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 -
I have pretty much had it with people who ranted about "trump disrespecting the troops!" now waving the flag of Hezbollah who actually killed a lot of those troops.
The next time a Democrat starts regurgitating NPR at me I'm going to end up saying something friendship-ruiningly impolite because I just can't hold in the anger at this stupidity any more. It's almost worse than 2020 because the deranged hysteria isn't happening in unique circumstances.
How do you all deal with this every day?
Your anger reminds me of the Liberation Pledge that vegans did, where they aggressively pushed their principles to their non-vegan friends in the form of ultimatums, "either stop eating meat or we can't be friends". When their non-vegan friends didn't comply with their craziness, the vegans got extremely mad and essentially said "well I guess they weren't ever my friends anyways!!!"
Losing friends and making enemies for pointless battles is just dumb. Politics has always been overwhelmingly about vibes and direct personal interest. Leftists of the e.g. feminist+pro-Muslim variety irk me as much as anyone, but it's utter silliness to think you'd accomplish anything but your own harm by raging at those types of people. And if you think your outgroup is the only side with a large amount of contradictions, then you're hopelessly naive. The Bible has so many contradictions that it's worthless as a philosophical guiding light, yet it's served that purpose to basically the entire Western world for centuries. Individual rulers or religious leaders just cherry-picked whichever parts happened to suit them. For another example, it wasn't too long ago that a large chunk of the alt-right cheered when Trump sank the most conservative immigration bill in a generation for blatantly self-serving reasons. When pressed, most of the alt-right just mumbled out explanations that showed they had no idea what was actually in the bill, or the state of current immigration laws. In practice it didn't actually matter, since the fact that they like Trump's vibes easily overrode their ideological pre-commitments.
How would you feel if I did what you plan on doing to Christians or Trump supporters? How would you feel if I "say something friendship-ruiningly impolite because I just can't hold in the anger at this stupidity any more"? You'd probably think I'm being silly and dumb, right?
Reading that post about the Liberation Pledge makes me sad, because here is a perfectly nice person with good intentions who only wants to do good and reduce harm, and they might as well be an alien from another planet when it comes to understanding ordinary people:
That right there from the start: it's not a body, it's a carcass. And it's not someone, it's something. An animal is not a person. Plus, I get the distinct impression that were this a report on an Oceanian tribe that practiced consumption of the remains of the deceased as a ritual of respect, we'd get the whole "we should not impose Western moral values on others" about something that really was "putting someone's body on the menu".
You know where the added stigma was? I'm going to take a wild guess and that it wasn't on the part of shame-faced carnivores around "eating animals", but rather "that stupid notion that made Jenny refuse to attend Granny's last Thanksgiving before she died, the last time the family all saw her, just because of a dumb turkey dinner. She was Granny's favourite grandkid! And we all knew Granny wasn't doing so good! And she just would not come because of that vegan rubbish, she cared more about some dead turkey than about Granny!"
The problem is, veganism is a moral judgement, and nobody likes moral judgements. The same people who would be horrified about some bigot telling a gay family member that they were sinful and in need of having their soul saved has no problem telling meat eater family and friends that they are damned souls going to carnist hell.
As the article points out, the Pledge backfired because it involved breaking off relationships with family and those close to the vegan; the moral purity being not "He eats with tax collectors and sinners" but "They eat with meat-eaters".
What gives you that impression besides the fact that you dislike the author?
Edit: consumption of the remains of the deceased or the remains of the slaughtered?
People who tend to be "this is the body of a person" when talking about a turkey or joint of beef on the dinner table are also likely to be "we must not impose our morals on others" when it comes to unconventional and non-Western beliefs and practices.
I don't dislike the author, I appreciate that they are a sensitive person trying to do good as they see it. I dislike the neuroticism of the zealot veganism philosophy. The piece admits the failure mode of the Pledge was forcing the non-vegans into a choice of "me or them?" and then breaking off relationships over what the non-vegans are going to see as "it's just a meal".
Ritual cannibalism has indeed been practiced, though the debate over how widespread, how long, and for what reasons, continues; I doubt that the ethical vegans would stretch their ethics to condemnation of such cultures as being wrong, unnatural, etc. because that is Western colonialist thinking. They might condemn it on the grounds of all meat-eating being wrong, but not because humans are different or superior to animals.
How do you know this? The vegans I've met don't hold non western cultures above criticism. Especially if we are talking about people posting on the ea forum who are likely more autistic than your average vegan.
I certainly don't know any vegans who are in favor of murder and cannibalism, though they might draw a distinction between that and eating a human who died for other reasons (as some of them do for eating a non human animal that wasn't slaughtered for the purpose of eating).
Wait, you doubt that they would do this, but acknowledge that they might?
It sounds more like they might not condemn it for the reasons you think they should condemn it, and that seems like a much weaker argument indeed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The lack of theory of mind is truly something. The leading response to "I won't eat at a table where meat is served" is "so starve then" and the second leading response is "Then leave the table". In distant third is "So you want some of my brisket?" with "fine, it'll be vegetarian this time, but you're an asshole and I'm eating double steak tomorrow" trailing it by a good margin. "Well, I guess I'll reduce or eliminate my meat consumption" is lizardman's constant.
I do see their point and why they tried it, but I also wonder how otherwise intelligent people could not see why this would fail. If you don't want to associate with meat-eaters, you can certainly all gather into your own little bubble of vegans. But when it involves dealing with the wider public and especially your own family, it's going to have consequences. The idealistic among them seem to have assumed that other people would accept their views, be convinced of the moral horror of eating turkey or beef or pork, and change the entire traditional meal to fit around "no animal products at all" (some vegans are very evangelical on this and would not accept the use of butter, cream, cheese, etc. in a meal).
While people might be willing to go "Okay, we'll do a special vegan selection for you", they are less likely to go "and you can eat it at a separate little table of your own" (though they might stretch that far) and are not at all likely to go "okay we will junk the Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner/Fourth of July barbeque and all eat salad and fake meat products".
The authoress of the original piece has it in three parts, the third part being Vegan Tables: A Letter To The People I Love.
And this is the part that makes me wince:
What she means by "someone suffocating to death" is the fish. Not the people fishing, the fish. When you get to the level of "fish are people like humans are people", then there isn't much mutual ground remaining to be covered between that view and the view that "eating meat is acceptable". And the rest of the letter, though sincere, and I don't think meant to come off this way, does come off as emotional manipulation and arm-twisting with guilt: if you love me, agree not to eat meat:
You love me, don't you? I've just told you how much I care about you! Why won't you ease my suffering by this tiny little concession? And at that point, either you (the family member or friend) bluntly state "Sorry but you're crazy, fish are not people" or you try to accommodate them and set yourself up for continuing attempts to bludgeon you via emotional manipulation into becoming vegan yourself. And if you don't give in, then she will break off the relationship, and continue on with "why are people so cruel that they would prefer to indulged in misery and suffering and to destroy our friendship and bond rather than give up this savagery?" and feel vindicated in her martyrdom.
Oh dear.
I encourage her to try the ‘fish are friends, not food, you’re actually a murderer’ line on someone fishing in the park. Just to show her what the actual likely reaction would be.
The pro-life movement has figured out that shrieking ‘you’re a murderer’ is not a successful tactic and they will push new members not to engage in it. The hardcore vegans have apparently not learnt this lesson.
I think you can legitimately be concerned about fishing, particularly commercial fishing which is often destructive, but when you are basing it on "fish are people" then yeah. Fish are very much on the brainless end of the spectrum, and while they do feel pain as a living organism, it's hard to argue that they are aware in the same way you might argue a cow is aware.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's a LOT of people who believe that vegetarianism is morally superior even if they're not vegetarian themselves, which disarms them of the first two responses.
Sure, but that's vegetarianism not veganism, and these people are hell-for-leather pure 100% vegans. If they were willing to compromise on a vegetarian option, I think there would be less friction (permitting eggs, cheese, dairy products for the meat-eaters and in food). It's the ones who don't want any such options who are going to run into trouble, the ones who are "you put butter into the mashed potatoes so I'm not eating those even though they're one of the few vegetable options for the meal, plus I'm going to sulk about the rest of you eating butter and cream".
To do the writer justice, the wider movement seems to have copped on that the original strict version was a failure:
Regular lefties think the vegetarians are morally superior, the actual vegetarians think the vegans are morally superior. So the scolding works, and if you don't provide vegetarian or vegan options it is you who is in the wrong, and pushing that to providing meat when there are vegans present isn't that hard. Whereas if you don't provide meat, the meat eaters are in the wrong for complaining.
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
Just a tangent here, but the Bible isn't designed to be a philosophical guiding light on its own. It even says not to do that, but to also hold to the traditions received extra-biblically, i.e. the Church, which is designed to be a philosophical guiding light.
Seems to me that when (much of) the Western world started trying to use the Bible in a way it specifically says not to use it, that's where we got into trouble.
More options
Context Copy link
IMO this is incredibly uncharitable on why they sank the immigration bill. You make it sound like we crashed it for shits and giggles. The bill had core issues.
Too much discretion. If you don’t control the Presidency and key asylum courts it doesn’t do anything.
Biden had levers to slow immigration now. He wasn’t doing it. Why make a deal where he can claim victory and enforce it during election season and then if he wins the election it’s back to open borders.
Formalized a lot of bad things like the asylum system
We all know that in American politics you usually only get to do things once when legislating. If the first bill is shit you’re probably not getting a second bite at the apple.
Trump as POTUS is better for limiting immigration than Biden with the bill. This tells you how weak the bill was.
House passed a bill. It was always better to use the up coming elections to press the Dems for a good bill than a bill with Swiss cheese loopholes.
I opposed the bill because it was a bad bill. Its better to do a good bill with real teeth after winning the elections.
It doesn’t matter. Unless Trump has a trifecta with an unrealistic senate majority (which isn’t going to happen) this was better than ANYTHING he can accomplish in office. It is truly an unbelievable blackpill that the bill didn’t pass, it represented a huge concession from the Dems in an election year and the GOP were unfathomably retarded to reject it.
If 2 million “asylum” immigrants is the best deal we can negotiate with Dems then I support a full fledged Trump coup and the end of the Republic.
One is a long term coup and the other is a short term coup. Same thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here's the summary of the bill, and here's the full text. Can you point out what specifically you object to? I've been accused of being uncharitable on this topic before, but whenever I press for details I typically get little but handwavey "Biden bad" style arguments. Which, to be clear, he was bad early in his presidency on this topic, but then he did an about-face and has signaled that he would have used the law quite aggressively.
Most of the bill is funding increases or rules changes that have little discretion involved. The big point of discretion was the Border Emergency Authority, which could be used if there were an average of 4000-5000 immigrants per day, and must be used at 5000+.
What is this referring to? The US already has formalized laws on asylum, like its signature on the Convention Against Torture. Right now, a big loophole in immigration is that immigrants can stay in the country until their asylum application is heard by a court, but courts are clogged and they often just miss their appointment anyways. The law would have plugged that.
What does this even mean? The bill was never passed, so comparisons to "Biden with the bill" as if it was law are nonsensical.
What "Swiss cheese" loopholes are you referring to? Trump was effectively no better on immigration than Obama, and most of his changes were executive orders that cost little political capital, and were trivial to repeal or ignore. Trump himself often went back on his more aggressive immigration changes whenever he got negative coverage on Fox News.
Completely agree, this was the most progress on illegal immigration since the 1990s and the GOP squandered it to pander to Trump who might not even win in November and won’t be able to do something better even if he does.
More options
Context Copy link
The 5k per day is way too much. Combined with the Presidency getting to suspend the act for I believe 60 or 90 days. Then courts would have to get involved. So you can run high to get to the trigger then ignore it for 45 days. Tell the immigrants you back to not come for a month. Run some to get to the trigger. Ignore it for 45 days. Just not enough teeth that they would ever close the border.
It’s further formalizing that 5k a day asylum seekers are fine. We should honestly just ban asylum at the border which we can do. Make them file at an embassy and have true causes. We have virtually zero true asylum cases at the US border. They are safe in Mexico. They can email Senators/Lawyers etc for asylum cases outside the country.
This entirely depends on the courts. Conservatives are not good at controlling those type of asylum claims. If you get liberal judges on those courts who accept not being American makes them a little poor and boom asylum claim accepted then the act does nothing. And again asylum should not be initially approved inside the country.
Trump did NOT need to pass this bill to stop immigrant caravans. This is obvious we did NOT have these issues under Trump and no laws have been changed in the interim. Like you say above Trump closed immigration doing things that were “trivial to repeal or ignore”. Electing Trump is what we need to close the border. He’s done it before. Biden could do the same thing.
Which brings up the big problem with the bill. It’s toothless. If the POTUS is of the wrong party then the border is open. There were no teeth in the bill to force a Democrat to close the border.
If you disagree with the “teeth” then please quote in the bill the “teeth”. How would this bill limit President AOC to 10k “asylum” seekers per year?
The Border Emergency Authority is a "break in case of emergency" tool that's specific to the crisis happening now. It sunsets in 3 years, so it won't be relevant if AOC takes office in a decade unless it's renewed. If it's not used then it would be no different than the status quo, but the rest of the bill expanding funding for border security and plugging asylum loopholes would still be in place. It's in no way formalizing that 5k migrants a day is "fine", it's simply a trigger when opaque and extraordinary measures can be taken.
Trump was really no better than Obama when it comes to border crossings. A lot of it is driven by the relative strength of the economy, but also by non-US factors like the state of Latin American countries especially in the Northern Triangle. Your answer of "Trump didn't need this" is exactly the handwavey "Biden Bad" thing I was talking about in my earlier post. The assumption you seem to be coming to is that the tougher laws are all just a ruse, that Biden must be doing something sneaky, but this is effectively unfalsifiable.
This law doesn't open the border. If you think it does, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what the bill does.
Why can’t we just have a clean bill that closes the border?
You say the golden triangle. The south is richer than they have ever been. There is always going to be some excuse. America will always be richer than every where else so there will always be economic demand.
I find it interesting you did not try saying these are real asylum seekers.
I prefer Trump over the bill because I know the bill does nothing when the wrong party is in power. Biden could have stopped this but chose not to.
I presume you mean "close the border to illegal immigrants". I agree that would be the best, but it's like saying "why don't we make murder illegal". It already is illegal, it's just a question of enforcement. This bill would have beefed up enforcement.
I presume you did an autocorrect error and meant to type "Northern Triangle", not golden triangle.
The causes I listed aren't excuses, they're explanations that lie on a continuum. It's like judging the performance of a CEO based solely on the stock price, when you really need to understand the whole underlying environment to make a proper judgement. If the company grew by 10% but the rest of the sector grew by 50%, the CEO probably screwed up. Similarly, extraneous factors affect enforcement at the border.
You keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. At the very least this bill would have given more money for enforcement and closed an obvious loophole that illegals were abusing to enter the country. If Biden actually used the bill to its full effect (which he said he would) then it would have done even more.
I mean a clean bill where we close the border. And not the I claim asylum bullshit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It wouldn’t necessarily limit Dem presidents much, but it would allow a GOP President much more discretion against mass illegal immigration. Given the Dems will do what they want anyway, that would have been a win.
I think you just made the argument for why they killed it. If you think the bill does 0 to limit immigration during a Dem presidency then the best course of action was maximizing the probability that Trump wins the election. Giving Biden a legislative win hurts Trumps election chances.
I am confident enough that Trump can crush immigration just by being POTUS that it’s not that important to have a bill.
This gets to my origional point that I disagreed with that the right killed the bill for shits and giggles. They correctly identified that winning the POTUS limits illegal immigration and the bill would still allow a Democrat to have an open door policy. The GOP wasn’t offered anything in the deal.
You really have to jump through mental gymnastics to get to this conclusion.
"We must not enact tougher immigration laws so that the guy who says he wants to use the tougher laws loses, in order to get a guy who I say will enact even tougher laws but who failed to actually enact any lasting changes".
Or, you know, we could just enact tougher laws now, then continue fighting for them later?
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