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 -
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.
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.
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?
The Gaza example falls under "are you allowed to shoot them? If so, you're also allowed to do a lot of other things that are beyond the pale."
It would be perfectly fine to walk into Gaza and start shooting people who are planning murder and genocide. (It may be unwise, if you don't want to die, but it wouldn't be wrong.) If it's okay to shoot them, it's okay to do other things, like ignore the rules they put on you being there.
Then people who disagree with Western morality are entirely free to come here and do exactly what they want? That's the logical outcome of that position. If you think abortion is murder, you should be able to move to the US and murder Americans who support it?
That's like saying "what? You think that anyone who owns a burger should be able to eat it? Then people who disagree about who owns a burger are free to eat whichever burger they want!" No. You can be right or wrong about whether you own a particular burger. The fact that true owners and false owners have similar mental states doesn't mean that we have to tolerate false but sincere claims of ownership.
"Is it okay to shoot them?" doesn't have an answer independent of the specific facts of the case. It's not okay to shoot people for having abortions.
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