site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 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.

40
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As an open borders advocate, I have no interest in providing charity for immigrants. When I eat at a restaurant that's owned and staffed by immigrants, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. When I buy produce that's picked by migrant workers, I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

What I see as needing to end is not letting immigrants in, it's incentivizing the wrong kind of immigrants to come here by making charity and or free social services available to them. Mass immigration was great for America in the 19th and early 20th centuries because it operated under the model I prefer. I say we go back to it.

"Get rid of the illegals" is already a difficult enough problem given the split in American politics; "Keep the illegals, but make sure they get no public help so we can have a ton of sob stories of kids going hungry and not having medical attention" is so far beyond even expulsion that I almost think you're being sadistic for satire's sake.

I do not believe my solution is sadistic, just as I do not believe it was sadistic when the US allowed mass immigration in the 19th century without offering immigrants the kind of public support they're now offered.

Stop offering charity and the sort of immigrants who would only ever have been a drain on the system will, in the words of Mitt Romney, self-deport. Really though, I don't think that many immigrants fit this profile. I believe the vast majority are perfectly willing and perfectly capable of finding jobs and supporting themselves and their families without private charity or public assistance.

What will also naturally come to an end under my preferred system is the mass arrival of unaccompanied minors, which is almost exclusively due to the fact that current US law allows unaccompanied minors to cross the border without fearing deportation while it subjects intact families to deportation. End this bizarre perverse incentive and that entire category of sob story goes away.

Are you referring to legal immigrants or illegal immigrants? I notice that a lot of American rhetoric simply uses 'immigrants', and since the topic of discussion is specifically illegal immigration in this case, it would helpful to be specific about what you're arguing.

I'm referring to both categories. I do not want charitable incentives to exist for legal immigration or for unauthorized immigration. The market and not politicians should decide what quantity and what quality of immigrant this country can support.

An open border advocate believes there should be no restrictions placed on entering the country. As such, there would not be any illegal immigration.

In a hypothetical Caplanian utopia with one billion Americans, sure. But as it stands now, illegal immigrants are a category of person. Muddying the waters by referring to Chinese international students, Indian H1Bs and Central American border-jumpers as 'immigrants' is very misleading.

It's akin to referring to both squatters and law-abiding tenants who pay their rent on time as 'residents', and then talking about being 'pro-resident' or 'anti-resident' when the 'anti-resident' side are really just against squatters and the 'pro-resident' side thinks charging rent is immoral.