site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27554 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 27, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The argument is that all "natives" were immigrants once. At the very least anti-immigrationists should then clarify that they want the specific current shade of "native".

The argument is that all "natives" were immigrants once.

But that statement does not entail either 1) that it was a good thing that the ancestors of current natives once immigrated; or 2) that further immigration is desirable.

No, but it does challenge the moral authority somewhat. I'm an immigrant to the US, so if I am unhappy at immigration (generally) then I am at least somewhat hypocritical. If I had the courage of my convictions I would go back to the UK.

Someone who thinks their ancestors moving to the US was wrong, but does not at least attempt to move back to their ancestral nation is similarly displaying some (lesser!) level of hypocrisy. Exactly the same way that communists are often challenged about engaging in capitalism while living in a capitalist culture. Or that Christians who think abortion is murder are challenged that they should really be overthrowing the government to prevent a new (in their eyes) Holocaust every year.

Now hypocrisy is not the be all and end all of course, most people do not sacrifice everything for their principles, because doing so has great costs. But rhetorically and morally it is an appropriate attack vector. Which is why it used all the time.

If you really had the courage of your convictions (and to clarify most people do not, including myself!) you would move (presumably) to Europe. The fact you do not, is evidence of a sort that you accept that principle can be traded off against other things. And if it can be traded off for you then it can be traded off for other people, including those currently immigrating that you wish would not.

In other words it is an argument that demonstrates your principle is not an absolute, but rather negotiable. And then (as per the old saw) you're just haggling over price. Which moves you into a kind of utilitarian trade off of cost vs benefit conversation. And most of those costs and benefits will be subjective. It's no longer about whether it is right or wrong, but how much, who and when. And your position is lost.

Furthermore for people who think the US is in pretty good shape now, the rebuttal can now simply be: "Yeah and it worked out pretty well then, so why do you think today will be different?" Now you have to defend a position which even most Conservatives today will reject, that Irish and Italian and German immigration made the country worse, when many of the people nominally on your side will be descended from said Irish, Italians and Germans. And it plays into Progressive talking points "You are absolutely correct, we SHOULD give the native peoples more say, because the colonization WAS wrong. Let's set up a First Nations Voice, pay reparations etc. etc."

That's the dichotomy and why many Conservative Americans aren't anti-immigration (even if they are anti-illegal immigration), because that would invalidate their own history of ancestors at Ellis Island or Plymouth Rock and so on and why the "nation of immigrants" rhetoric still has strong purchase on the right. The emotional valence (for someone proud of their country and history) of saying, "Yes my ancestors were morally wrong for moving to the US and seeking a better life" is a heavy one for most people. And feelings trump facts in my experience.

That plus the dichotomy of "Land of the Free" vs Slavery and Jim Crow et al, are two of the most powerful historical forces that shape both the left and the right in America in my view.

No, but it does challenge the moral authority somewhat. I'm an immigrant to the US, so if I am unhappy at immigration (generally) then I am at least somewhat hypocritical. If I had the courage of my convictions I would go back to the UK.

This is a common argument, but I think it's only hypocritical if you're assuming a standpoint of moral universalism. If someone cares about themselves and not other people then a 'immigration for me but not for ye' argument has no hypocrisy. They simply want to get the best that they can for themselves and regard further immigration to be a detriment.

Right, self interest is an argument, but that wasn't the one being made. And while common, many people are suspicious of arguments made for selfish reasons. It's also not an argument that lends itself to much debate. If I think it is good that I can immigrate, but not other people, then other people are also free to make the same argument for their own immigration.

I disagree with your second point, I think that openly self-interested arguments are a lot less common than ones presenting themselves as high-minded or altruistic, which utterly saturate modern-day societies. Even the most brutal dictatorships, like North Korea, present their edicts in idealistic terms.

Any debate that followed from an argument of self-interest (i.e. an honest argument) would be of a technical nature on how best to achieve it. This is opposed to debate that follows from false idealism, which is a contest of deception and narcissistic self-delusion. There, the art is in the effective spin and the bald-faced lie.

Ahh to be clear, i think selfish reasons are common. But selfish arguments are not compelling, so most people will indeed hide behind some other rationale.

Whether Irish, German and Italian immigration made America “worse” is a matter of opinion (and I think the same can fairly be said of modern mass immigration, at least some of the time).

But it did, undoubtedly, make it different. The America that exists today where the white population is 25% Anglo (or whatever it is) and the hypothetical America where the white population is 80%+ Anglo (as it still is in Australia) are two very different places. You can feel the difference if you go to those few parts of America (eg. Utah, non-French or Irish parts of coastal New England) that are still substantially of UK descent. Again, modern America and modern Australia are similarly wealthy countries with a similar quality of life, it’s relatively unlikely the US would be some paradise without the Italians and Irish and Germans and so on.

But entire cities like Boston were wholly colonized by other peoples, from top to bottom. The culture that inhabited them before large scale Irish migration is dead and gone. Conservatives did mourn the passing of Anglo-America. Many did so loudly and publicly, many were anguished. Did they fail to stop it? Sure. Does that mean they were wrong to try?

Personally, as a descendant (at least in large part on one side of my family) of 19th century migrants to the US from Eastern and Central Europe, I’m obviously grateful that I exist. But I’m also sad that Anglo-America as it was is a vanished country, one that in all my travels I shall never visit.

But it did, undoubtedly, make it different.

Sure, but if you want to use that to argue against current immigration, you still need to suggest that difference was worse. And for people who are here because of that change that is a hard sell.

The Anglo-America of the 19th century or whatever would not have existed for you to visit today even absent immigration. It would be different due to a century of change. Would that be better or worse than the actual situation? Who knows. But it would have been different than its prior self regardless. So absent time-travel your sadness is misplaced. That Anglo-America you envisage would have been dead and gone in 2023 even minus the Irish, Italians, Jews, Germans. China's racial demographics haven't changed much but it is very different in 2023 than it was in 1923.

No, but it does challenge the moral authority somewhat. I'm an immigrant to the US, so if I am unhappy at immigration (generally) then I am at least somewhat hypocritical. If I had the courage of my convictions I would go back to the UK.

Someone who thinks their ancestors moving to the US was wrong, but does not at least attempt to move back to their ancestral nation is similarly displaying some (lesser!) level of hypocrisy.

I'm an immigrant to the US as well. I understand the argument, but I don't think it's compelling. If I think the tax rate on my bracket should be higher, am I a hypocrite for not donating to the IRS? I don't think people are necessarily hypocrites for availing themselves of legal avenues to better their lives, even if they recognize that it would be better if policy were to change to preclude that option. This is one reason why I don't mistreat immigrants, even though I resent their presence and wish more than anything else that they weren't allowed in: they were following the law.

There's also the self-serving argument that I think my presence in the US actually decreases the amount of cultural change the US is going through as a result of immigration, just given how thoroughly Americanized I am compared to the median American (which is weighed down by the 14% who are foreign-born, and mostly not from Canada like me or the UK like you). But of course I'd say that, and of course you shouldn't believe me. It also doesn't matter.

The point is that a polity has the right to decide who can immigrate, and the failure of the founding stock to limit immigration to X,Y,Z groups does not compel the present polity to permit further immigration. And the fact that some people may be hypocrites or some people are unwilling to bite the bullet and say that their own Irish/Italian/German ancestors should have been forbidden to immigrate does not mean arguments against immigration - even voiced by those descendants of past immigration - are uncompelling.

The presence of an unrepentant thief who says, "thievery should be punished" is not a good argument against his proposition.

The point is that a polity has the right to decide who can immigrate, and the failure of the founding stock to limit immigration to X,Y,Z groups does not compel the present polity to permit further immigration. And the fact that some people may be hypocrites or some people are unwilling to bite the bullet and say that their own Irish/Italian/German ancestors should have been forbidden to immigrate does not mean arguments against immigration - even voiced by those descendants of past immigration - are uncompelling.

It does mean those arguments are uncompelling to THEM, however. Because it means having to condemn their own ancestors, which lots of people are unwilling to do. And those who are usually think that some form of reparations should be made. That's kind of my point, most of the people who acknowledge what their ancestors did was wrong, end up on the progressive side. It's why we see alt-right types here rail against Conservatives for not wanting to stop all immigration, only illegal immigration. Most Americans have a vested interest in regarding (legal) immigration as being a moral good. Because for many of them it's the only reason they are where they are. Sure that isn't a logical argument, but feelings trump facts here.

If you want the current polity to actually limit immigration, that's what you have to contend with. From my perspective if the US decides to limit or not limit immigration, that is largely up to them. If they want to go with the nation of immigrants myth that they are emotionally invested in, that is entirely their right to do so, whether I agree or not.

The presence of an unrepentant thief who says, "thievery should be punished, but not me, I'm one of the good ones" does indeed call into question his motivation to make that argument. Largely it's what the non thieves think that should hold most sway. The thief by his very nature is unable to be objective about it.

It does mean those arguments are uncompelling to THEM, however. Because it means having to condemn their own ancestors, which lots of people are unwilling to do.

But so what? So people don't condemn their ancestors when they should. Now what? Doors open, come one come all?

If you want the current polity to actually limit immigration, that's what you have to contend with. From my perspective if the US decides to limit or not limit immigration, that is largely up to them. If they want to go with the nation of immigrants myth that they are emotionally invested in, that is entirely their right to do so, whether I agree or not.

Believe me, I acknowledge what I have to contend with, and I lament it.

The presence of an unrepentant thief who says, "thievery should be punished, but not me, I'm one of the good ones" does indeed call into question his motivation to make that argument. Largely it's what the non thieves think that should hold most sway. The thief by his very nature is unable to be objective about it.

Right, so forget him and look at his actual argument. You seem to not want to look at the actual argument and only focus on the person making it.

Right, so forget him and look at his actual argument. You seem to not want to look at the actual argument and only focus on the person making it.

No, you misunderstand. I am saying that for most people that is how they look at it. Hence why they make the attacks you were wondering why they made. The correctness of the argument you are making is mostly moot (and I haven't commented on it for just that reason).

Your question is answered by how people operate, that they use emotion and pattern matching etc. So you or I making the same argument as someone else will get different reactions. In other words, identity does indeed matter. If you want to make arguments that will advance your cause, understanding and accounting for that is important. A white Canadian (or Brit!) immigrant making an argument against immigration is going to be a hard sell, regardless of whether the argument is 100% correct or not. How right you are is less important than how right you are perceived to be.

Gotchya, sorry I misunderstood. Your point is certainly well taken.

just given how thoroughly Americanized I am compared to the median American

I do not believe this makes sense. If being Americanized does not refer to being most like the median American, then what is it exactly?

Obviously from my perspective I don't consider immigrants to necessarily be Americanized. Some more than others, sure. But it seems true to me that a Canadian immigrating to the US tilts America's culture more towards the non-immigrant American population than if that person had not immigrated.

It's like, if you had the following ten numbers: 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10 (average = 7.2; median: 9), adding another 9 moves the average up to 7.36, which is closer to the median than not adding the 9, even though the 9 is on the low end of the high cluster. Think of the numbers as some metric of "Americanized". Obviously this is a toy example where the numbers are made up, but it's there to illustrate the point.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats