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 -
So, in other Aella news, she's channelling the spirit of Hanania with this poll:
Options are (with their current percentages):
Of course Aella with her reach manages to get normies to see her posts and the replies are wild that such a person could even exist, some choice replies:
While the poll itself may be interesting, what I find most interesting of all are the responses from the normies (there are responses that look objectively at the situation and say stuff like "no, if anyone is going to hire prostitutes it should be the parents, not the make a wish foundation", but they all tend to have stuff like "e/acc" in their usernames so they aren't your average randos). These tend to be extremely negative, but not negative in a "I know what I hate and this is it" form but rather a "first encounter with a terrible eldrich abomination you want to see destroyed but are confused at how could it even exist" sort of way. It does not feel like pure hate, but rather a hate that is born of fear, true xenophobia in its original meaning of the word. Nevertheless it is still a form of hate and you can quite easily see the vitriol directed towards Aella, merely for posting this poll.
My worry here though is that as technology advances and a sliver of people with disproportionate cultural cachet adopt belief systems like those of Aella and decouple from the low sophistication ways of thinking common in most westerners along with completely different cultures entering the west and taking root the current indigenous westerners will find their belief and value systems squeezed on both sides, from above by the likes of people who think like Aella does (nothing wrong with how she thinks, in fact I support it) along with from below by the value systems of recent migrants (who still care about stuff like honour and shame etc.).
While this may be a difficult time for the squeezed westereners themselves (I have little sympathy though, these very same people expect migrants to deal with a far bigger and more rapid cultural shock and blame them if they migrants take steps to mitigate this impact), I am more concerned about potential increased societal scale strife as people lash out from being put in a world that they no longer understand (see the "what if you were executed at gitmo" response above, I for one am glad this person has no power and hope it stays this way).
Naturally I have no doubt that any reified violence by the disaffected would be put down with the same prejudice we use for terrorist attacks these days, but it would still not be a good time for social harmony and that has widespread social impacts beyond a small handful of people cracking and going on a rampage where they kill a few people before bring brought down themselves.
Huh? Migration is surely voluntary. Having Aella as your countrywoman less so.
Sure, I agree it is voluntary, doesn't mean the migrants are doing something bad if they try and mitigate the impact of the culture shift on themselves, or that they should not come if they aren't happy with the culture shift.
Eating pasta at a certain restaurant is completely voluntary, but if their pasta comes with rocket on top and you really really hate it then you can freely move it to the side or onto a different plate. You're not a bad person for not accepting the rocket on your pasta and taking steps to get rid of it vs not even visiting the restaurant, maybe the rest of the meal is really good and you like it very much.
Same with migration, migrants are not and should not be expected to accept literally every cultural thing about their new host country and should be completely free to take steps making their experience more pleasant for them, it's no different to removing the rocket from your meal. We would scoff at anyone who said "If you don't like the rocket then don't eat at this restaurant, if you continue coming here you should be expected to consume everything on the pasta", we should do the same for people who make the analogous argument for immigration.
Going to have to hard disagree there. The migrants presumably had either some notion of the price and thus the refusal to pay it is on them, or are fleeing an even worse situation. In either case the correct/pro-social response is not accommodation, but rather an admonishment to "suck it up buttercup". Imagine someone who buys a house under the approach line of an airport and then spends the rest of his life whinging about how he has to listen to the sound of airplanes all day. The airport was here first buddy, either stick a sock in it or move back to your old place.
But the airport's positive or negative impact still remains whether it was there first or not. If it is net negative then the fact its been there 50 years shouldn't on its own be enough to protect it from change. Thats literally just status quo bias.
If you move to a country with a despotic myrderous tyrant ruling it, are you really bound to not be against them, because they were there before you?
It should be a consideration perhaps but its not the whole enchilada.
Yes, absolutely, because you are the guest of this tyrant! You are voluntarily agreeing to be bound by his rules so that you can live in territory he controls. If you want to continue to oppose this tyrant, you're welcome to do so, but that necessarily precludes moving to his country and asking him for his protection.
Why? If I don't think he is a legitimate authority and am just working through the bureaucracy to move, why should I care? The country and the despotic tyrant are not synonymous, i can accept that i should follow the social rules of my new home, but i am not allowed to join the already existing resistance movement for example?
If you don't think he is a legitimate authority, why are you respecting his authority and acting in all ways like he is? If you don't believe he's a legitimate authority, then you don't engage with his governmental processes. Going through his immigration system and respecting the laws he has set up is actually legitimising him, and I am assuming his system also includes an agreement to be bound by his laws. You can violate that agreement if you want, but you are still voluntarily bound by his legal system (I am assuming rebellion is illegal under this murderous despotic tyranny). If you actually don't believe he's a legitimate authority, then you can immigrate following the rules and procedures of the resistance movement and join their ostensible state.
Because having the appropriate papers is probably going to be pretty important. Remember your bureaucracy is not synonymous with the despot, just as the populace is not. If there were a legitimate authority it too would likely have a bureaucracy to engage with, and quite possibly exactly the same one. The despot is certainly within its rights to punish you for rebellion as well of course.
Otherwise anyone moving to the 13 colonies should not have engaged in rebellion against the Crown. They accepted the authority by moving there and living under those laws and taxes and so on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see any of this as a relevant counterargument, my reply to you is "what if I told you that the 'status quo bias' is correct?"
I would argue that if you move to a new country that you are obliged to abide by that country's rules.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be a factor, i am saying it shouldn't be the only factor. Are you really saying if you were an immigrant to Gaza, you should be "cleansing" Israel because its in the constitution?
That your own conscience has to be entirely subsumed by the rules of the place you moved to, just because you chose it?
I am honestly surprised if that is your position.
Your conscience isn't being subsumed it's being exercised because You Are Making a Choice. As @ChickenOverlord so succinctly put it, You knew what you were getting into, so either get with the program or get out.
A bit further down you make a claim about being "entitled to agitate" and I think that this one of the core cultural differences between liberals and conservatives. Having an opinion is not something you're entitled to, it's a privilege that comes from having put in the work and being a member of the group in good standing.
I don't think it illustrates a split between libetals and conservatives, as much as a split along individualists and collectivists. If I compare with Jiro's answer below (who I think is also a conservative), he says essentially you should disobey the rules that are against your own morality regardless (hopefully I am paraphrasing him accurately) and do whats right.
So its more of the libertarian/collectivist split I think. Should you assimilate with the existing collective or maintain your own individual behaviours no matter what.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not Hlynka, but my feeling is less that you have to adopt their "destroy Israel" culture and more that if you don't do so then the native Gazans are understandably justified in not wanting you there and potentially trying to get rid of you and/or keeping more people like you from immigrating. It all boils down to "You knew what you were getting into, so get with the program or get out."
Sure, the Gazans might feel that, but you are also entitled to agitate for positive change. And that is also ok.
Going back to the airport example. We have Bob who lived there before the airport and thinks it is a nuisance and wants it gone. And we have Charlie, who moved in a week ago and thinks it is a nuisance and wants it gone.
How long they have been there has no bearing on the objective reality of whether the airport is more of a negative than benefit to the locals. Its ok for Bob to pressure the government but not Charlie, even for exactly the same reasons?
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