site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31531 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.

Getting to selectively let in good immigrants is a great advantage for the US. Just opening the gates would result in the global south median person coming in in enormous numbers. Not exactly modern skilled workers. Our per capita GDP would drop, though some "numbers go up" people would correctly point out that GDP would increase because there's more people.

Snow Crash has a bit about open borders former US in a perfectly globalized world looking like prosperity from the point of view of a Pakistani brick layer. And it looks like living in a Brazilian favela from the point of view of a formerly prosperous American.

Getting to selectively let in good immigrants is a great advantage for the US. Just opening the gates would result in the global south median person coming in in enormous numbers. Not exactly modern skilled workers. Our per capita GDP would drop, though some "numbers go up" people would correctly point out that GDP would increase because there's more people.

This is exactly what happens in Europe, so yes. The ruling party of the UK are fanatical "line go up!" devotees. Numbers came out today that the economy grew 0.4% this year, while the population is projected to have grown 1.3%+ in the same time. So, per capita, we're all worse off. But holy GDP line went up! So infinite immigration good! It really is that facile.

To older British people, it's probably nice to have an army of low-wage workers to serve them in their last couple decades.

The degeneration of society through mass immigration is just one more tax that the gerontocracy imposes on the rest of the country.

Wrong. Support for immigration is highest among young people.

I never said it wasn't. You have to read comments in context. The olds in the Conservative party support immigration because of "labor shortage" and to prop up the pension system. Young people support it for reasons of social justice.

Young people support it for reasons of social justice.

If young people face paying for an ever expanding welfare state aimed at the old (e.g. the UK state pension, which is designed to almost always provide an increased welfare income for the retired via the Triple Lock) then it's understandable that they would want more shoulders to carry the burden. True, that creates increased pressure for housing and perhaps wages, but the alternative is massive taxes and spending cuts on working younger people to pay for the welfare that older Britons demand.

The welfare state is a system designed for the demographics of the pre-Gen X eras. As the social democrat economist Paul Samuelson put it, things like Social Security are Ponzi schemes, presupposing perpetual increases in the numbers of young workers to ensure that ever generation is significantly larger than preceding generations. There are a variety of options, including:

(1) Have more children. Too late, at least for the current generation of middle-aged or old people.

(2) Move away from a pay-as-you-go welfare state, e.g. to the Singapore model of mandatory savings. Too late, at least for the current generation of middle-aged or old people, and a huge imposition on the young, who would be both paying for a savings-based retirement for themselves and a pay-as-you-go retirement for the old.

(3) Mass immigration.

(4) Cuts in welfare for existing retirees, plus a movement towards (1) and/or (2) somehow.

Unfortunately, (3) is the path of least resistance for politicians. Older people want the result of less immigration, but how many of them are willing to accept smaller state pensions, less state healthcare, higher taxes on their retirement incomes etc. to pay for it? "Wanting something" is an ambiguous concept: do you want it enough to undertake the process of getting it? Or would you just like it if it happened with less or no sacrifice?

Obviously some old people are in favour of immigration, but that doesn’t make that policy a result of gerontocracy. The opposite is the case.

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