site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31549 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How Peaceful Sweden Became Europe’s Gun-Murder Capital

This link is probably paywalled for most, so some of the salient points:

"Turf wars for control of the drug trade, driven by an influx of guns, personal vendettas and a pool of available youths, many from marginalized migrant communities, have resulted in a gun-homicide rate approximately 2½ times the European average, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

With 62 people shot dead last year, up from 45 in 2021, Sweden’s overall homicide rate is about one-sixth of the U.S.’s. But in a European context, it is extraordinary. Stockholm’s gun-murder rate was roughly 30 times higher per capita than London’s.

Perpetrators are becoming younger, and are also resorting to increasingly violent tactics such as throwing hand grenades and placing bombs, injuring a growing number of bystanders, including children.

Because most shootings in Sweden take place among individuals from migrant backgrounds, they have fueled a surge of right-wing populism. In the 2022 election, the Sweden Democrats, a party that has roots in Nazism and blames Sweden’s liberal migration policies for the violence, gained more than 20% of the votes to become the country’s second-largest. Today it rejects Nazism and white nationalism on its platform.

The new center-right government has promised to tighten migration policies, double sentences for offenses committed in “gang environments,” widen the use of electronic surveillance and expel more criminals who aren’t Swedish citizens.

“Compared internationally, we have had a much laxer criminal law. And we have now lost control over the situation,” said Daniel Bergström, an adviser to the Swedish minister of justice.

Experts, however, say there is no simple explanation for the violence.

Nikoi Djane, a former gang member turned criminologist, said authorities had failed to help refugees integrate into society, instead segregating them from society in housing estates with few job opportunities or treatment for conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder.

“The perpetrators have a responsibility, but they are also victims of their circumstances,” Djane said.

Manne Gerell, an associate professor at Malmö University with expertise in organized crime, said the problem was caused by poor integration and exacerbated by years of insufficient response from authorities, police and politicians.

Today, an estimated 75% to 80% of deadly shootings remain unsolved, and the low risk of getting caught has prompted a growing number of youths to kill for bounties issued by gang leaders, said Salihu, the crime expert.

It might also be helpful to look at this article in conjunction with this Free Press article on violence in Sweden: Two Bombings in One Night? That’s Normal Now in Sweden.

At least on its face, this situation has a clear cause (migration from non-Western countries) and a simple solution (stop accepting migrants and remove many of the migrants that are already in Sweden), but to even state these facts gets you labeled a "right-wing populist" (nice of WSJ to omit the customary "far right populist").

I do see where the Left is coming from here. Most migrants aren't committing violence, and it does seem cruel to kick out people who have been living somewhere for years or even decades. But I also think a given community has the right to maintain the integrity of its society and culture. That's also why I'm more okay with something closer to open borders in the USA: Our culture is already so hollowed out that migrants moving here are probably adding, not subtracting, from whatever "culture" there is in the US.

That's also why I'm more okay with something closer to open borders in the USA: Our culture is already so hollowed out that migrants moving here are probably adding, not subtracting, from whatever "culture" there is in the US.

I knew this was coming. I have read too many “conservative” commentators who decry mass immigration to European countries but celebrate it in America (“because we’re a different sort of country, built on ideas”) to expect anything else. People are perfectly capable of looking at Syrian gang members shooting each other in a Stockholm mall (shouting in Arabic the whole time) and recognizing Those men are not Swedes. They will never be Swedes. Nothing short of a magic spell could turn them into Swedes. And yet when asked to apply the same logic to that same sort of men in America, an impenetrable mental block descends and makes it impossible for even the same commentators to reach the same conclusion.

America is not a special country that exists outside of history. It is not mysteriously immune from the realities of human biology and heredity. “American” is not a magical category that is infinitely capacious and malleable in a way that no other extant ethnicity or nationality is. It was, in fact, founded as an ethnostate, exactly the same way that Sweden was. The men who founded the country said so at the time, and the history of the demography of the country supports that reading. Syrians are no more capable of becoming Americans than they are of becoming Swedes.

There are tens of millions of Americans who can directly trace their descent to families who lived in this country 400 years ago. I am one of them! Those people were settlers and invaders who displaced the indigenous population that had previously occupied that land; that is also true of nearly every human population group on earth. The Europeans who showed up to displace the Iroquois and the Cree did not become Iroquois and Cree. They were a new people, capitalizing on the weakness and decline of the existing population. The exact same is true of the Syrians moving into Sweden.

Unlike the Iroquois, though, Swedes have the actual power and numbers to easily repel this invasion by force of arms at any moment. The Swedish military could locate and forcibly deport or eliminate nearly every Syrian in the country within a month if they desired to. If you believe it would be cruel to do so, that’s fine; I don’t even necessarily disagree! But the fact that they choose not to do so in no way means that the country is benefiting from the presence of those people. The same is largely true of the United States - only the scale of the problem is different.

Historically, the US was in fact capable of assimilating diverse immigrant populations. Maybe we’ve lost that ability due to philosophical trends. Maybe it always was an accident of history, and nations without the economic snowball of the late 1800s can’t replicate such a feat. But clearly, we managed to assimilate Irish and Italian and other cultures to the point they usually get labeled as white.

I live in Texas. We have an enormous South and East Asian population, which has not generated unrest. It’s not that they’re just the best and brightest. Opening up a nail salon or restaurant is not a high-skill occupation. What it does require is buy-in to the American paradigm of advancement. The same is true for Sweden, which is perfectly capable of assimilating anyone who wants to buy in.

It’s easy enough to believe that gangbangers aren’t interested in advancement by legitimate means. Those men aren’t Swedes because they don’t care about being Swedes. They probably wouldn’t become Americans, either (though I guess our cultural products are a lot stronger than the Nordics). Cool, don’t let them in.

I don’t think this applies to the general category of Syrians. Sweden was right to expect an Ellis Island scenario where they get a bunch of productive workers ready to do cheap labor. It’s their implantation of the filters which has fallen short. Improve their ability to reject bad actors—or to convert them into cooperative ones—and Sweden can get this under control.

Those men aren’t Swedes because they don’t care about being Swedes. They probably wouldn’t become Americans, either (though I guess our cultural products are a lot stronger than the Nordics).

Arguably many immigrant-background gang criminals etc. in Sweden and other European countries have assimilated - they just haven't assimilated to the European mainstream cultures but to the omnipresent, America-originated (though these days somewhat detached from that root, ie. UK roadman subculture becoming more common as a point of reference) global underclass subculture, or subcultures.

Many of the biggest issues in Sweden re: immigrants are due to outlaw biker gangs (Saturadah is known to be immigrant-oriented), but biker gangs have been an issue in the Nordic countries even before immigrant crime really became a thing. There arguably is not a single form of organized crime more American, both regarding its origins and cultural signifiers, than outlaw biker gangs.

Furthermore, of course, there are a plenty of immigrants in Sweden and immigrants who have assimilated completely to Swedish mores, even if these might be liberal Swedish mores. During my career in left-wing youth politics here I visited Sweden to meet the local left youth organization a few times, and saw little difference between members coming from native Swedish or immigrant backgrounds; often both types were able to trigger an automatic Finnish "goddamn Swedes..." reaction somewhere in my subconsciousness.

I think most of the issue is a problem that’s really based on the idea that there’s no gradation to ideas, and that no ideas are inherently better or worse than any other ideas. It’s lead us to become the culture of the indulgent parent who cannot help but give the children in their home exactly what they want exactly when and how they want it. That’s probably the biggest difference between the Great Assimilations of the past and now.

If you moved to America or Sweden or anywhere in Western Europe, you were expected to assimilate. You had to speak English in America, you had to learn to dress like Americans, to like American culture (or at least be okay with it). You had to send your kids to American schools where they would absolutely learn American culture. The same sort of process happened in other countries. I don’t think that a Muslim immigrant in 1900 would have been permitted to wear a Hijab or skullcap. They certainly wouldn’t have been able to demand that schools and workplaces install ritual baths or schedule their work/school day around prayer times. That forced them to assimilate.

We’re honestly doing the opposite, and not only not forcing new immigrants to join the mainstream, but actually unassimilating our native populations by allowing various “lobby ethnics” to simply carve out accommodations for whatever weird fetish, weird dress or hairstyles they want to wear, or practices they want to do. And the rest of us are taugh very early on that raising any objections to weird thing people do is wrong. It’s even wrong to express the idea that there is or should be a norm. Teaching the old books, talking about the old religious heritage, all of this is simply thought crime.

And thus we’re creating a cultural chaos where you can never exactly trust that anyone around you shares anything with you. Maybe he has a pooping on the floor fetish. Maybe he believes in jihad. Maybe he just meditates all day. Maybe they’ll wear pajamas, maybe he’ll dress in a Muslim robe or wear Tizit, or a suit. They might speak English or not. It’s impossible to share a culture.

You had to speak English in America, you had to learn to dress like Americans, to like American culture

Really? Could not all sorts of languages be heard on the streets of the large cities (and in some cases elsewhere) for decades and decades after the immigration took off, whether it be Yiddish, German, Polish or something else? Indeed one occasionally reads those stories about the remnants of an immigrant community in some place or other where the old-timers still speak another European language.

True, but if you for some reason want to go out into the wider world — for work, for recreation, for education, whatever it might be, you had to at least get onboard with the dress, customs, and language of America. You couldn’t get a job and expect them to accommodate your cultural or religious garb. You wouldn’t be allowed to continue to speak your native language outside the enclave especially at work or school. This forced people to eventually assimilate.

Some of the difference is technology. I have Google translate and I can thus understand at a basic level, most languages well enough to do a very basic interaction. The rest is a sort of malaise that assumes that a country can actually survive as a cohesive unit without at least some baseline of a shared culture. The idea that one should be permitted to “let their freak flag fly” is corrosive because it’s precisely those shared expectations, morals, and folkways that produce social trust. I can’t really know that a person who behaves wildly out of the mainstream shares any of my values. I don’t know what would and wouldn’t offend them. This leads to less social interaction and often much shallower interactions because I can’t know what’s safe for polite conversation.

Yeah, non-English, native language institutions and schools were the norm for most of American history, and were even legally codified in many states. That only reversed during our WW1 xenophobic fervor, and even then the Supreme Court ruled its illegal to forbid native language schools.

I don’t think that a Muslim immigrant in 1900 would have been permitted to wear a Hijab or skullcap.

To be precise, they would have been legally permitted, but people would have been permitted to deny them employment or services on those grounds. In at least some respects, it was a freer time all around.

  • I don’t think that a Muslim immigrant in 1900 would have been permitted to wear a Hijab or skullcap. They certainly wouldn’t have been able to demand that schools and workplaces install ritual baths or schedule their work/school day around prayer times.

I mean, unless they were in a Muslim-heavy immigrant community. You certainly had thatt sort of... not quite enclave, but significant presence, in some areas, I believe down to things like German-language newspapers, for instance.

Sweden was right to expect an Ellis Island scenario where they get a bunch of productive workers ready to do cheap labor.

Completely inaccurate. It's not like there weren't previous examples to draw from. Mass immigration to Europe didn't start with the Syrian War.

One look at the French banlieues should have given an observant Swede all he needed to know. Ellis Island comparisons from a hundred years ago strain credulity when there are recent examples much closer to home.

I don’t think this applies to the general category of Syrians. Sweden was right to expect an Ellis Island scenario where they get a bunch of productive workers ready to do cheap labor.

What why? These are literally men who refused to take a side in a civil war.

I don’t follow.

A male Syrian refugee had the option of, instead, joining the Syrian Armed Forces, the Syrian National Army, or the Free Syrian Army and/or providing material support for one of those.

This is a very easy comment to make from, one imagines, the comfort of the West.

The comforts of the West having been provided to me because some of my ancestors took the hard road. Look at the Constitution wise men wisely put in the word "Posterity".

I think you should read what the founders thought about titles of nobility. They explicitly say it's bad to consider yourself any more special or claim any special privileges due to what your ancestors did.

Ignoring "all men are created equal" because of this one single word "posterity" that may not even mean literal descent is bizarre. I'm always confused by people who identify so much with being Western or American and still hold such anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic values.

More comments

And if you were John Paul Jones I would not have quibbled with the comment. You don't get to take some sort of vicarious credit for the actions of your ancestors, and that their actions helped deliver the prosperity you live in that hardly gives you the right to pontificate on the bravery or otherwise of Syrian refugees.

More comments

Of course.

If you're suggesting his unwillingness to join one of those armies means he will be reluctant to do normal labor, I have to disagree. Staying in a warzone is unappealing for any number of reasons. A wife and kids, for example.

deleted

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats