site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   38189 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A great man once said feeble minds discuss people, mediocre minds discuss events, and great men discuss feeble and mediocre minds. As befits my station (see: flair), I will endeavor to do the first two.

Yesterday, Ron Desantis proudly shipped 50 illegal immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard. See Breitbart and Fox News’ takes as well. The individuals were supposedly offered a plane ticket to Massachusetts, without being told they were being sent to a small, isolated island unprepared to receive them as part of a political stunt. Amusingly, not sharing a border with Mexico, Desantis actually had to source his illegal immigrants from Texas. I suppose rustling up 50 of the 772,000 homegrown illegal Florida Mans was too difficult, or may have upset some core constituency, who knows. The only shelter in Martha’s Vineyard has room for 10 and is obviously not equipped in the way that Boston, New York or DC would be and the plane ticket to those places would have been much cheaper.

Also of note: see the Fox News article for the Florida legislature’s $12 million ‘immigrant relocation program’ Own The Libs/Desantis for President fun.

I can stomach a border wall and even see the necessity, despite disagreeing with what it represents. I can sympathize with people living near the border and dealing with crime and drug cartels. But manipulating impoverished people seeking a better future and treating them as nothing more than chattel to score political points and ‘own the libs’ absolutely turns my stomach. Which, judging by the Breitbart comments and replies I expect here, laughing at my pearl clutching is absolutely the point. You want me to be mad, you want me get up on my soapbox and bleat some self-righteous Soyjak lines about muh poor illegals so you can get mad right back and it feels good.

So I guess I won’t do that, although I never know what to say instead. I’m sorry that you hate Obama and Clinton (see: Breitbart article) so much that the thought of them having to deal with poor third worlders is amusing. I’m sorry that you’re so angry about illegal immigration and the libs that we’ve come here. Please, let’s all try to treat our countrymen better and do what we can to dial down the hate.

The entire point of sending them to Martha's Vineyard is that it was small and ill-equipped for the problem. Specifically, previous efforts to stir shit by bussing immigrants to major cities on the eastern seaboard failed to draw attention or rile up anti-immigrant sentiment (few noticed and no one cared - little enough surprise, as these are big cities and already have very large immigrant populations, including large numbers of illegal immigrants), so it was necessary to step up the shit-stirring. The defense offered - that this is about sharing the burden that border states have unfairly been forced to shoulder* - doesn't hold up to scrutiny. GOP-run southern states have made no serious effort to arrange for the large-scale transfer of migrants or asylum seekers to northern blue states, which is what you would actually do if you were burdened and trying to redistribute it. Instead they (Abbott and DeSantis) have done it about as inefficiently as possible, sending penny packets at considerable taxpayer expense and without regard for the welfare of the people transferred. That suggests that the point was either publicly owning libs or trying to rile up nativist sentiment.

(As an aside, I will not be at all surprised if it turns out that these people agreed to transportation under false pretenses.)

*whether or not it is actually unfair is another matter, considering the flow of Federal money and economic cost-benefit analysis of immigration.

Specifically, previous efforts to stir shit by bussing immigrants to major cities on the eastern seaboard failed to draw attention or rile up anti-immigrant sentiment (few noticed and no one cared - little enough surprise, as these are big cities and already have very large immigrant populations, including large numbers of illegal immigrants)

This is completely incorrect.

DC declared a public emergency.

NYC also considers a few hundred immigrants "emergency declaration" worthy.

There are hundreds of articles on this topic, and none of them have the Blue Sanctuary Cities taking a small bump in immigration with grace and aplomb. The freak-outs here are nakedly hypocritical and deserve to be called out as such.

The 'public emergency' releases funds to take care of arrivals. That's the extent of emergency here. Most people in DC have no idea this is going on and the people who do know don't care. There are no 'freak outs' - there's public officials annoyed that it was done with zero attempts to coordinate with local authorities. Which goes back to my point: Abbott/Desantis are not making a good faith effort to redistribute immigrants. Being as disruptive and disorganized as possible is the point, so they can talk about how owned the hypocritcal libs are.

The 'public emergency' releases funds to take care of arrivals.

So these sanctuary cities have no existing protocols for dealing with illegal immigrants? Their only response is to tap into funds for natural disasters?

it was done with zero attempts to coordinate with local authorities. Which goes back to my point: Abbott/Desantis are not making a good faith effort to redistribute immigrants. Being as disruptive and disorganized as possible is the point, so they can talk about how owned the hypocritcal libs are.

This is still histrionic. It's not like border states get a coordinated heads-up. Where's the good faith from Bowser, Adams, and MV? Why haven't they been spending their own money to help illegal immigrants get there before now?

It's not like border states get a coordinated heads-up.

Border states have multiple federal agencies dedicated to the matter and receive additional federal money (paid for by blue states) to help local agencies. If Texas is having issues and Abbott wants additional assistance, he can ask for it instead of engaging in maximally disruptive stunts.

Abbott has been asking for help for years, and instead he gets furors over false allegations of horsemen whipping Haitians.

Specifically, previous efforts to stir shit by bussing immigrants to major cities on the eastern seaboard failed to draw attention

Not true. The mayor of Washington D.C and the Governor of Illinois both called for the National Guard to deal with it. (D.C. was denied)

The mayor of NYC also got into it with Greg Abbott as I recall.

That’s incorrect. MV is a liberal stronghold where the wealthy Dem donors vacation. That’s why MV was chosen.

Boston, NYC, Chicago, and DC are liberal strongholds where wealthy Dem donors actually live. They're also large cities that don't really have a problem handling a sudden influx of a few thousand people, so they were failing to generate the desired controversy. Martha's Vineyard is small, remote, and unlike Texas doesn't have a lot of Federal money and Federal facilities designed to handle the flow of migrants.

They live there in gated or guarded neighborhoods, traversing the wretched streets with personal drivers or (if slumming it) Ubers. Dropping migrants off there and the rich won’t even realize, it’s not in their line of sight. MV requires their attention both physically and symbolically.

This is such a fantastical portrait of American cities it makes me question if you've ever visited one.

It’s possible you’ve confusing rich residents with 8 digit millionaire residents, or something. The very rich in SF, Seattle, Boston and NYC have their own neighborhoods, sometimes own drivers

Boston, NYC, Chicago, and DC are liberal strongholds where wealthy Dem donors actually live. They're also large cities that don't really have a problem handling a sudden influx of a few thousand people, so they were failing to generate the desired controversy.

I repeat: Not true. The mayor of Washington D.C and the Governor of Illinois both called for the National Guard to deal with it. (D.C. was denied). NYC Mayor Adams handled it a bit better but said New York was at a "breaking point"

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