site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   25987 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 8, 2024

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.

7
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So if you were in Abbot's position what would you do in response to the illegal migration crisis promoted by the Biden regime?

And anecdotally his fundraising emails are talking a lot more about state sovereignty than normal. It led to a twitter breakdown by Gina Hinojosa(head of the Texas democrats) accusing him of being a secessionist, and the admittedly low chance of Gina Hinojosa of all people meming Texas independence into the political mainstream through the power of negative partisanship is kind of hilarious.

If the federal goverment supports illegal migration then that legitimizes greater authority for the states. Unlike seccession, this is compatible with federalism provided the federal goverment are run by people who actually oppose mass illegal migration, as is their duty to do so. If not, there is still not seccession and if anything, Texas would be making the rest of their country a favor. But there is an evolution into greater exercise of power of the states and less sovereignty of the Federal goverment. Or it could be about the dominant ideology of those in control of it. If their agenda is like the current Biden administration, the states actually behaving more like the primary goverment would be the natural, reasonable evolution. A case of the mandate of heaven passing to those willing to behave in accordance to their duty towards their people. Of course this implies a duty to impeach Biden, and his officials who are following the criminal conduct in favor of mass illegal migration.

The way the law is seen should evolve in response to the circumstances. If the federal goverment is run by extremists who are willing to trample over rights and impose their way then (even more than the past) more state sovereignty should be something that conservatives support. Then this ideological evolution should affect both trying to exercise power in terms of executives and in terms of conservatives in the supreme court.

I’d like to see you elaborate on Biden’s “promotion” of the crisis. I tend to agree with @hydroacetylene that the economic incentives are going to dominate; are the Feds not enforcing that? They’re still detaining and deporting significant numbers.

His administration has been using lawfare to stop any attempt by states to stop illegal immigration. (This suit, against the buoys, against the new Texas immigration law, etc.)

There were less than 8 million Hispanics in 1966 and only 4% of the population

Wow, Biden really got started early, huh?

So if you were in Abbot's position what would you do in response to the illegal migration crisis promoted by the Biden regime?

Expand e-verify and crack down on non-citizen employment(most of these people are economic migrants who only come for higher wages), continue doing what he's already doing at the border, invoke the interstate compact with Mexican states again to break up caravans before they arrive at the border. Crack down on sanctuary cities(of which Texas has plenty).

So if you were in Abbot's position what would you do in response to the illegal migration crisis promoted by the Biden regime?

Keep going with the buses? That seems to have worked in New York City, which is now less "send me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and more "stick 'em in tent cities before we can boot them out" (I don't see AOC turning up to cry in front of photographers before any NYC migrant centres, unlike her little jaunt to Tornillo).

"The federal government insists we accommodate your entry? We're complying, we're accommodating you every step of the way to move deeper and deeper into this country you wish to live free and unafraid in, up to the big urban centres which are crying out for your contribution to vibrancy, economic development, and the rich tapestry of all human endeavours!"

It’s not a good solution. These people’s children will still be US citizens from birth, even if they stay in New York and California they will still vote and their vote will count in the house and for the presidency. They will still take welfare and other resources from contributing taxpayers. The disproportionately high amounts of crime they and their descendants commit will still affect you and your own family. Deporting them to New York achieves nothing.

It’s not a good solution. These people’s children will still be US citizens from birth, even if they stay in New York and California they will still vote and their vote will count in the house and for the presidency.

So what? Assuming they vote Democrat (and you know what they say about assumptions) They'll be voting in New York and California isn't going to change the electoral calculus all that much.

ETA:

Deporting them to New York achieves nothing.

This is obviously incorrect on multiple fronts. Aside from assisting those who are seeking sanctuary being the morally correct course of action from a good Christian perspective, it helps Abbott politally by being seen to take his his constituents concerns seriously and it helps the Democrats by giving them what they want.

Deporting them to New York achieves nothing.

Deporting them to New York means the average New Yorker who didn't give a damn when it was a bunch of rednecks down West and South of them dealing with this crap now sees it on their doorstep, and goes to put pressure on their congresscritter about it. Like I said, AOC is very conspicuously not crying in front of the migrant tent city in Brooklyn, whereas she had no problem flying down to Texas to do a photo-op about it. And Mayor Adams is having no problems doing Bad Evil Wicked Things like evicting poor homeless refugees once their time in official shelters is up.

Congresscritters then put pressure on government, which sees it can start cracking down at least some without being pilloried for it, as congresscritters will report back to their constituents that they are indeed Doing Something.

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