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 -
He's so willing to work he's undercutting the wages of natives.
Fuck him, send him back where he came from along with the rest of the foreigners.
Unnecessarily antagonistic, write like you want to include others in the conversation, low effort, banned for this behavior before...
Let's call it seven days this time.
More options
Context Copy link
I considered making a comment with a similar angle. As nice as it is for L to work for a better life and all that, it's also bad when a bunch of Ls undercut people's wages. I see the "a bunch of" as the problem, not L himself.
It's also morally questionable that the US incentivized him to take a dangerous journey, too dangerous for his family by his own account, in order to get here.
Beyond that, all the authorities knew was "this guy showed up at the border," and they just released him with a joke of a court date. L seems nice, he knows a trade (or so he claims), he's certainly courageous, and I infer that he's a hard worker. A model immigrant, in other words. Most people who show up at the border probably aren't L.
A question for you, KMC. If the US accepted fewer immigrants, would you mind L becoming a citizen? Pick your ideal number of immigrants accepted each year for the hypothetical, whether 10 or 1000000.
Put another way: Do you absolutely hate all immigrants/foreigners in the US, or are you reacting to the ever-increasing number entering the country? Something else entirely?
Your vitriol seems misplaced. L isn't the problem, it's the people who made the policies that convinced L that migrating here was a good idea.
Yes, I would mind if he became a citizen. He does not belong here, and I do not want him. I do not want people like him. My ideal number of immigrants is 0.
Hate? No, I just don't want them, and have no sympathy for them. I don't care if their lives suck, I don't care why they want to be here, I don't care if they live or die, or where they choose to do those things as long as it's not here. I'm through caring about the reasons. I simply want at least two generations of no immigration, to start to make up for the two generations of foreign invasion of my country.
In short, the plight of immigrants is not a relevant factor in my decision making, but the presence of immigrants is undesirable for me. So get them out of here by any means necessary.
Yes he is.
Them, too. Do you have their names or addresses?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a good thing. It means that I, as a consumer of labor in the USA, can get the same product at a cheaper price.
Protectionism in trade, which is what your argument amounts to, tends to benefit the few at the expense of the many and are negative sum over all. If skilled mechanics come to the USA from Central and South America mechanics in the USA will be econimically worse off but everyone who needs their car fixed will be economically better off
This is a bad thing. It means that I, as a seller of labor in the USA, am getting undercut by foreigners who have no business being in this country. It means that my wages will no longer reflect my productivity, but rather the supply of labor.
Probably, but I'm not the all, and I don't care about the sums of all. I'm one person, and I care about myself. The US is in a position to weather any trade wars better than the places where this guy is coming from, and I will benefit from a reduction in the supply of labor.
Unless you sell goods or services to mechanics, then your customers are getting poorer.
I want protectionism, I've taken economics classes, I understand the globohomo propaganda, and I'm not buying what you're selling.
Deport the foreigners with great prejudice. Throw up protectionist tariffs. Replace the income tax with tariffs and fund the federal government the way it was meant to be funded.
Why are you so certain you'll benefit from a reduction in the supply of labor? You are both a producer and a consumer of labor (even if you don't employ people directly you do it indirectly all the time) so the effect on you personally could go either way. The specifics depend on your line of work and your consumption habits as well as the lines of work of the migrants. I don't know what you do for work but if you're anything like the typical motte poster you won't be facing a lot of direct competition from uneducated migrants so if you're solely interested in your own economic situation as you claim the consumption effect could easily dominate.
More options
Context Copy link
I assume you don't like anti-monopoly laws either. That or you're a massive hypocrite, which is fine, but then you can't complain either about Affirmative Action and other policies designed to disadvantage those like you (apologies for assuming you're a standard white person with nothing exceptional going for you) over people with the right skin colour/beliefs.
Do you mean antitrust? I don't see how that's relevant to my comments, and I don't see how it can possibly make me a hypocrite.
I don't want monopolies for the same reason I don't want foreigners: it's bad for me. No hypocrisy needed.
"I support everyone else following principles that benefit me, but I don’t want to follow those principles myself because they dont benefit me" is like the definition of hypocrisy.
What principles? What are you talking about?
I don't want monopolies (i.e. I think that people should be prohibited by law from colluding with other providers to increase the market prices) of goods that I buy, but for I want other people selling the same thing I sell (labor) to be forced by law to collude with me to raise the market prices.
Fair markets for thee but not for me.
I'm not KMC but this objection is farcical.
Monopolies and flooding the labour market with low-skilled workers are both activities that generate significant harmful externalities. That's the principle motivating my support for both positions and I don't see any conflicts or contradictions there at all (it also motivates my support for a lot of environmental regulations like not dumping toxic waste into local drinking supplies even if that would give a moderate boost to GDP). I'm not even against monopolies on an existential basis - some industries lead to natural monopolies, and in those cases I want them regulated to reduce those externalities rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
More options
Context Copy link
Protectionism applied to different areas of the economy is going to have different results. It's probably always going to lead to a reduction in total economic growth, but that doesn't mean it won't have other effects. They will have different externalities.
If your goal is something other than total economic growth or strict economic fairness - then I don't see how it's hypocritical to want to put your thumb on some areas and not others. He hasn't stated that his driving principle is maximum economic freedom for everyone.
Pure economic growth and strict fairness are pretty thin "neoliberal" goals. I think there are better things to set your political compass towards.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link