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 -
There was never a referendum on multiculturalism in Sweden just like there wasn't in America for the 1965 immigration act. This "people chose this themselves" is a tired and unconvincing argument.
Honestly, when was America's last actual referendum? Usually, on federal issues, passing a law and never repealing it is as close as you get no?
This argument seems to do too much. It easily just collapses into a criticism of liberal democracies and how such polities choose anything. Which...I'm not inherently against but if you want to say that "America/Sweden/Whoever" didn't decide on this it can be applied to everything.
America especially was designed to have anti-populist mechanics. That's the foundational bargain of the country. It's a bit late to argue choices aren't legitimate cause they weren't done by plebiscite.
Getting a referendum is also a sign of commitment. The Brexit referendum happened cause Brexiteers were a loud and annoying enough constituency. If the Swedish people don't have the will to push such a thing on their government...that's on them no?
More options
Context Copy link
At least it can be said that the people didn't oppose with sufficient zeal to bother meting out any electoral consequences. 'The people chose it' is maybe a slight exaggeration but 'the people chose not to stop it' is basically right. And fwiw Hart-Celler polled pretty well.
The people who opposed it were often prevented from competing on fair terms electorally. In many cases, their party leaders were just jailed. This is a recent example. So no, I find the "let's blame the voters" unconvincing and frankly a sign of a mind unable to look critically at the system as it is.
Did this happen in Sweden? Your example is from very recently, Golden Dawn hardly did that well in 2019, a whopping 3% of the vote. Greek solution got another few percent, so still under 7% for the far righters. Can that poor of a performance really be blamed on your imagined unfair electoral terms; what was the unfairness in 2019?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The exact phrase was "Sweden chose this"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link