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 -
More developments in DeSantis' political stunt of sending some migrants to Martha's Vineyard.
If you didn't already know the migrants were not even in Florida when they got on the flight. The migrants started in San Antonio, Texas. The Bexar County Sheriff (which covers San Antonio) has announced a criminal investigation into the matter. They do not currently have the names of any suspects or particular statutes in mind that may have been violated but they have started an investigation. I'm not an expert on Texas law but it seems to me their law on unlawful restraint may be applicable. The law provides:
Did DeSantis' agents move a person from one place to another by deception such that the persons so moved did not consent? Seems like it to me! If any of the people so moved were children under the age of 17 the offense is a state jail felony otherwise it is a Class A misdemeanor.
On the civil front some of those same migrants have filed a class action lawsuit against DeSantis (maybe flying them to the island full of rich lawyers was unwise.) There are 12 listed causes of action in the complaint (starting on page 23 in the pdf). These range from violations of constitutional rights (since this was ostensibly done under color of law, using state government funds) to regular torts like false imprisonment, fraud, and infliction of emotional distress (intentional and negligent).
Correct me if I'm wrong but Desantis's campaign coordinator said they were all given brochures of Massachusetts and info on Martha's Vineyard. Seems like if that's true then your points are completely moot. Hard to argue that you tricked somebody if you gave them a pamphlet of their destination in advance.
"Not only that, they all signed consent forms to go. And then the vendor that is doing this for Florida provided them with a packet that had a map of Martha's Vineyard," said DeSantis.
"It had the numbers for different services on Martha's Vineyard. And then it had numbers for the overall agencies in Massachusetts that handle things involving immigration and refugees. So it was clearly voluntary."
If true, this doesn't cover any and all accusation of deception but it does cover the ones you listed above.
So, from my newly conservative POV, I have to say that this looks like lawfare, which has become a favorite tactic of blue team in the last five years. The point being that it doesn't matter if the investigation is grounded on any kind of probably cause so long as it can be used in media stories as part of the "wrap up smear" technique explained by Nancy Pelosi.
What if the pamphlet contained information that was false?
From the complaint:
The complaint also alleges that the migrants were told they were going to Boston and only learned they were going to Martha's Vineyard after boarding the plane:
So DeSantis' agents lied to the migrants about where they were going and what would be available to them when they got to their destination. The migrants relied on these false representations for their "consent" to go.
The fact of signing a consent inform is irrelevant if the reason you signed is because someone deceived you about what you were consenting to. Similarly the fact that the packet had a map or certain phone numbers does not establish that their consent to being transported was not based on lies.
One of the qualifiers is "Asylees".
So, were they falsely applying for asylum, or do they count?
"They used all direct quotes from our official government resources, but put it together into their own pamphlet so we'll pretend I just proved they lied" is some absolutely amazing logic. Here, try this one:
Another qualifier is "victims of human trafficking", which means that even if DeSantis criminally trafficked them, that makes them such victims, which post-facto justifies the claims!
Seriously, just take the L on this one.
The Massachusetts program doesn't apply to all asylum seekers though, only those that have been granted refugee status by the Department of Homeland Security. If I give you information about a real government program, which I know does not apply to you, but I present the information to you as if it does, for the purpose of inducing you to take some action, is that fraud? It sounds like it to me!
The Massachusetts programs include, by statute:
For kinda stupid reasons, nearly all parolees from federal immigration services fall under 212(d)(5), including those who've submitted asylum requests but have not been processed.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh no! So help the people you've lured through 4000 miles of death traps and cartels to work through the process and qualify! Again, it is insanely rich logic to throw a hissy fit over a single plane load of refugees who don't meet a strict set of requirements when they're illegal immigrants falsely claiming asylum as cover for economic migration in the first place. The sheer audacity to try that line! Should we start charging the NGOs and immigration lawyers who are coaching people on what to say on asylum applications with human trafficking, too?
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