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 court system does not have a monopoly on that force as it applies to foreigners. The sovereign possesses a priori, categorical, unconditional authority on matters of border control. The reason we have courts is because we first had a border within which to enact laws. Where it pertains solely to deportation, the foreigner is owed no due process, no hearing, and in fact no explanation whatsoever for their expulsion. The justification is supreme at "Because it is our right." Moreover, we are under no sovereign obligation to play host to refugees. The asylum system is a courtesy, an act of generosity that like all contemporary acts of government "generosity" are at least attempted to be gamed 100 times for every 1 legitimate claimant. Yet even still Abrego-Garcia couldn't manage it years into Round 1 of the "We're going to deport you" party president.
Courts have ruled illegal aliens and foreigners are due such rights. No they aren't. The foreigner by definition is not part of the social contract of the nation they visit and worse is the illegal who in entering and residing perpetually violates the social contract. The courts have chosen to protect those whose acts if universalized would render this country unto nothing. Their positions don't originate in law or reason, they originate in those judges who contrived precedent from authority because of their beliefs in what ought to be. They have made their ruling, I await the day when we demand they enforce it.
As for law and order. Yeah, where one side has to still play by the rules to correct the rampant rule-breaking of the other. Tell me, what happens in a game when one player is found to be cheating? They don't roll it back to a point when they're sure there wasn't cheating. They don't run everything by the cheater, requiring their sign-off. They disqualify the cheater and award the win to the player who wasn't cheating. Harder to do in politics, to be sure. For every citizen like you who holds your position earnestly and in good faith, who really believes in these principles, you aren't outnumbered but you are vastly outgunned by the people taking your position in bad faith. Who appeal to law and order and slow attempts at deportations because their goal is for there to be no deportations. What is lawful and orderly about heeding the cheater's demands?
There are >30 million illegal aliens in this country, and even if it's the 10 million I've been hearing since 2005, how do we have trials for all of them? We don't. So what, fait accompli? We have to live with the consequences? Tossing that board is sounding real nice. But no, let's not, for the sake of this I'll agree, we will play exactly by the rules. We will give every single accused illegal alien in this country--who requests--a full trial. But those will wait, because we're playing exactly by the rules, and that means we're not holding their trials first, because we're holding other trials first, the ones from this:
Trump declares martial law, federalizes the national guards of the entire country, and proceeds with the dissolution of the state legislatures of the following: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Every single sitting or former city councilman or equivalent, mayor, state representative, senator, and governor who voted for or signed off on any policy or legislation that in any form would obviously aid and abet the continued residence of illegal aliens in their municipalities and states is arrested and charged with sedition, among other federal crimes.
This is playing by the rules. This is keeping the board. This is the moderate centrist option.
What an insane fan-fic reality that would be. At least you acknowledge that your position is at odds with the courts and thus ipso facto illegal. The lack of a typical social contract with an illegal immigrant does not immediately imply that all rights are forfeit, in fact the Framers explicitly rejected that notion. The idea is that the court should make at least a passing effort to assess whether deporting him to El Salvador specifically would seriously endanger him; rather, the courts already determined in 2019 this to be the case, so if he is to be deported, such an assessment much be overturned. This is at least superficially reasonable. There is a universal duty that the government not be party to reckless endangerment, even of foreigners. Until the process finishes, tough shit, the government can't do what it wants. It doesn't have to be a mega-detailed process, but it does have to happen. I'll say that personally, I don't find him super sympathetic. I also have mixed feelings about asylum laws in general - the country has a long history of welcoming people from countries in trouble, and prospering because of it, but just because a person's home country is a shitshow isn't a valid reason to illegally immigrate nor on its face create a substantial danger to return, and I do strongly resent the rhetoric of some on the left to this effect. Furthermore, I don't have that much sympathy for Republicans either because of how many torpedoed the last immigration compromise bill, which among other things would have hired a lot more judges so that cases exactly like this wouldn't drag on forever and consume government resources so much. The solution to policies you dislike is legislation, not intra-governmental disobedience. I'm pretty sure the legislature could curtail asylum laws, for example, if you so dislike them. Because remember, Garcia was both granted a stay on deportation AND the law also currently requires a certain process to be followed for such people to actually be deported. If you dislike this, the remedy is clear: change the law! The government is not, in fact, entitled to pick and choose which laws to follow, nor does your 'higher law' reasoning about social contracts supercede the actual laws.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link