. If they have loyalty to paper citizens over blood ones, then they shouldn't be anywhere near power anyway and should be roundly disregarded on all concerns.
They don't actually care who they rule over, so long as they rule. Germans or Bomalians, it's all the same to them. They just want to rule over the most people possible. The Bomalians are maybe considered slightly easier to rule over due to being less disposed towards intelligence due to... alternative breeding strategies. This is however, under the assumption that they can be deprived of their violently backwards religions and ideologies by the civilising light of western culture (which they cannot.)
If by bathroom sink is overflowing due to someone leaving the taps on 100% flow for ages, if my floors are getting soaked and everything is getting water damaged, simply turning the taps some of the way off doesn't fix anything. If your ship is sinking, covering up some of the hole and refusing to bail water because it would be "mean" to displace it, doesn't fix anything. The damage from mass migration is cumulative, it is the stock, not the flow that matters.
For these reasons and more as an American I support eventually barring dual citizenship, or at the very least barring those who hold dual citizenship from holding office or voting until they formally renounce their other citizenship.
I think as a long term goal it’s one of only a handful of things that will be absolutely required to preserve the American dēmos and citizenship that actually has any meaning.
Do we…not?
I actually thought we required renouncing other citizenships before letting someone naturalize. This was based on an in-law who elected not to do so.
Turns out that might have been a requirement by the German side? They changed their laws in 2024 to allow Americans to become dual citizens, but I can’t find anything about the other direction.
Anyway, it seems like a reasonable requirement. Would probably have some knock-on effects against the people who pursue dual citizenship while staying in the home country; not sure how common they are, or how much they pay in taxes…
I think there are some words to that effect that you have to recite when getting the citizenship, but no, they're dead letter, and the U.S. is perfectly happy with dual citizenships, as far as I know.
Part of that is the lack of peer conflicts.
When I was reading up on this for an immigration thread, a lot of the citizenship cases were about the rights and obligations of dual citizens when at war with the second country. It was particularly contentious in the Civil War, since we initially flip-flopped on rebellion vs. war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link