site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   22871 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 16, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

on the other hand, his support for the AfD and his criticism of Muslim immigration makes him pretty much impossible to use as a cudgel by the right wing.

You really have to be kidding? The Right Wing argument is that he does not belong in Europe, no matter if he's a doctor or what he tweets, in a box or with a fox, not here or there, not anywhere in Europe. That argument can and should be used as a cudgel by the right wing, at least the Right Wing who acknowledges that this is about race and not merely about religion. The people who can't use this as a cudgel are those who pretend that this is just about Islam, and mass Arab migration to Europe would be fine if they just weren't Muslim. Is that an argument you accept Hoffmeister?

"Arabs don't belong in Europe." "But this Arab who slaughtered a bunch of Europeans tweeted pro-Israel stuff!" How could you think that's responsive at all to the argument?

How does a refugee slaughtering a bunch of people in a Christmas market not validate the anti-refugee political perspective? Because the refugee wasn't Muslim? That is just ridiculous.

Keith Woods is correct, and the Right Wing who pretends that mass migration from the third world is only a problem because of religious incompatibility do not form the ranks of the DR, and people like Woods have long made the argument that it's about race and not about religion.

The Right Wing argument is that he does not belong in Europe, no matter if he's a doctor or what he tweets, in a box or with a fox, not here or there, not anywhere in Europe.

SEcUreSignalS—coincidence? I think not. I'd read the shit out of an anti-Arab and African migration book written in this style.

Keith Woods is correct, and the Right Wing who pretends that mass migration from the third world is only a problem because of religious incompatibility do not form the ranks of the DR, and people like Woods have long made the argument that it's about race and not about religion.

I'm not familiar with Keith Woods, but my sense is that the part I bolded isn't true. Granted the dissident right (I presume that's the DR) is a nebulous coalition, but I think most of them are not HBD-pilled, or at least believe the religion aspect is more important than the racial one. Change that from a descriptive "do not" to a prescriptive "should not" and I'd agree.

So if a tourist from the US does something similar next week should the EU ban all American tourists? There's more of us entering Europe every year than the entire Arab population of the continent.

Do American tourists consume taxes on net, disproportionately commit sexual and violent crime, turn neighborhoods into no-go zones, and leave behind another generation of themselves to do largely the same? Or do they mostly just stimulate and support local economies with their relatively large disposable incomes and bounce?

So if a tourist from the US does something similar next week should the EU ban all American tourists?

I live in a small town, and somehow found myself sharing a rented office with 2 Californians. Quite frankly my opinion on the matter is: why wait?

There's more of us entering Europe every year than the entire Arab population of the continent.

Are you sure this is making the argument you want to make, given that precisely zero of these attacks were committed by American tourists, despite such high traffic?

If your argument is that absolutely no immigration should be permitted because there exists the possibility that the immigrant will commit a crime against the native population in the future, that should logically extend to white Europeans immigrating between European countries. As I said downthread, quite a few young English girls would have been spared rape and murder had the UK never permitted entry to Polish citizens. And though the history has been sanctified through assimilation, the passage of time, and Hollywood, German, Irish, and yes, Jewish, immigration to the US at the end of the 19th century brought with it significant violence against the "native" Anglo population, perhaps even a greater degree of violence per capita than that committed by non-white doctors in Germany.

if your argument is that absolutely no immigration should be permitted because there exists the possibility that the immigrant will commit a crime against the native population in the future,

Arabs, blacks or are lazier and more violent. No immigration of such should be permitted. Indians lie and cheat more than whites. It's that simple.

brought with it significant violence against the "native" Anglo population,

America was underpopulated. Europe isn't.

No, its not that simple. Even granting your premise arguendo, they are still human beings, made according to the Imago Dei.

All human beings have equal dignity. It is no lesser tragedy for Nigerians or Congolese to be massacred than for Norwegians or Irishmen.

That being said, the distribution of natural gifts among different groups is not equal, and it must be admitted that Europeans get the better split compared to Bantus or Arabs. It is perfectly reasonable to oppose immigration from the Congo or Iraq on the basis that these people will lower the average abilities of an individual in your country, and this is not based in hatred of Congolese or Iraqis.

True, but screening people becomes somewhat easier if you limit the number of people coming in. If you’re taking in only about 10,000 you can be pretty sure that the background checks will show criminality, drug use, lack of language skills, troubling political or religious beliefs, and so on. If it’s 100,000 it’s plausible to find things that would show up in a very quick background check, but more will slip by. At 1,000,000 a year, you’ll barely have any idea who these people are or why they’re coming.

And on the tail end, having fewer immigrants means better assimilation because the newcomers must learn the language and culture due to a lack of an ethnic enclave where he doesn’t have to adapt to the language and culture. If a million Swedes moved to the USA, they’d form a Swedish enclave in which Swedish is spoken, people go to the local Swedish Lutheran Church, they all eat Swedish food (Swedish pancakes and meatballs I assume), and so on. This happened in the past (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsborg,_Kansas) and obviously with groups like Orthodox Jews in New York who still speak Yiddish. Sonnet or later you are taking in so many people from a given background so fast that you simply cannot get them integrated and assimilated at all.

Your logic is tortured and deliberately ignores the point.

Yes, the Ellis islanders brought violence and crime, and if we were smart we'd recognize that and avoid the mistakes of the past.

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