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 broadly agree, but with the footnote that you don't really need a radical break, you just need a consistent policy of saying that no on one showing up from Central America is actually a refugee. This is (in principle, not practice) easy to accomplish, because approximately none of them actually are refugees. Almost all of them that say the magic words and claim to be threatened aren't. Their countries suck, their countries are super violent, everyone there is at risk all the time, but no, they're not actually being targeted for political, ethnic, or religious violence. Recognizing every ridiculous and obviously false claim to refugee status was a much more radical approach than doing the opposite.
I mean unless you consider such things as assimilation, gainful employment, speaking the language as requirements for first-class citizenship a minor change, or required proof of criminal background checks for entry to be a minor change, we absolutely are talking about a major change here. Right now, basically if you manage to put a finger on the dirt of your chosen country, you’re in, and will be supported by the government of that country for as long as it takes for you to get on your feet (and given how good the benefits are, the immigrants aren’t in any hurry), with no requirement that even the bare minimum (speak the language, adapt to the culture, be a law abiding member of society) are required. Just show up.
Also, if you try to block by country, I think what will happen is that people will quickly spread the word and suddenly every person trying to enter from Central America will claim to be from Southern Mexico or Columbia or Venezuela or whatever they need to say to get it. They’re probably already lying about everything else, lost their passport (or never had one).
More options
Context Copy link
You can't have this consistent policy since judges are policymakers here too and have proven to be one of the major obstacles across the Anglosphere. You have to break the judges. Which amounts to "radical breaks in international treaties and national constitutional law."
In England judges present no obstacle to a party with a majority in parliament. Parliament has absolute sovereignty. You can write a law that literally says “notwithstanding the ECHR, courts and any existing legislation, X” and pass it with a 50%+1 majority of seats. The Lords can delay it for a year, but you can abolish them with the same majority and consensus for 100+ years is that they’d have to accept it. The king could refuse to sign it, but he won’t.
There is only a lack of will.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link