site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31610 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What does any of that have to do with his asylum application?? You said, "His application for political asylum was also denied despite the fact spent time in jail for what would be protected speech in the United States," implying that normally, being threatened with imprisonment for engaging in speech which would be protected were it engaged in in the US establishes an asylum claim. I pointed out that that does not seem to be the case, and nothing in that long quote is even relevant to that issue.

His “Green Card” here in the U.S. expired in 2021, and the U.S. authorities followed Germany’s lead by also refusing to issue him a new one. You get the picture. They are trying to entrap him, then play the same dirty trick on him and his family as they did back in 2005: arrest, deport, put into a German dungeon, and throw away the keys.

Again, a green card is just a piece of paper. It is an important piece of paper -- without a current green card, a permanent resident cannot travel abroad and then be admitted on his return, nor can a permanent resident legally work without a green card -- but lacking a green card does not expose a permanent resident to deportation; as discussed in the link I provided, the status of permanent residence does not expire.

his application to become a U.S. citizen was terminally rejected in 2020

Might that have something to do with his 2020 convictions for indecent exposure and open lewdness? "Certain crimes are defined by US immigration law as “crimes involving moral turpitude.” Conviction of one of these crimes will typically bar you from receiving citizenship for five years after your conviction date (only three years if your permanent residence is based on marriage to a US citizen). If you are convicted of one of these crimes, you will have to wait for the five-year (or three-year) anniversary of the conviction date to file your citizenship application.".

Is he or is he not at risk of deportation? Give a clear answer.

The implication is that he is being treated unfairly and he has no recourse. I didn't claim any lawbreaking. It is highly unusual

Might that have something to do with his 2020 convictions

Probation would be enough cause to deport someone with an American wife and American children? You clearly do not like his politics, so you are supportive of these decisions. But establishing that they are legal does not establish that they are fair. He is clearly being targeted for political reasons, and you wouldn't support the similar treatment of other people - denial of permanent residence where your wife is and children were born - based on such nonsense.

He just told you that denying a green card is not denial of permanent residence.

Probation would be enough cause to deport someone with an American wife and American children?

  1. You apparently do not understand your own argument. All you said was that his citizenship application was denied, not that he is being deported. 2. The relevant statute refers to conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. Not to serving a jail sentence.

You clearly do not like his politics, so you are supportive of these decisions

Please show me where I said I supported those decisions. As it happens, I support the right of Holocaust deniers or even outright Nazis to speak, and I believe that the US should grant asylum to anyone facing imprisonment for speech which is legal in the US. Unfortunately, the courts apparently disagree with me, and hence the claim that his asylum denial on those grounds is evidence that he has been discriminated against because of his views is simply wrong.

denial of permanent residence

As I have twice pointed out, he has not been denied permanent residence. You are tilting at windmills.

Rudolf’s main vulnerabilities are that his application to become a U.S. citizen was terminally rejected in 2020, and that the German authorities have issued numerous arrest warrants against him for reasons that are yet unknown. However, with some 80 new revisionist books or new editions of older books in the German-language published over the past ten years with Rudolf as the production manager, it’s easy to understand why they want him locked away. Although those German arrest warrants cannot be enforced in the U.S. due to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Rudolf’s German passport expired in 2019, and Germany refuses to issue him a new one. His “Green Card” here in the U.S. expired in 2021, and the U.S. authorities followed Germany’s lead by also refusing to issue him a new one. You get the picture. They are trying to entrap him, then play the same dirty trick on him and his family as they did back in 2005: arrest, deport, put into a German dungeon, and throw away the keys.

He is clearly being targeted for his views on Holocaust denial, I don't know why you feel so compelled to deny that fact. "The courts disagree with me" is not a justification for the decision or make it fair.

He’s disagreeing with the arrest/deport bit. An expired green card isn’t getting deported.

I think a non-revisionist with an indecent-exposure conviction would also not be issued citizenship. And the cited case makes it clear that speech laws don’t necessarily count for asylum. Whether or not these situations are morally correct, if they would be applied equally, they are not be unfair.

He’s disagreeing with the arrest/deport bit. An expired green card isn’t getting deported.

This is exactly what has already happened to him.

Rudolf fled from Germany to the United States in 1995 after a court handed him a suspended sentence of 14 months for whipping up anti-Semitic sentiment.

He applied for political asylum in the US in 2000, but was rejected. He was deported in 2005 to serve the 1995 sentence. Rudolf was arrested when he appeared at an immigration office in Chicago to apply for a green card based on his marriage to a US citizen.

He was charged again in April 2006 with "systematically" denying or playing down the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews in documents and on the Internet and of stirring anti-Semitic hatred.

It's unbelievable how much incredulity there is that you all want to insist that this is normal procedure for someone with an American wife and American children. I can't believe you actually think that someone with wife and children in America would face deportation with ANY PROBABILITY under these same circumstances.

I’ll be damned. I really didn’t believe he faced deportation.

We should not have deportation treaties for crimes we don’t recognize.

"The courts disagree with me" is not a justification for the decision or make it fair.

Yes, the decision was not fair IF it was based on hostility to his views. I merely am pointing out that the evidence you have presented for that claim doesn't work.

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