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'm not particularly inclined to accept argumentation that amounts to "thing A is negative-value, but if we also did thing B (which, for whatever reason, we are not actually going to do), then the expected value would be positive, so we ought to do thing A". Apart from the circumstance that the case that successful integration is in fact possible has not been made convincingly, this seems like it is prioritising some sort of "fairness" ("it wouldn't be fair if immigration advocates can't get immigration; after all it is not their fault that immigration is bad") over utility. I don't even particularly buy such a "fairness" argument on its own terms, because in the European context I still remember that before the current wave of immigration, either the very same people who are now arguing for more unconditional immigration or their political ancestors were actively agitating against integration measures, which they saw as cultural chauvinism.
(In the countries I have lived, at least, I am not convinced that the young men I have seen were not allowed to work legally. Many of them were likely to be second-generation immigrants and living in neighbourhoods were evident relatives and associates were running physical storefronts, and Europe is not the sort of place where you can do this without the state taking note.)
The argument is that "A non-zero amount of A is happening whether you like it or not, so let's also do B". It's not an argument for unconditional A.
The US in the 19th century looks like a case of successful integration to me.
The level of immigration was much lower, and well, Boston wasn't originally an Irish city.
The 19th century immigration was just as bad as everyone at the time said it was. There was no integration or assimilation, not really, but there was a suppression of language. The Irish are still Irish, the Italians still Italian, and the Germans still German. They still vote in their characteristic manner.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm absolutely for doing more of the B here. The most obvious way to do this is things like mandatory native language classes, breaking up immigrant communities and disincentivising immigrant culture expression. Would we still be on the same page there?
"A non-zero amount of A is happening whether you like it or not" is neither an argument that reducing the amount of A is impossible, nor an argument that reducing the amount of A would be bad.
...of various fairly similar European immigrants, as well as smaller number of Asian ones that come from cultures that did not have a track record of decades to centuries of national dysfunctionality and clan and sectarian warfare. Few people anywhere are complaining about mass European or East Asian immigration. On the other hand, a large portion of the African slaves that were imported and actually basically stripped of their original cultures are still not exactly what one would call integrated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link