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 -
Matter of limited resources. If in region A 8/10 are ok and in region B 3/10 it is better if you concentrate your capacity in A.
You're inventing practical constraints which don't exist in practice, in order to justify stark racism.
Immigration officials don't go out and search for potential immigrants. They wait for someone to come up and say "Hey, I want to immigrate, I meet all of the criteria you have set for the kind of immigrant you want, here is $10,000 to compensate your agency for the time it takes to check that I'm not lying."
More options
Context Copy link
You are constrained in "people in state department that are not complete morons". As is the case in every bureaucracy. And that is hard to scale.
Again, this is a non-problem that you are inventing to justify your racist preferences.
Processing visa applications is not rocket science. You have a set of criteria applicants have to meet, the applicant has to supply you with adequate proof that they meet that criteria, if they don't you reject them.
But ok, let's assume this is an especially cognitively demanding task that requires high quality public servants. So you hire those people, offering whatever wages you need to get them, and set application fees at a level that covers their wages. That might reduce application numbers, but that's not a real problem.
It's also not a problem that you're taking high quality workers from other sectors of the economy, because doing it allows you to import more high-quality workers to replace them. The Nigerian genius that would have been rejected under your preferred policy gets to come in and do good things.
There is no practical constraint that requires us to put a blanket ban on people of certain races.
Not at all. It seems that there are few assumptions that you make - like that there is universal right to apply to move to a country.
I come from the other way - there is need for additional X people in my country and there are different places from where we can pull them.
Of course it makes sense to dig where the vein is rich to get to X. If you overlook a nugget here or there - tough luck for the nugget.
You cannot be racist to non citizens that are outside of your country because there is no obligation to view them as equal.
I have not made any assumption of the sort. I'm arguing purely from a selfish destination country perspective.
You don't need to "dig where the vein is rich" - you don't need to dig at all. You just set your criteria at a level where you get about the number of new immigrants you want. If you get too many, raise the standard. Too few, lower it.
If those who do not meet the standard you have set choose to apply anyway, that's not a cost of wasted effort for you - it's a wealth transfer to your country from them paying their application fee for no benefit.
Adding racism to this process does not improve it in any way.
What a ridiculous statement. Of course you can be racist to foreigners. The White Australia Policy was an explicitly racist policy - and this is true regardless of whether you think it was a good policy or not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link