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 -
Do you have that same energy for the US congressman Brian Mast who wore his IDF uniform to Congress and said
and then:
Someone like this, along with the Israel lobby, is much more likely to hurt the US and get it into stupid foreign entanglements because of hi dual loyalty than anyone in the Squad.
I'll say this: if you are a dual citizen, you should not be able to serve in congress, and probably shouldn't be able to serve in any role whatsoever in government including police. I'll even go so far as to say that only natural born US citizens should be able to serve in congress.
Re the first one, does this extend to cases where someone's a dual citizen due to essentially not being able to get rid of their second citizenship? Dual citizenships have been a bit of a topic in Finland in the recent years since the most common dual citizenship is Russian but, for instance, I have a friend who has such a dual citizenship and would like to get rid of it but essentially can't, since he'd have to physically go to Russia for that and there's a high chance he'd get punished for such an attempt, particularly since he's been a vocal opponent of Putin's policies and they might as well just go and forcibly draft him and throw him at the front.
Yes. There are many jobs that your friend would still be eligible for.
By that reasoning it's fine to bar him from taking part in any job whose name starts with the letters Q through Z. After all, even with that restriction there are many jobs he could take.
But it's totally arbitrary. Why do we have an interest in preventing someone from taking some jobs just because they refuse to put themselves in physical danger by going to Russia?
The government by its nature exerts power over me. It takes my money (by force), and implements behavioral prescriptions that it enforces with violence.
That's different than most jobs, and because of that different scrutiny should be applied to the people being entrusted with that power. I'm sorry your friend really wants to have that power but can't, but honestly in this scenario I am going to start wondering why they want the power that badly.
Probably for the same reason they'd want a job that starts with the letters Q through Z: because you need to have a job to live, and you're better off when a big chunk of the possible jobs aren't automatically barred from you in advance. Expecting someone to go to Russia to be jailed or drafted, before you'd hire them, is unreasonable.
What country are you in? Your friend has also chosen to eliminate themselves from all of the jobs in India by not moving to India and trying to get a job there, presumably. Why, if this is just a matter of increasing the possible number of jobs available, do they not do that?
Going to Russia is not inherently a requirement for having a job in government. It's only one because you or your representatives have chosen to make it one. You could say "well, having to renounce citizenship by going to Russia is so dangerous that we won't require it", you just don't.
Going to India is inherently a requirement for getting a job in India.
While both actions increase the number of jobs available, and both actions are dangerous (presumably going to India also causes him harm), in only one case is the requirement for the danger put into place by a bureaucrat standing in his way rather than by the facts of the situation. You can't object to "the real world lowers my chance of getting a job", you can object to "a bureaucrat lowers my chance of getting a job".
(If there was a bureaucrat standing in the way of getting a job in India, such as with an immigration law, we'd then have to ask if that specific bureaucratic restriction was reasonable.)
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