site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   38238 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

by breaking the law. Wonder why you omitted that?

Because I expected you to be able to parse 'illegal immigrants' as...well...doing something illegal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The only real solution I can see working is developing those nations to the point that they don't want to come here anymore;

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?

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?

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.

I suppose my point is that haven't we been doing that

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

You're really not doing yourself any favors with that kind of "your suffering is a sacrifice I am willing to make" attitude.

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