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 -
Hold on just a second. Why are employers who break the law by hiring an illegal immigrant not immoral in the first place? Why do they get a pass when they refuse to do their part and verify that their employees are authorized to work?
I will not punish Americans for exploiting non-Americans. They are outsiders and lack any moral significance. Their employment, or lack thereof, isn't worrisome; the problem isn't the illegals having jobs, the problem is there being illegals. It's not the business' duty to enforce national sovereignty and borders, it's the business' duty to do the best they can for their customers and communities -- even if that involves breaking the backs of illegals. Wring them for all their worth while the feds sort them out.
Bullshit. The people who aren't US citizens have some inherent moral worth, even if it isn't as high as a citizen's.
Perhaps to you. But I'm not speaking from your perspective. If it was not clear, I began my post with "I will not...".
What a trivial response. Yes, we all understand that you speak from your perspective. I'm asserting that you are wrong. Or do you claim that your perspective is just that, unfounded and unsupported? Something that has about as much relevance to it as a discussion about one's favorite color?
You asked why employers would not be immoral. I told you why. That you disagree is noted but pointless -- there is no right or wrong in morality save that which we decide. What response are you expecting? I don't care if you think I'm wrong, I wasn't asking you for permission to have my moral values.
I'm expecting some kind of justification or elaboration. Your position is drastically out of the Overton Window, but you assert it as if it wasn't.
You want me to explain my values? It would have been easier if you'd just asked for that in the first place. I don't bother with this often because values, being terminal as they so often are, have no real value being communicated to someone with different intuitions. So I'll answer this for you, but I expect it to not be persuasive.
So, broadly, I reject notions of universal right and wrong. Whether something is moral or not is a personal choice we make for ourselves, which we then pit against the collective opinions of the society around us in the hopes of making our personal aesthetics the community norm. For myself, this moral aesthetic is tribal, with concentric rings of fidelity based on first personal and blood relationships and then on social and symbolic relationships. Me against my brother; my brother and me against our cousin; my brother, my cousin, and me against my town; my town and me against our state; my state and me against.. etc., etc.
The wider out those circles get, usually, the weaker the connection felt and loyalties owed. Furthermore, it is always moral to support an inner ring over an outer ring, provided that support does not violate a different inner ring. Some examples:
If my brother gets in a fight with a stranger, I take my brother's side. If my brother gets in a fight with my sister, I evaluate their conflict on its personal merits and intervene or not as I deem appropriate.
If my town is having a competition with other towns in the region, I support my town. I'll root for my local teams and prioritize local businesses. This extends up to the national boundary: I'll support Team USA over Team France in any given sport, and if I had to pick between the world dying off or America dying off I'd sacrifice the world in a heartbeat.
I am not swayed by any common brotherhood of man, so my widest circle of concern is the country itself. This is also the weakest circle, and it is on the threshold of ceasing to be one entirely due to the culture war; the more proof I see that 'the nation' is not really a coherent group that shares my values anymore, the less I feel a part of it. As it stands, the country is roughly split into Red America and Blue America -- I'm still loyal to Red America, but I've firmly checked out of Blue.
Relating this back to the illegals issue, it is simply not offensive to my moral sensibilities for the in-group to violate the out-group. Illegals have no positive moral worth whatsoever to me. I will not support punishing employers for skimming illegal wages and using them as cheap labor for the benefit of the rest of us. There is nothing you can do to an illegal, as an American citizen, that bothers me, other than helping them get here to begin with.
If this is the case, then you saying
is only correct if you also believe that anything action up to and including murder is morally justifiable against an illegal immigrant. Just to be clear, is this the case for you?
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