site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Finland has a new right-wing government. It's been called the most right-wing one in Finland's postwar history, since it is headed by centre-right National Coalition, contains the right-wing populist/nationalist Finns Party and doesn't contain the Centre Party, which has been previously been in government with these two but is, as the name says, more centrist.

Essentially, the new government is combining an anti-union, austerity-oriented economic agenda of the center-right with a list of anti-immigration measures favored by the nationalists. However, while the foreign papers have mostly been concerned with the claims that the most important thing about this govt is far-right inclusion, the economic agenda comes first; the anti-immigration measures, while they probably will lead to immigration cuts, are still not as hard as , for instance, what a roughly similar coalition in Sweden has set last year.

Among other changes, a work-based residence permit would expire if an individual fails to find a new job after more than three months of unemployment. Those with a student-based residence permits would not be allowed to rely on Finnish income support, while the tuition fees of Finnish educational institutions are to be reviewed.

The annual refugee quota is to be cut by more than half to 500 people, down from the present 1,050. Asylum would be granted for a maximum of three years , after which the need for international protection should be reassessed.

In future, obtaining a permanent residence permit will require six years of residence, a language proficiency test, a two-year work history without long-term unemployment or income support, and a requirement of an impeccable record.

Citizenship rules are also to be tightened, with the minimum residence requirement extended to eight years, along with an income requirement and mandatory civics and language tests.

Insofar as economic measures go,

The four parties have agreed on many other changes to the labour market, according to STT. It says that in the future an employee's first sick day would be unpaid, unless otherwise stipulated in their collective agreement.

Iltalehti reported that – assuming the government's plans are approved by Parliament – in future it will be possible to dismiss an employee more easily, simply citing any "reasonable cause". It will also make it easier for employers to offer one-year fixed-term employment contracts without having to cite any special reason for them.

The future government also wants to expand local bargaining – as opposed to centralised national collective agreements – to cover all companies. It will also seek to curtail the right to launch sympathy strikes and politically based labour actions.

There's also two minor parties, the Christian Democrats who basically set no demands for participation and are just happy to be a part of this government and Swedish People's Party, a liberal party that watches over the interests of the Swedish-speaking minority and had considerable troubles fitting in with the Finns Party's nationalism and probably managed to prevent some of their more hardline immigration proposals from taking force.

The main issue with immigration in most of Europe isn’t the laws on the books, it’s the utter inability to deport most people who are in the country illegally or semi-illegally (failed asylum seekers etc). The deportation apparatus doesn’t exist, deportations are subject to years of legal challenges, whole regions of the world are “too dangerous” to deport to or don’t have the appropriate level of relations with European countries (or just don’t want the listless young men back) and so on.

While the law needs changes, and incoming illegal immigration needs tackling, large scale deportation of those illegally in Europe is the biggest hurdle. In the US politicians openly declare they have zero intention of deporting all 15 million illegal immigrants, in Europe they say they want to but then just…don’t.

I recall a story about a guy being deported for rape and the whole plane protesting until he was released (and went on to murder someone else). If the population is clamoring for more "enrichment" how is mass deportation even plausible?

Seems there should be some suitably populous and miserable country that would accept them if you just paid them to take them... A la Australia and Papua New Ginea.

If you paid the Nigerian government 5k a head to take them off your hands they almost certainly would.

don’t have the appropriate level of relations with European countries, or just don’t want the listless young men back.

Correct, but you can't really force regimes like Assad or the Taliban to take them back as their countries are disasters anyway. They don't need more young people causing trouble. And while they might accept bribes, history has shown that such regimes often engage in double-dealing and backchannel smuggling to enrich themselves even after such deals are made.

In short, there is no easy solution to this problem even if the considerable liberal domestic opposition was overcome.

They don't need more young people causing trouble.

Neither do the countries these people are invading.

but you can't really force regimes like Assad or the Taliban to take them back

Yeah, you definitely can. At gun point. Load them up, ship them. Dump them. Country too "dangerous"? Not my problem.

but both those places are recovering, it would be weird for Taliban to say they cant take more people when they claim they are doing a good job.

And Syria actually looks better by the day.

I dont get why countries have to take hits socially/economically just so the people doing the damage dont suffer. Makes no sense at all.

it would be weird for Taliban to say they cant take more people when they claim they are doing a good job

Isn't there mass starvation in Afghanistan? The last thing they need are more people.

I read the comment as a statement that the Taliban would be forced into a political choice between taking more people and admitting that they're incompetent. I didn't really read it as a statement about the actual state of affairs of Afghanistan (except that it "recovering" seems to imply that it was worse before now).

@sliders1234 said he read an article about how they're doing okay-ish, but he never got around to posting it.

I think it would be absolutely possible to bribe Assad into taking them back without him immediately reneging on his commitment. Rapprochement between him and the West is already approaching. The Taliban situation is arguably different but even there negotiation is possible and ongoing, the US regularly meets with them in Qatar etc. Rwanda is also an option, deportations from the UK would be ongoing were it not for extensive legal challenges.

The main issue is that the deportations would be (or are) blocked by the ECHR and by years of legal proceedings.

The easy solution is ‘fly them to a poor but safe shithole in exchange for giving aid to said shithole’s President’s Swiss bank account after helping him win re-election with more votes than voters’.

Yes, and it’s more than possible, Rwanda already agreed to the UK’s plan. It’s domestic (or regional ie ECHR) courts that prevent this happening on a larger scale or at all.