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 don't understand your use of the word "morally" here. The question isn't who counts as an American citizen in some legal or moral sense, so much as what physically can happen to a citizen or non citizen. Facts are disputed, and even the worst cops get things right most of the time, but it is unclear to me where in the process the circuit breaker exists for me to avoid being deported to El Salvador. This is of course, incredibly unlikely: I'm a blond American and I've never lived anywhere north of the Narragansett or south of the Mason-Dixon. But assuming I was picked up, it's not clear at what point any of that becomes relevant. I don't get a hearing before deportation. Speaking English, or being white, are no guarantee of anything. Once I get to El Salvador, do they give me a hearing?
If there is no functional way for me to assert my citizenship, then my citizenship is of no value, and in order to protect my rights as a citizen I must protect the rights of anyone else from whom it is impossible to distinguish myself. I don't want to live in a country where I must carry an ID card at all times at risk of being sent to a foreign torture prison.
The moral core of the question in my mind is whether El Salvador is acting primarily as the USA's paid jailor, or are they acting as a sovereign choosing to imprison their own citizen. I'm not sure there is a clear answer there.
A little analogy...
I go over to BJJ tonight, an assistant coach is teaching class. During open mat after, one of the three guys at the gym named Tom rolls with me. Tom is a bit of a dirty fighter, and when we're rolling and he's trying to get out of a single leg, he hits me with the old oil check. I shout what the fuck, we yell at each other, I leave. The next day I come back for the morning class, and the gym owner asks me how the Tuesday night class was, I tell him the class was good but Tom fucking oil checked me and that's not why I come here, if it keeps happening I might have to quit. The owner says no, that's fucked, Tom is fucking banned.
Two scenarios from here:
The next day, Tom calls me, and says "Hey, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that, I got too worked up, I'm gonna work on myself and make sure that never happens again. Let me buy you a case of Yuengling as an apology, and maybe we can be friends again?" I might forgive Tom, or I might not, but I'm under no obligation to tell the gym owner to let Tom back in. After all, it's his gym, not mine, I can't make him change his mind, if he feels that behavior is unacceptable even once that's his right.
The next day, Tom2 calls me, and says "Hey, what the fuck dude, I didn't oil check you, I wasn't even there that night, you got me confused with Tom1!" At this point, I definitely have a moral obligation to tell the gym owner to let Tom2 back in, and explain the mistake, and that he shouldn't keep Tom2 out on my account. The gym owner could, of course, ban Tom2 for totally unrelated reasons. It's his gym not mine. But I'm obligated to tell him that he has the wrong Tom.
Which of these scenarios we are in makes the difference for me, morally.
More options
Context Copy link