site banner
PaperclipPerfector  17d ago (text post)   28130 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 2, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That child would, by virtue of automatically acquiring US citizenship via being born on American soil, fall under the 5th clause of China s nationality law (specifically the part following the semicolon in the 5th clause) and so would not automatically acquire Chinese citizenship.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/中華人民共和國國籍法

I mean, if one wants to be philosophical, one could worry that there might exist some sort of problematic race condition situations where it all depends on how "fast" the two countries' laws respectively kick in (metaphysically speaking). It also depends on your conception of personhood. If e.g. US law recognizes an infant as a person even as she's sliding down the vaginal canal but hasn't emerged yet, but Chinese law only recognizes after the baby has emerged (this is just a silly example for illustrative purposes), then the US law will always kicks in earlier and therefore (per the exception created by the 5th clause of China's nationality law) preempt the China law from giving her automatic Chinese citizenship.

I can't read Chinese so that article may have better or more up to date information on their own laws, but the English Wikipedia for the same topic says:

While Chinese nationality law does not recognize multiple nationalities, the current legal framework and its practical implementation allow for certain situations where de facto dual nationality occurs: While children born to Chinese parents abroad in general would not acquire Chinese nationality if they acquired foreign nationality by birth, those children who are born to Chinese parents living abroad only temporarily, such as diplomatic staff, humanitarian workers or overseas students, will still be regarded as Chinese nationals and hence be de facto nationals of both the Chinese and the foreign state.

Citing this paper.

All the references I can find on this in languages I read seem to cite voluntary naturalization and permanent residence or citizenship abroad of the Chinese parent (or both) as the suspensive mechanisms. Neither of which applies in this example.

Can you translate the 5th clause?

Well, it goes like this (I've added numbers to label the 3 conjuncts)

If one or both of the parents are Chinese citizens and the individual is born in a foreign country, he or she shall have Chinese nationality; however, if (1) one or both of the parents are Chinese citizens and (2) resides in a foreign country and (3) the individual has foreign nationality at birth, he or she shall not have Chinese nationality.

There's no reference to "permanent residence", as I suppose that's a concept that's only meaningful in some countries, like the US. In your scenario, I would imagine that her being a resident alien is enough to satisfy (2), so it shouldn't create a conflict situation.

It's also worth noting that clause 3 explicitly rules out dual nationality ("The PRC does not recognize dual nationality for Chinese citizens.").

I see this ongoing discussion throughout this thread. And I understand that rules as written dual citizenship is illegal in China. No one is wrong here.

But, the Chinese government doesn't follow their own laws. For example Eileen Gu is a natural born US citizen. There's no record of her ever renouncing her US citizenship. But she wants to compete for China in the Olympics, so now suddenly she is also a Chinese citizen with a Chinese passport. Good to go for the Olympics.

Although she was born and raised in San Francisco, Gu competes for her mother's native China. To do so, the International Olympic Committee requires that she hold Chinese citizenship. But in spite of China's ban on dual citizenship there is no government record of her renouncing her American citizenship.

Rules apply until they don't. A piece of paper with Chinese writing on it somewhere says this is impossible. That's no impediment.

There's no reference to "permanent residence"

I believe you're mistaken. It uses the phrase "resides in a foreign country" in the conjunction. If you have translated this faithfully, and if the legal interpretation doesn't invalidate this meaning, residence in a legal sense is what is meant here. It is not the mere fact of living in a place. It is being settled there.

Whether or not being a student or a diplomat means that you "reside" in the foreign country is a question I'll leave to lawyers, but the paper I linked seems to be of the negative opinion.

The PRC does not recognize dual nationality for Chinese citizens

Not recognizing something just means that it's legally inconsequential, not that it is forbidden or incompatible with other things. In China, much as in a lot of other States, Chinese nationals can't claim they are something else. Even if they have another passport.

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