site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31958 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jewish immigrants in the post-WW2 era both fall into the "is immediately wealthier and more powerful than natives" bucket

Seems unlikely, given that 1) Jewish immigration post WWII was quite small; 2) most such immigrants were refugees, and hence unlikely to be either wealthy or powerful. And note that this article on Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union post-1960 indicates that, although they were highly educated, they earned less than native whites.

Do you have a citation for your claim?

I could be wrong about Jews specifically. I was mainly inferring from the fact that Jews have, for all of my lifetime, been considerably wealthier than others. It's possible that this only happened to the children of immigrants. I'll take your word for it that my example should be reduced to only cover Indians.

(Or at least Indians are the only easily identifiable group, due to self-identification with the "Hindu" religious grouping in surveys that also include income.)

Also worth checking whether - by this stated standard - immigration is colonialism in basically every country that uses a merit based system (e.g. Canada, Australia).

Yeah, since most Jewish people in the US are the descendants of people who arrived well before WWII, it seems likely that most in your lifetime are indeed not first generation immigrants.

But TBH I don't see how "immigration is colonialism" works at all; as others have pointed out, colonialism involves political domination, esp the supplanting of political elites and the replacement of political systems. That does not describe immigration.

Left wing Americans routinely brag about how immigration will grant them a permanent majority. So basically, the theory is that an alliance between colonialists and domestic factions will result in political domination.

Or, if you are a right wing person and want right wing mood affiliation, take the same facts and attach the words "great replacement".

Is it your belief that a few thousand British managed to conquer India all by themselves? Indians may not be natural warriors but be realistic. (I know it is a bit difficult to square the Maratha empire with contemporary stereotypes of Marathis.) In all cases it is a story of small numbers of British together with considerably larger numbers of locals conquering a different group of locals. From what I understand of colonialism in the Americas, it was pretty similar - Pizarro certainly did not wage a 20 year campaign and conquer Peru all with only 180 people. He aligned himself with the right locals and tipped the balance.

In all cases it is a story of small numbers of British together with considerably larger numbers of locals conquering a different group of locals.

Right, it was outsiders enlisting (or hiring) locals to help the outsiders take over. That is what colonialism is, by definition: outsiders taking over.

Re immigration, you are positing something completely different: Locals enlisting outsiders to allow those ** locals **to gain political advantage. And note that there is nothing inherent in immigration that gives one group of locals an advantage; nothing prevents right wingers from convincing immigrants to vote for them, as Cuban immigrants do, and as Vietnamese immigrants used to. And, as non-Cuban Hispanics used to in larger numbers, until conservatives pursued policies seen as hostile to them.

outsiders enlisting (or hiring) locals to help the outsiders take over.

Re immigration, you are positing something completely different: Locals enlisting outsiders to allow those ** locals **to gain political advantage.

I understand now.

Assumption: non-whites lack agency.

When the Nizam of Hyderabad allies with the British for mutual advantage, this is outsiders enlisting locals since Indians lack agency.

When white American Democrats enlist Mexican immigrants to ally with them for mutual advantage, this is locals enlisting outsiders since Mexicans lack agency.

I don't know what you mean by "taking over". In terms of control over daily life that is demanded, certainly American Democrats and their Mexican allies want far more control over my life than the British ever did. All the British wanted was for my local ruler to send them some tax money, and maybe they'd build roads and schools.

Assumption: non-whites lack agency.

Nope. Please read more carefully.

I don't know what you mean by "taking over".

Yes, you do. You said so yourself: "So basically, the theory is that an alliance between colonialists and domestic factions will result in political domination."

In terms of control over daily life that is demanded, certainly American Democrats and their Mexican allies want far more control over my life than the British ever did.

And American Republicans and their allies also want more control over your life, just different aspects. They want to say who you can marry, or who you can sleep with, or whether you can have an abortion, etc, etc. The only group who want less control in principle are libertarians, but then they are also pro-immigration.

Nope. Please read more carefully.

tl;dr; you refuse to provide a clear principle by which I can determine whether it's locals enlisting outsiders or outsiders enlisting locals. This makes me question your good faith.

You said so yourself: "So basically, the theory is that an alliance between colonialists and domestic factions will result in political domination."

If colonialism is political domination at a level as low as that of the Nizam of Hyderabad or British Bengal, then Democrats and their Mexican allies are far past that point. I note you again refuse to state a clear principle. Odd.

I do agree that American Republicans want more control over my life than the British did, they are irrelevant to this conversation since they don't plan to make it happen by bringing in foreigners to help them.

You are also grossly misrepresenting their positions.

They want to say who you can marry,

No Republican has ever proposed a law saying I can't declare a man to be my husband, put him in my will and make him my medical proxy. They just said he can't get my social security benefits when I die.

or who you can sleep with,

This is not a mainstream Republican position and has not been for many years.

or whether you can have an abortion, etc, etc.

This last bit is true. The British also wanted control over whether I could burn a widow or keep slaves.

Well, if you claim that you can't determine whether it's locals enlisting outsiders or outsiders enlisting locals, then I question your good faith, so we are even.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats