site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   33067 thread views

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
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

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