site banner
ZorbaTHut  3yr ago (text post)   Edited 3yr ago   41161 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.

I think legal business owners, small and otherwise, are generally more rational that drug dealers. If the punishment vs payoff curve is correctly designed, they will respond more like rational actors. Do you disagree?

Sure.

I also think it is functionally impossible to "correctly design" a payoff curve.

This is something that is beyond the capabilities of modern political science, despite what experts and pundits may believe. Too many variables, and there is substantial incentive to cheat or otherwise thwart the law.

Politically speaking, the incentive to insert carveouts, exceptions, and other incentives is also massive.

The nice thing about a big, dumb wall is that the engineering aspect is well understood. You just build it.

All I'm saying is that as a proposed solution I think the wall is much more likely to achieve the stated goals, at a lower cost (including ongoing cost) and isn't dependent as much on the 'rational' behavior of employers and immigrants.

Hence, why this solution has been used by many countries to much success.

You can certainly convince me that the tradeoffs or second order effects aren't worth it!

You seem to be assuming 1) the wall will not have ongoing costs but will be perfectly effective, and 2) the expense of actually enforcing the law will not decrease after some employers are destroyed and some companies are bankrupted. Those don't like reasonable assumptions to me.

I mean, if you're already arguing that employers will be destroyed and companies bankrupted, you're saying that a substantial economic cost is a good thing?

So are we agreeing that another benefit of a wall is that it doesn't require destroying employers and bankrupting companies to build it?

They will not come if they can't find work.

They will not come if a fifty-foot-tall barrier physically obstructs their route.

They will not come if a fifty-foot-tall barrier physically obstructs their route.

Unless the barrier proves trivial to breach or surmount. Or they enter on a legitimate visa and never leave.

They will not come if a fifty-foot-tall barrier physically obstructs their route

And then our agricultural system falls apart, wohoo

I believe the solution to that was to add a big beautiful door to allow the ones you need to come through.

The big, beautiful door was to be for legal immigrants, who will have been vetted and are not cartel members, who will swear allegiance to the USA. Sounds exactly like “the ones we need”.

A massively expanded and streamlined visas system for Latin American workers would likely soak up an enormous share of illegal entrants. However, I don't see much support for this on the right.

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