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 -
This is a publicity stunt, and a dumb one too. It will go nowhere.
But suppose it did? The concern here is that Abbott and De Santis did not follow the law. That they offered migrants a plane ride to a location, and perhaps took them to a different location instead, and that this is a crime that needs to be dealt with. After all, following the law is essential. We are a nation of laws. No one is above the law.
We have laws about who is allowed to enter the country. Those laws have been ignored for decades. Enforcement of those laws has been deliberately sabotaged by Federal, state and local officials, and by private organizations receiving funding on the taxpayer's dime, for decades. No one who matters has ever given the slightest fuck about enforcing those laws, for decades. Concessions to the hardships faced by migrants have been openly abused, for decades. Attempts at reform and compromise have been capitalized upon, and then betrayed, for decades. At no point in this story has anyone on the other side of this given the slightest fuck about the law. They do not give a fuck about the law now, and they will not give a fuck in the future, except on those occasions where foolish, blind adherence to the law by people like myself can be used to enable our abuse.
[Bile Removed]
...Suppose Abbott and De Santis did break the law. Why should I give even the slightest fuck? Why should I care about a system of law that primarily appears to exist to be used against people like me, while denying us any protection under its provisions? We are far, far past the point where a claim of impartial enforcement could be credibly made. What's the lesson we're supposed to draw, here? What's the argument that we Reds should even be attempting to follow Blue law, as opposed to openly defying the law and degrading Blue capacity for enforcement?
Tell that to Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
As an Arizona resident, I will note that Arpaio was voted out in the same year that Trump was elected.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link