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 -
Evidence they were forced to leave?
Or are you just assuming what's convenient?
The 150 national guard that were called out. Did Texas need national guard to get them on busses in the first place? If not, it seems that, to the extent that force or deception are objectionable, MA probably did worse on net than Texas did.
That is not evidence of forcing them to leave. The national guard gets called out in voluntary evactuations. You know this.
Sure, for hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires...
In your mind, what precisely were the NG troops doing? Carrying luggage? Why were three national guard required per migrant? Handing out water bottles? I posit that the purpose of involving uniformed troops was as an intimidation tactic. I can't force you to admit this, but I certainly would be fascinated to hear your alternative theories.
So no evidence. Thanks.
I disagree, and reiterate that 150 national guard scrambled to handle a busload of migrants is, in fact, not done for a "voluntary evacuation", and this situation bears no resemblance to disaster response generally. That is my evidence. You may find it unpersuasive, which is your right; partisans are always free to equivocate between what the evidence allows them to believe and what the evidence forces them to believe, but let us be honest with each other here. If you think a voluntary evacuation required deploying three soldiers per migrant, explaining your reasoning as to why should be trivial.
You're applying a mind-killingly low threshold of evidence for something you want to believe. This is the sort of "thinking" that fuels TDS, and you're just as ill.
It is incredible to assert that the situation bears no resemblance to disaster relief. These people were being set up in... disaster relief housing.
I can't find anything authoritative actually saying that these national guardsmen actually moved the immigrants. But enjoy citing vague articles and feeling superior.
In a disaster, soldiers are useful in two ways: as immediate, capable manpower for strenuous physical activities like filling sandbags, cutting firebreaks, shifting rubble, searching for injured victims and so on, and as security against looting, chaos, and disobedience and disruption on the part of recalcitrant civilians.
Neither of these uses appear to apply in the case of the migrants. There was no rubble to shift, no sandbags to fill, no heavy labor to be done. There was no riot or disruption either. So why were they there? What were they doing?
I think they were there as intimidation: a big group of tough guys in uniform, outnumbering the migrants by a significant margin, making it clear that they were not welcome and should move along forthwith. You've given no argument at all for what they were doing, beyond vague and implausible appeals to "disaster relief." How would that actually work? What were the authorities doing that required 150 soldiers to show up and assist, in your mind? Was it carrying luggage? Handing out water bottles?
On the contrary, I think you are employing a mind-killingly high threshold for evidence for something you don't want to believe. I'm entirely comfortable with the fact that I could be wrong, and that there doesn't appear to be definitive proof available either way. If you actually want to offer a plausible scenario as to what 150 soldiers were doing to help a busload of migrants leave, I remain interested to hear it. But you appear to be taking offense at inferences drawn from what evidence is available, and I think that is foolish. We are not prohibited from drawing inferences here, only from being dogmatic and rude about it.
Blatently false. Maybe this'll get through to you, but I suspect not.
After Katrina, 123 members of the national guard was activated to
provide muscle at the disasterprovide securityprovide sheltering capabilities at Joint Base Cape Cod for refugees.And here in 2022, "the state will also activate up to 125 members of the National Guard to assist in the relief effort".
So in 2004 about 120 national guard members were activated to support refugees at Joint Base Cape cod... and in 2022 when about 120 national guard members were activated in conjunction with people being housed at Joint base Cape cod... it was for the purposes of intimidation. Hmmm!
Where are you even getting this number of 150 soldiers?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link