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 -
The trouble is that this idea is not going to work out. Someone who tries to come from a country where they fear or have experienced bodily harm will accept the risk of scaling a high wall, or paying a smuggler to get them in somehow. The problem is that the option of not trying to get into the country is terrible to begin with, they don't have much to lose.
No, I'm not in favor of gun ownership. But the methods for reducing gun ownership is different from the above, because people who arm themselves illegally still have something to lose — by choosing the option of not owning an illegal gun, their live becomes better because they do not have to pay a large penalty. Most people find that option ok and will oblige. Still, similarly, despite countermeasures, a small amount of people will find still ways to arm themselves.
Humanism does not principally refuse violence, though — protection against abuse is necessary. But if that abuse is non-violent, then the response should be non-violent as well. And also "perception of violence" is not the same as violence; as humanist, I need to take care that my violence is really used to stop violence, not just on a gut feeling. Have you seen the movie "The Equalizer"? It's a revenge fantasy, but that's probably as close as a humanist comes to revenge fantasies.
I'm not concern trolling — it's just that I can't debate the concern without engaging in debate about immigration itself, as opposed to a "meta-debate" about the concern.
Thank you for this answer, I think that this satisfies my curiosity. In my original post, I stated that …
"Now my quick rundown of Trump: The key tactic of populist figures is to deceive about the actual benefit of their policies. Will Trumps' tarrifs improve the lives of most American consumers?"
… and from what I understand, your stance (trying in my own words) is "As long as Trump promises to uphold my cultural definition of country, I am willing to endure hardship and also accept that he is enriching himself". As far as I can tell, it's also ok if he only promises (but fails to deliver) and it's also ok if your economic situation is worse off. Which is curious given the arguments in this thread that immigrants would worsen economic situations, but the realization that I need to have is that it is not really about economics, but about cultural values, where immigrants simply do not belong.
More options
Context Copy link