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 -
The first one only works if you buy into the idea that the only participation illegal immigrants have in the economy is through labor. Think of a city with 40,000 people and everything that has to exist to support those 40,000 people, not just locally but all the stuff that comes in from far away to ensure that there's actually, say, stuff that's on the shelves for the people to buy. Get rid of 40,000 illegals by whatever means you want and you've just shrunk the local economy by as much. Except your means is worse. I know you mean for this to be more of a deterrent than anything but a lot of deterrents don't work so if a company employing illegals gets busted now the entire company is probably finished since most companies that employ illegals aren't corporate but independently-owned restaurants and roofers and the like who now have to dip into the assets of the business to pay whatever fines are levied, which may pose a problem if they're on the hook for other debts (which most small businesses are), and then you get into issues of collateral and the like and before you know it they'er in Chapter 7.
As for the rest of them, they're all of the same "creates jobs" rhetoric that both parties have been spouting for decades now, and that the kind of people who are on public assistance aren't exactly inclined to believe. At least when Democrats do it, the presumption is that the jobs will enable them to get off welfare when they're making enough money to afford to. Contrast this with Republicans, where the implication is that people are too lazy to work and the first step is eliminating or greatly reducing assistance programs to force them back into the workplace.
Who said anything about getting rid of the illegal immigrants? There's no mention of any enforcement action against them at all (that's the sort of thing that gets you subjected to bad faith accusations of racism). They're still going to be contributing to the economy, at least for a while - but if they decide to self deport then that's saving money on enforcement actions as well. I think that illegal immigration is bad for the economy in the long run, but if you disagree on this then I don't think we'd actually be able to come to an agreement on this point.
What is this bizarre, evidence-free assertion doing in your post? Deterrents do actually work - we have regulations against dumping carcinogenic chemicals into the environment, and when people do that they get in trouble. As such, we have fewer people dumping carcinogenic chemicals into the environment than countries without those laws.
Fines? I specifically said piercing the corporate veil, and prison. These people aren't dipping into the assets of the business to pay whatever fines are levied, they are getting put in handcuffs for a decade. They're not going to be able to dip into the company's assets from behind bars. If you employ illegal immigrants, you're exploiting vulnerable populations and harming the societal commons in the pursuit of profit, and you absolutely deserve to go to prison. As for the makeup of the businesses that hire illegal immigrants, I disagree - I think a lot of large farms and corporations do actually use illegal immigrant labour, and those jobs can be taken by other people.
If a business can only survive by exploiting vulnerable people and profiteering off their diminished legal status, I actually want it to die and think that's a good thing. Having these unethical businesses which survive via economic exploitation and harming the position of labour go out of business is a feature, not a bug.
No, they absolutely are not. There is a grand total of one politician in the US who spoke about how tariffs could be used to create jobs, and he only started making noise in 2016 (so not quite decades). Cannabis legalisation has been a fringe position for even longer, and psychedelic legalisation is even further out there. While I agree that a lot of politicians make noise in the direction of infrastructure and local manufacturing, none of them actually do anything about it due to the galaxy of confounding special interests I've mentioned above - the distinction between that and my plan is that I'm proposing actually implementing those policies instead of giving handouts to special interests and campaign donors and claiming to have fixed the problem.
I haven't touched those programs in the slightest with my proposals. I've got some socialist leanings and I'd absolutely support expanding assistance programs and making them work better, but this post is already too long for me to include a comprehensive welfare system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link