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 -
Well, there's the Nathan Smith "How Would a Billion Immigrants Change the American Polity?" position — from people often given to repeating Milton Friedman's comment about mass immigration and the welfare state and, like him, arguing for picking the former over the latter — which holds that the pressures of mass immigration will force the system to adapt (in ways these sorts of people find personally favorable) to keep functioning. While Smith makes analogy to Rome, the better point of comparison is the UAE.
And, I think it was back on Twitter a few years ago, I remember Bryan Caplan making similar "the system will have to adapt" arguments, and someone pushed back, pointing to our politicians and asking what happens if they don't make the changes open borders libertarian types ask for. He gave the same response he's given some other times: mass immigration is ultimately a self-limiting problem. Immigrants tolerate the language barrier and cultural difference issues because they're outweighed by the economic benefits of living in a country like America or Canada. Thus, if the effects of this immigration become increasingly detrimental, the economy and quality of life will decline, reducing that incentive to keep coming. Once America is reduced to a level near Mexico, Latin American immigration will stop, and perhaps even reverse (and similarly with Canada versus the sources of its immigrants).
Sure, someone argued back, but then you've still wrecked the country, even if the process eventually stalls out. That, Caplan replied, is just another reason to support immigration — because if that does happen, well, English is enough of a lingua franca in academia that a famous economist like him can get a job teaching at pretty much any university anywhere on Earth. (And as for those who aren't famed econ professors like him? That's their problem.)
And I think it was Tyler Cowen who made the point that "3rd world countries" aren't uniformly terrible; that in the cities you can find pockets where the elites live in "1st world" conditions with the added bonus of cheap personal servants — you just have to be able to afford it. But, much in line with Smith's position, if you're one of those who isn't in job competition with immigrant labor, but instead positioned to benefit from it, then your economic gains will allow you to pay for the gated community, the private security, etc. to let you maintain your 1st world lifestyle even if most the rest of the country ends up immiserated, with the added benefit of affordable personal servants and cheap chalupas.
So, IME, a lot of "f— you, got mine" attitude, and confidence that no matter how bad it gets, the consequences will only fall on the little people beneath them.
Well, that and a lot of "bleeding heart" types who simply don't think about long-term or large scale consequences, and who, at their worst, deny that unintended and second-order consequences are even a thing.
More options
Context Copy link