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'd read "Subject to the Jurisdiction" to mean that the person - regardless of where they happen to be living in the world at that particular instant - is morally obliged to follow the US's rules.
I'm an American so, regardless of where I live in the world, I have to file US taxes, follow some US laws, and if there was a war, I'd be subject to a draft.
Contrast this with my relationship to the English. The English Monarch could - in theory - send me a letter informing me that I'm in violation of his laws regarding proper speech and respect for the crown. The correct response would be to laugh and frame the paper; I have no moral obligation to follow English law because I'm not currently in England and - more importantly - am not a subject of the English Monarch.
It's true that the English King could - in theory - exercise some authority over me. The SAS is pretty competent, so I'm sure they could (if they wanted) find me in the US, put a bag over my head, and drag me to England. Or the King's prosecutors could grab me when I passed through Heathrow Airport on my way to some third country. But, that kind of action feels less morally legitimate than the King seeking to control one of his proper subjects.
It's also true that if I visited England on vacation, I'd become subject to British law on a temporary basis; I'd get arrested if I started stealing things or vandalizing pubs. But that authority only lasts as long as I'm on British soil. I wouldn't become a Royal Subject just because I took a vacation.
How does your interpretation jive with Wong Kim Ark? His parents were Chinese subjects, so if they were living elsewhere in the world, they wouldn't be morally obliged to follow the US's rules. If the US has a draft, they wouldn't have been called, but if the Chinese Emperor calls on their service, they're obliged to follow. Do you think the court decision was wrong, in this case? (totally an option by the way)
I'd lean towards "wrongly decided" but might do a cowardly dodge and say that in 1897 the difference between temporary and permanent immigration statuses was less well defined and that modern decisions should rely on nuances that probably didn't exist in 1897.
Using the 2024 system, I'd say that someone is subject to the jurisdiction of the US in-as-far as they've assented to giving the US a worldwide interest in their behavior. This is the case with Green Card holders, who have to pay US taxes wherever they live. But it isn't the case with more temporary visas.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link