site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31956 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Where would they be deported

Many countries offer citizenship by blood. See the Shamima Begum case.

how serious would a crime need to be to result in stripping citizenship?

I'd like to set the line at "any crime, at all", but I will settle for "anything that would result in jail time per sentencing guidelines."

Mass deportations are hardly needed.

But they are desirable. And crime is only one of the negative facets of mass immigration.

Why use the blunt tool of mass deportations when we have a much more precise tool in criminal law?

Because every crime committed by a migrant or their descendants is by definition a crime that did not need to happen here. And residency in this country is a privilege, not a right.

So you're descended from the aborigines? Not the Johnny-come-lately American Indians, the ones the Clovis people pushed out.

Any crime at all? A young Swede with immigrant parents rides his scooter so fast and recklessly that it counts as a crime and we're going to deport him over it?

And deported to where? What if Syria or wherever says they don't want him? He was born in Sweden, he's your problem now.

Yeah why not. Odds are they're not providing a net positive to the natives of Sweden anyway.

In that case it just becomes a quickdraw contest on who can withdraw their citizenship first. Last one on the draw has to take them.

These children of immigrants probably lack foreign citizenship. They could perhaps pursue and get it. But they aren't automatically given multiple citizenships just by being born to immigrant parents.

These are Swedes and stripping them of citizenship probably makes them stateless.

As we learned from Shamima, you can do this if they're eligible for an unclaimed citizenship.

any crime, at all

No caveats? A parking ticket or public drunkenness charge doesn’t feel, to me, like a betrayal of the social contract. Not like shooting up a mall or even selling drugs. Is this just supposed to apply to probationary first-gen citizens?

Maybe tangent to your main point but I believe current Swedish law agrees with you and neither of your two examples (felparkering, fylleri) are criminal (brottslighet) in and of itself. IANASL

Ideally not. It should be very easy to deport people, so that we only have the best and most obedient, if we must have any at all.

Any of what? I cannot tell if you are talking about people in general, all races but one, a particular race, first-gen immigrants, or what.

Immigrants in general, sorry.

Many countries offer citizenship by blood

True, but this surely just narrows the question to those who don't qualify for that, either because their origin country doesn't recognise it or they are third generation (so no Syrian national parents), or something else. Also, even if technically you could deport a second generation immigrant to Syria (I mean really they couldn't because that would presumably turn them into an international pariah, the costs of which would surely exceed the costs of just putting them in prison in Sweden), that is surely very cruel, to deport someone who has never even lived there to a country in active civil war?

True, but this surely just narrows the question to those who don't qualify for that, either because their origin country doesn't recognise it or they are third generation

Forced relocation to overseas territories, I guess. Good old prison islands. Give them a lower tier of citizenship that only applies to these containment zones and nowhere else. Quarantine, essentially.

I mean really they couldn't because that would presumably turn them into an international pariah

It's long past time we stopped giving a shit about this. We in Europe cannot simply let ourselves be destroyed just because "oooh what will the neighbours think?"

that is surely very cruel, to deport someone who has never even lived there to a country in active civil war?

Better than them causing a civil war in a first world country. I don't really give a fuck what happens to the kind of scum that joins a criminal gang, to be perfectly honest.

I don't really give a fuck what happens to the kind of scum that joins a criminal gang, to be perfectly honest.

Then execute them. There's precedent for this, even. After all, a gang is just an insurgency writ small. Corner them, and give them severe punishment followed by lifetime monitoring (and no association with their past gang members on penalty of death). Roger Trinquier perfected this system nearly half a century ago. The Israelis also have quite a bit of prior art to draw upon.

It's long past time we stopped giving a shit about this. We in Europe cannot simply let ourselves be destroyed just because "oooh what will the neighbours think?"

For better or for worse, what the 'neighbours' think does matter. Good luck remaining in the Customs Union/EU and joining NATO, or indeed enjoying Western military support after you deport all your Syrians to an island prison for the crime of being a refugee.

I don't really give a fuck what happens to the kind of scum that joins a criminal gang, to be perfectly honest.

Talk about undermining Western values; I came not to call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance.

I take no pleasure from the death of the wicked, but that they turn from their ways and live.

Better than them causing a civil war in a first world country. I don't really give a fuck what happens to the kind of scum that joins a criminal gang, to be perfectly honest.

Didn't you just say you would deport people for parking tickets? That's very different from joining a gang.

I mean, I said ideally, but I'm willing to be flexible. A little.

Better than them causing a civil war in a first world country.

Your proposal itself would be enough to start a civil war in a first world country. The "we" in your case is not some silent majority of Europeans but a tiny minority that would first have to carve a bloody swathe through your own kin to seize the kind of power needed to conduct mass deportations.

It is the Laestadians, traditionalist Catholics, and other rapidly growing Christian sects who have the right approach, as they have the potential to weather the coming storm and outbreed the other survivors.

Mass immigration is deeply unpopular. I think the tiny minority of pro-migration people will just quietly shut up, to be honest. They're not the types that go in for conflict.

Maybe it's true that 'mass immigration' is deeply unpopular, but deporting second-generation immigrants to Syria over minor offences would definitely be much more unpopular. There was a substantial minority in favour of letting Shamima return and she joined ISIS, the shitstorm over an equivalent case for a minor offence would be extraordinary.

There was a substantial minority in favour of letting Shamima return and she joined ISIS

Yes, we have a substantial minority of traitors in this country. They should not be heeded. This is a problem with England that even Orwell has noted, that it's academic class generally loathes the country. I also routinely have arguments with people who think foreign rapists and murderers should NOT be deported.

Yes, it's true there is no-one at all with sincerely different views to yours, that wouldn't do, they're all traitors and hate the country. This is handy, as it allows the rest of us not to bother with thinking about things.

Wanting an avowed terrorist back into the country so she can face the terrifying justice of a 6 month suspended sentence, before being awarded a council house and benefits with which to pump out more kids with the local hate imam is traitorous, yes. I'm not going to pretend it isn't.

And we all know that is what would happen, because most of her crimes weren't committed here, we don't have any evidence for them even if we had standing to prosecute them, and our anarcho-tyrannical justice system is completely toothless where it counts, and only really goes after ordinary citizens who defend themselves against criminals or who say mean words on the internet.

There's a big difference between opposing mass immigration and supporting mass deportation. The closest thing to what you propose that I can think of was the expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe in 1945 and that was at the conclusion of a genocidal war and carried out by a communist government crueler than any a modern western European population could ever produce.

Can you quantify the "mass" in mass deportations?

Literally anyone and everyone for whom deportation is even tenuously possible. I don't know what that number is. There would be some nominal requirements -- reassess all asylum claims from the last 20-25 years (and put a hold on any new ones until this is done) with the criteria that if the source country is not actively at war right now, you're gone. Anyone with a criminal record including jail time, gone. Anyone who doesn't speak the language of the country fluently (to at least the standard of a native 16 year old), gone. Along with any dependants of any of those people.

In a dream world this would also include anyone who has been resident for more than 3 years, and has been a net tax detriment during that time. Sorry, you're not contributing, goodbye. I don't know if that kind of thing is tracked or easy to calculate, though.

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