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 -
https://apple.news/APEuOPHP2TWqeUTR_h8QypA
So the Republican speaker of the house has decided to open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden’s business dealings with hunter. I have serious doubts that this will go very far as democrats still control the senate. This looks like an attempt to stir up the base for re-election season.
I personally see this as a big distraction as we have a lot of very serious problems that need to be addressed. BRICs, Taiwan, Ukraine, inflation, and
Ugh, I know “Twitter isn’t real life” is commonly used to refer to liberals but this feels very much like a “Twitter isn’t real life” moment for republicans. Total waste of time.
What is the other more important task they should be working on while the Democrats control the senate and presidency?
How about increasing funding for asylum adjudication, so that the wait for adjudication is 6 months, not several years? That will pretty much eliminate the border issue, since it will massively decrease the incentive to enter the country and give asylum a shot. That would have bipartisan support, especially from people like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who for all intents and purposes really control what passes the Senate.
How about a law to preserve the substance of the Pico plurality decision, which is probably no longer good law, to prevent red schools from removing ideas they don't like, and blue states from doing the same?
Oh, yes: only having a piddling six months to be let out into the community on the promise of 'cross your heart and hope to die, you'll turn up for the hearing in six months time' is really going to deter people who think American streets are paved with gold and they can just go live with their cousin's uncle's best friend in one of the big cities and work in the black economy?
I think sorting out genuine asylum seekers from "I was so persecuted that I fled my own country into Mexico, then fled Mexico for the USA, honest" economic migrants is vital, and cutting down adjudication times is a very good idea, but I don't think it's a magic fix-it.
I would argue that by definition, anyone who has snuck into the US is an economic migrant. Even Mexicans facing cartel violence can move to other parts of Mexico.
Developed countries need to abolish the asylum system. As long it exists as a last resort for illegal immigrants who get caught, illegal incursions will never be stopped.
Australia's system works because boat people are guaranteed to never be granted residence in Australia. As long as you hold out the carrot of legal residence (or in parts of Europe, an indefinite, all inclusive hotel stay), immigration enforcement will always have one hand tied behind it's back.
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