site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Martha’s Vineyard is one of the wealthier places in the US, why would you think they would be less capable of dealing with illegals than a small border town?

Why would wealth be the only indicator of a place's ability to deal with illegals? A small border town might already have a setup to deal with these people whereas MV might not. In such a situation, the border town could indeed be more capable.

All in all, I care about the citizens whose quality of life is significantly worsened from illegals, not the illegals who had a momentary blip on their desired trip to MA and got to spend some time in beautiful MV.

Meaning you care about the people who have to deal with this in MV?

They are not our countrymen by definition. YOU should treat our countrymen better instead of literal illegal border-invaders over your own fellow citizen.

Would you direct your advice towards DeSantis as well? MV's people are his countrymen as well.

Why would wealth be the only indicator of a place's ability to deal with illegals?

Maybe not the only, but it's surely quite sufficient, especially given such small quantities of migrants.

They have professed an ardent desire for more migrants, so placing them on their island is simply an act of goodwell. Now, if they actually don’t want to deal with the migrants, and instead want to offshore them on their faraway neighbors, then theirs is the case of not caring for countrymen. In which case having them deal with the problem is a way to care for countrymen, excluding countrymen who don’t care for countrymen, which is a morally ideal form of neighborly care.

This latter bit is something humans do with ingrained moral intuition, but we can make an example. If we’re in a tribe and we care for one another, that’s good; when one element of the tribe stops caring for others, then the rest of the tribe no longer has an obligation toward that element. This is something you find in human affairs ranging from friendships, classrooms, organizations, etc. 10 friends share something, 1 stops sharing, the 9 will share with one another and exclude the 1. Morally grandstanding about wanting immigrants, just not placed anywhere you live or breath or raise your children, is a defection from the rules of the social living — you’re obtaining value (moral grandstand) and placing costs on a neighbor who doesn’t obtain the value.