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 -
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.
by breaking the law. Wonder why you omitted that?
The correct judgement would be for them to be immediately kicked out of the country, and anything more reserved than that is a blessing. Even being buffeted around to make liberals walk their walk is still more than they deserve. As far as I'm concerned, this is extreme leniency.
I've long theorised that the solution to ivory tower liberals virtue signalling about illegal immigration is to give them some actual skin in the game, instead of letting them escape all the negative consequences of their ideology inside their walled communities. It seems the governor agrees with me, and that the theory was sound. I applaud this action and hope that next time he sends 500. And then 5000. Until the message sinks in. You do not get to ruin our towns from your gated communities with no consequence.
My idea was that asylum applications cannot be granted unless a citizen by birthright sponsors them. Anyone could sponsor up to 100 entries. The list of sponsors (but not their assigned wards) would be public. You can volunteer your own names if you know them, or you can have them assigned. And if any of the people you have sponsored to enter the country commits a crime, you are held jointly responsible as if you had committed that crime yourself.
In addition, I'd apply that last part to human rights lawyers who frustrate deportations -- if anyone you rescued from deportation commits a crime, you are also held responsible.
People need to be held directly responsible for the consequences of their advocacy. Foisting it off on border towns and other people far away, ensuring there's no cost to you directly, is immoral.
Lawyers are enforcing the rules of the game.
I know the rules are bullshit and people often deliberately frustrate the setting of the rules, but before making lawyers responsible for the crimes of the people they represent I would want to try everything else first.
Yeah, no, and being a regulatory lawyer in private practice is my day job. A lot of regulatory law is deliberately contorting and poking the process as hard and as wildly as possible, often in manners completely disconnected from the actual equities of the case, to achieve some sort of preferred policy result or outcome for the client.
More options
Context Copy link
I really cannot overstate how much I despise these lawyers. I don't believe for one moment that they actually believe that the asylum laws were intended to include migrants from countries that are simply unpleasant places to live. I think they know beyond any shadow of doubt that coaching economic migrants up on how to make asylum claims that result in them being released into the interior of the country is exploiting a loophole in how the law works. They want people to be able to migrate freely, they know they can exploit that loophole, and they feel morally righteous in doing so.
I don't know if Patchwork_October has the perfect solution, but it seems like a good enough workaround to curtail the worst of this behavior.
If the answer to "why are we punishing the lawyers" is "because I hate them" then we have really cut through all the bullshit exceptionally fast.
I really like Patchwork_October's idea for requiring birthright sponsors for immigrants. I would go further and have them put up a bond to stop some judgement-proof patsy being used.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And I'm advocating changing the rules.
I honestly don't see the problem. If you're asserting that a person isn't a danger and can be released into the general population, you should be held accountable if you're wrong. Otherwise if that person goes and robs from someone, or rapes or murders, the cost of your bad decision is entirely externalised. Unless your terminal value is letting the most people stay in the country you possibly can, what's wrong with it?
To say that people questioning the rules get punished. Typical strongman behavior but I will try literally anything else.
If you have the power to punish lawyers for representing the wrong people, you also have the power to say those immigrants just do not have legal rights to stay in the country in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because I expected you to be able to parse 'illegal immigrants' as...well...doing something illegal.
Massachusetts has about as many illegal immigrants (250,000/7,000,000) per capita as Florida does (720,000/21,000,000). Neither share a border with Mexico. Tell me again what consequences Florida is suffering that Massachusetts isn't? Moreover, the majority of illegal immigrants settle in metropolitan areas which vote blue even in red states like Texas. The vast, vast majority of those voters obviously don't live in gated communities. Those that do, do not unilaterally decide policy; Obama and Clinton and so on respond to the desires of their voters.
The message won't sink in, because the hypocrisy that you think is there just isn't, not because you haven't shipped enough illegal immigrants to Massachusetts.
Our tax dollars (which I understand are still the vast majority of funding for border security) pay for federal agents and facilities in Texas, so I do indirectly bear that burden. If anything, blue states contribute more in federal taxes than reds.
I've said it's regrettable that border towns have these issues, and if there were a robust way to mitigate the effects on them I would support it. But as I've said, even under Trump there were still large numbers of illegal immigrants at the border. Your sponsorship proposal wouldn't stop illegal immigrants from illegally ignoring it any more than they do now. The only real solution I can see working is developing those nations to the point that they don't want to come here anymore; look at how the number of illegals from Mexico has dropped as conditions have improved, and those from other countries has increased as conditions there worsen.
Are you sure that doing so is actually easier, more practical and/or more sustainable than building a figurative wall and deporting anyone who makes it across? Or do you just much prefer helping migrants and foreign countries and consider any negative externalities for your own countrymen unimportant in comparison?
I suppose my point is that haven't we been doing that, and the incentives are so strong that people are coming anyways? I'm not going to propose that nothing we do matters, but it seems like short of fixing the economic disparities, there's no real lasting solution to the problem.
It's very much not an easy problem. As anti_dan alluded below, many countries south of the border are either oppressively socialist, or are oppressively anti-socialist (in some cases, thanks to the US/CIA), with the fun third option of "practically dominated by organized criminals with no obvious political lean." Trying (and failing) to absorb large numbers of pseudo-refugees into the nation of America, with its nominal values of democracy and liberalism, is probably easier than trying to get much of South and Central America to not be what it currently is.
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you think this? There has been billions spent in aid to those countries over the years. We engage with free trade with them which would result in rapid QOL improvements to any nation, if they would just stop voting for socialists and engaging in crime.
More options
Context Copy link
I know very little on the particulars of the American-Mexican border and its security, but I was so far under the transatlantic impression that border security and deportations were done half-heartedly at the most.
A significant portion of the border is extremely hazardous Sonoran desert where almost no-one lives on either side, so enforcement in those locations is quite difficult. A non-trivial number of migrants die every year attempting to cross the border in these sections.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"I'm really sorry," he said, loading the bullet into the chamber. "Trust me, if it were up to me, I wouldn't be doing this," he continued, putting the cigarette into the man's mouth. "I just wish there was some way of avoiding this situation." He aimed the gun. Lamenting "It's all just so awkward," he pulled the trigger. Then sighed, reaching for the next bullet. "There has to be a better way."
I'm sorry you feel that way, my friend. I wish you the best.
Is there a name for this particular type of trolling so popular among leftists? I would describe it as fake saintly concern for the well being of someone you are arguing with. It is similar to posting suicide hotlines, telling people to “seek help”, asking “who hurt you”, saying you hope they “get better”. It is particularly grating, which is clearly the point. But in my opinion this tactic should be a bannable offense. “Oh sweetie, I’m so so sorry someone hurt you. I hope you can find the strength to reach out and seek help so you can do better. Trust me, I have been through it too sweetie. Here is a great resource for mental health professionals in your area. <3”
I think it is named Concern Trolling.
More options
Context Copy link
The term you're looking for is feminization. Leftist groups and spaces are thoroughly less masculine than right-wing groups and spaces; this is seen clearly in correlations between politics and physical strength, gender distributions among voting blocs, the social norms of various politically-salient subgroups, support of feminism, etc., etc.
You could also say it's cattiness, but that's the same thing. Passive-aggressiveness. It's just meangirls versus fedposters.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're really not doing yourself any favors with that kind of "your suffering is a sacrifice I am willing to make" attitude.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link