site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29785 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Migrant crisis on the third coast

Even at the best of times, the denizens of downtown Chicago streets don’t seem to be having a good time. They hold up carboard signs titled “20 dollars will get me a room tonight” or “my house burned down two weeks ago” (poor kid, he’s had that sign up for a year – he keeps getting houses and they keep burning down). But in the last 6 months a new denizen has taken up residence: the migrant family, sitting on the side of touristy main roads, sometimes selling candy and usually holding signs stating they’re from Venezuela. Every time I walk past these people, I wonder: what was your plan? Was the life you had in Venezuela really that much worse than sitting on the frozen streets of a foreign country begging for money?

This article from CBS gives an interview with a representative woman selling candy accompanied by her son. In the interview she claims she came to work but cannot do so because she can’t get the right permits. I would estimate there’s one of these families per downtown block, mostly women and young children but sometimes accompanied by a man.

(Despite claiming she has not been able to find enough food to eat, it is clear that few of these people have been running much of a calorie deficit)

Given this seems to be a new phenomenon, I’ve been wondering how the migrants plan to last out a Chicago winter that is not at all conducive to being outside. It seems some of them profiled by the Chicago Tribune are thinking the same thing.

The people interviewed are, despite being admitted to the US as asylum seekers, purely economic migrants, not fleeing oppression but coming for a better education for their children and work opportunities. One family lived in an apartment subsidized $15,000 by the city, couldn’t afford it once the subsidy ran out, and moved around a bit more before claiming they were giving up and returning to South America. The extent to which current Chicago residents are upset by the state of affairs is hard to tell, but I hear about more and more discontent at city council meetings. This week’s “This American Life” about the migrant crisis in New York portrayed a similar group of people surprisingly negatively, abandoning the legal fiction of "fleeing from violence" that the asylum seekers and traditional media use to justify the moral imperative of letting in economic migrants. The top comment on the podcast’s subreddit describes the migrants as “entitled”, an epithet I am inclined to agree with.

All of this said, I do have a bit of affinity for these people. If I had to choose one group to occupy the streets I’d certainly prefer the migrants than the aggressive “native” homeless in progressing states of mental decay. The migrants are clean, accompanied by well behaved children, and don’t bother you when walking down the street (in this way I also prefer them also to the third inhabitant of Chicago streets, lanyarded young workers of some nonprofit that will accost you with any question they judge will trick you into attention). The regular homeless population of Chicago smells terrible, yells, and makes the city feel dangerous enough that no women I know will take the train at night. In contrast, a relatively dignified family looking for work at least has motives that are comprehensible to me, even if I think they’ve made the wrong choice.

Every time I walk past these people, I wonder: what was your plan? Was the life you had in Venezuela really that much worse than sitting on the frozen streets of a foreign country begging for money?

I don't think the operatize question is whether their life is better right this moment, but whether the expected outcome for their children and grandchildren is better. The obvious answer seems to be yes, particularly when considering how readily much of American government policy is to decide that anyone who shows up as a kid is basically American and entitled to the same benefits as Americans. Illegal aliens get in state tuition in many states! Not that this specific example is necessarily useful for everyone, but I think it's illustrative of the mindset of the governments. In Illinois, a Venezuelan that claims asylum will receive a better deal from the Illinois government than a kid from Indiana will.

I would estimate there’s one of these families per downtown block, mostly women and young children but sometimes accompanied by a man.

(Despite claiming she has not been able to find enough food to eat, it is clear that few of these people have been running much of a calorie deficit)

This sounds like an organized crime problem. Someone's managing this panhandling business behind the scenes.

abandoning the legal fiction of "fleeing from violence" that the asylum seekers and traditional media use to justify the moral imperative of letting in economic migrants.

The "fleeing from violence" might have a legal definition, but I think most migrants are probably doing some form of fleeing from violence all the time. I think it is also strange that nationalists have glomed onto this as if it is some sort of mass lie.

There are different levels and types of "violence" and "fleeing". Violence can have terrible impacts on the economic conditions of an area, the stores are getting robbed or burned down, people's homes are being invaded, death is common enough that long-term self-improvement investments like education are a bad investment, etc etc. This can even describe some American cities. Imagine a young boy from that area, he keeps his head down, manages to avoid getting caught up with any gangs, and leaves as soon as he can afford a bus ticket out. He finds a job in another prospering city, and he sometimes sends some money back to his parents. He is an "economic migrant", but he was also most certainly fleeing violence.

Is something about that story unbelievable for some reason? Why the extreme levels of doubt? Don't you realize that people are fleeing American inner cities for the same reasons?

I think it is also strange that nationalists have glomed onto this as if it is some sort of mass lie.

Of course, it's a mass lie when applied in the "claiming asylum" fashion. Yes, I'm sure their home countries are every bit as shitty as they claim, that it sucks and violence is common. No, that doesn't make it even slightly plausible that they're fleeing the sort of organized, targeted violence that is associated with the traditional conception of asylum. The immigration NGOs have taken advantage of this loophole and provide advice on how to answer questions to get the desired catch-and-release outcome.

The "fleeing from violence" might have a legal definition, but I think most migrants are probably doing some form of fleeing from violence all the time. I think it is also strange that nationalists have glomed onto this as if it is some sort of mass lie.

They glommed unto it because the regime - or the pro-migration side- did it first: they specifically use refugees as the thin end of the wedge and insist that nations had to take them and at least process them (which often amounts to taking them because deportation is apparently surprisingly hard) because of both legal and moral duties owed to those at risk of actual oppression and imminent death.

Not the natural risks that come with poverty. By that standard, everyone has a right to cross the border illegally and claim asylum.

They appeal to the demands of the asylum system, so nationalists try to knock out that bit of support.

I agree it doesn't actually matter that much to the pro-migration types and it's all on a spectrum (having a chronic illness as a poor person in a developing country is just as much a death sentence as pissing off the local strongman). Ezra Klein will straightforwardly tell you that he just wants to improve life for some of these people, even if they don't meet some legal standard of being at risk of imminent violence. "It's international law" is just the most convenient thing to hang it on (especially for people trained to see a "right" as victory)

Don't you realize that people are fleeing American inner cities for the same reasons?

Kinda makes the point: citizens and non-citizens aren't considered equivalent...except when you appeal to the asylum system.

Was the life you had in Venezuela really that much worse than sitting on the frozen streets of a foreign country begging for money?

(...)

(Despite claiming she has not been able to find enough food to eat, it is clear that few of these people have been running much of a calorie deficit)

Sounds like answer is yes.

I live by a large shelter for migrants in the city. They have a group of folks who are dedicated to this candy/soda selling on the side of the road. The main reason I think these people are here is for the schools. Word was out from day 1 that they could and should enroll the kids in schools and they have. The local bus stops are bustling with migrants from 6-8am and 3-4 pm. The resource strain is fairly acute, at least locally, on the schools and public transit. I will say they are polite and clean, but there are things that I am seeing as fairly big failure modes. These Venezuelans are terrible drivers, and have crappy cars, so there is a spike in them getting into accidents, where they don't have insurance, registration, or a driver's license. Not great for a court system and PD that is already hard up for manpower. I'm also a bit disappointed in the entrepreneurial spirit of the males in the camp. I tried to hire one to help me get a chair out of a u-haul and up 4 flights of stairs. No bites at $50 for one big ass chair.

No bites at $50 for one big ass chair.

maybe they suspected trick/scam? may be effect of living in zero trust society

I dunno. The lady translating for me seemed pretty enthusiastic about my offer and brought it to a group of like 5 guys. Who knows.

Which, again, would be a good reason to stop letting these people scam our stupid fake asylum system.

No bites at $50 for one big ass chair.

Really!! This is hard to swallow. I would do so and I’m very comfortable.

I would literally do so for free out of common pro-social decency. Not even hypothetically, I helped someone moving into my complex with a large piece of furniture the other day.

Boy, it continues to be a real mystery why the nationalists aren't enthusiastic about adding a group of people that feel no attachment or obligation to Americans into the system...

Yes I think I would too. I might be a little surprised if they weren’t very grateful at the end of it, but otherwise wouldn’t feel like I wasted my time.

Yeah, it was surprising.

Was the life you had in Venezuela really that much worse than sitting on the frozen streets of a foreign country begging for money?

Yes.

The legal environment leads to somewhat capricious outcomes, but for the most part it is genuinely superior to be a legally precarious migrant worker in the US than a Venezuelan citizen in Venezuela. They wouldn't be coming otherwise. You might forgive the first wave of immigrants for having unreasonable expectations, but when they're telling their friends and relatives to come because it's better than Venezuela you should probably assume they believe it.

but for the most part it is genuinely superior to be a legally precarious migrant worker in the US than a Venezuelan citizen in Venezuela.

But I was told by Bernie Sanders that the American Dream was more alive in Venezuela than the US.

/s (he recommended an editorial that said as much)

Although there is a (right-coded? at least a historical) version of the American Dream for which this seemingly is true: "Life will be better if we move to America and become Americans." There is much less positivism about the future within the country these days.

LMFAO! BOO Bernie and his followers!

You've been told twice now to stop posting low-effort one liners. Next time will earn you a ban.

There is much less positivism about the future within the country these days.

If I had to give this my maximally charitable interpretation (i.e. not just blaming it on culture war runoff*), I'd say that tuition costs, the housing crisis, and elite overproduction ate the domestic American Dream. A lot of young people feel like they were promised a nice house/apartment and six figure income doing Meaningful Work and instead they got a studio apartment, a job as an office drone (which may pay decently, but almost certainly isn't what they imagined), and a pile of debt they may or may not have the wherewithal to actually payoff. Latin American migrants, by contrast, generally have lower expectations that are more easily met and a near-certainty that their children will have better lives than they did.

*though I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which it is CW runoff

An unwillingness to put in the work ate the American dream. Hispanics streaming across the border presumably have many problems, but no one actually familiar with them thinks an unwillingness to work is one of them.

I'm not sure what that means in this context - I assume you're not referring to literal LFPR or unemployment rates.

I'm doing thing this awkwardly on my phone from an alt account, but I wanted to draw attention to Peter Santenello's excellent work as an independent video journalist. He is relatively politically neutral and let's his subjects talk and share their views with little comment.

He has two videos in particular about this subject:

One on the US Mexico border with a county sherrif.

One with a recently retired police officer in Chicago.

Those two officers are in a unique position to speak their own views without political interference from above due to being in an elected role and being retired.

Its worth a look. Also i highly recommend Peter's other videos on subjects which mainstream media ignores.

To add onto ACW's comment, as an Arizonan, I will note that Arpaio was Sherriff of Maricopa County for years despite multiple scandals.

The sherrif looks to be comfortable in his role as hes been consistently reelected for many years. Beyond that he seems to be allroaching retirement.

If I had to choose one group to occupy the streets I’d certainly prefer the migrants than the aggressive “native” homeless in progressing states of mental decay. The migrants are clean, accompanied by well behaved children, and don’t bother you when walking down the street (in this way I also prefer them also to the third inhabitant of Chicago streets, lanyarded young workers of some nonprofit that will accost you with any question they judge will trick you into attention). The regular homeless population of Chicago smells terrible, yells, and makes the city feel dangerous enough that no women I know will take the train at night. In contrast, a relatively dignified family looking for work at least has motives that are comprehensible to me, even if I think they’ve made the wrong choice.

It's funny how much this feels like an argument that "the migrants aren't so bad really if you think about whether you'd choose them over what we already have," as though that were a plausible scenario and we won't just have both now. This is interesting rhetoric.

This is a similar rhetorical device to, "immigrants actually have a lower crime rate than American citizens". First, it lumps together "immigrants" as though it's actually hard to notice any difference in criminality between Central Americans and East Asians. Second, it lumps together Americans as though it's actually hard to notice any difference in criminality between demographic groups. When people are thinking about whether adding some illegal aliens to their neighborhood increases crime, they're considering whether that group is more criminal than their current local residents, not whether the newcomers are less criminal than a randomly chosen Baltimore resident.

Jakhammer's preference reveals more about the negative state of the perpetually homeless people than it does about the migrants.

The migration issue has a clear and simple solution - increase border security and stop incentivizing people to come to the United States. Homelessness to me is not as clear what to be done with. I believe cities in the past that effectively dealt with homeless people simply moved those homeless people to another place. It solves the problem on the city scale, but it is still a nationwide problem. There are policies that enable homelessness in these cities so stopping them would certainly help, but I don't think doing just that will solve the homeless issue.

I believe cities in the past that effectively dealt with homeless people simply moved those homeless people to another place.

Casual observation reveals lots of drugs and insanity. The historical approach to junkies and crazy people is locking them up. Homeless people that aren't crazy junkies are typically not all that visible, as they largely consist of people in temporary situations where they're living in their cars or the modern equivalent of mountain men that want to live rough, but are sane enough to stay away from meth encampments.

It solves the problem on the city scale, but it is still a nationwide problem.

Solving it in the cities generally solves it everywhere because their lifestyle is not sustainable in a rural area.

I was thinking of individual cities rather than cities in general since if Chicago decides to push out all homeless for example, San Francisco would not have changed their policies. On the city level, you don't get to decide to policy of another city.

The unfortunate truth is that seemingly the only two ways to eliminate the problematic homeless are to forcibly institutionalize them or to make their lives so insufferably bad that they voluntarily choose to shape up. I suppose a third option would be to tacitly allow people to kill them with impunity, but that is obviously less realistic and more evil than the first two approaches. Most people are adamantly against involuntary institutionalization, and they’re too humane to allow cops or strangers to instill genuine fear in the hearts of the homeless. So they proliferate.

The problematic homeless are generally so dysfunctional that abusing them into compliance is not going to happen. If they could pull their life together they would already be doing that. Having the cops beat them up isn't too far off of standard practice and it hasn't made much of an impact. Your options more or less amount to prison or rehab.

I think some people just don't want to be helped and can't be helped, and thus shouldn't be helped at all since it's just draining resources and enabling their drug-induced behavior. Forcible institutionalization would probably be the cheapest and fastest solution but like you said people would be against that. But I can't help but think of what San Francisco did to clean up the streets when Xi Jinping was coming to visit, clearly if there is a will then there is a way. I would argue the policies of cities like Los Angeles or San Francisco enable a growing homeless population.

There is certainly an argument that it could be cheaper to provide a clean and safe place to let these people get their drug fix since that would lessen other crimes and means the city no longer needs to spend money on fixing the other issues (as they would no longer occur) but I haven't looked into those studies and my gut feeling is that even if the economics are true there are plenty of counter-arguments beyond just the economics.

If we could exchange these people for the homeless and the activists, that would certainly be a net win.

One question I have is did something change with the border in the last two years? Are we getting far more or were they some how all chilling in Houston before busing started? We never had this issue before and I don’t understand why they are everywhere it’s a lot of people.

These seem like people who would be great for a start up type city. Something like in Iowa where land is cheap, lacking full citizenship/freedom of movement, but with US rule of law.

On the American-Mexican border, this year the Biden administration implemented a policy intended to allow a stronger/politically-more-viable legal basis for ejecting migrants. In short, they created a remote-asylum application system as part of broader remote-immigration-permit systems. The nominal position is that migrants are to request the migration / asylum remotely from their own country, and then wait for the response of yay/nay. If they attempt to illegally immigrate before their application is complete, their digital-application can be rejected and they can be immediately deported as bad-faith applicants, and if they attempt to apply for asylum at the border without trying the app, they can be sent back to their countries and told to apply via the system.

The premise was somewhat undermined by various Biden exceptions to give various groups special permissions to stay, and the sheer numbers that kept coming after a temporary pause after the number of deportation flights was contrasted to the number of arrivals, and the sanctuary city migrant-bussing fiasco.

South of the American border, a number of different dynamics are taking place, centered primarily on spreading awareness via social media of safe-ish and commercially available migration services that have increased both awareness and perception of safety, sometimes with government facilitation.

Among other things-

-The Darian Gap, the link between Colombia and Panama, has seen functional guide services and entire social media channels and migration-facilitation industries between boats and forest guides and supply traders. The social media awareness of viable routes, legal strategies such as claiming asylum, and analysis/assessments of the US permissiveness of migrants once you reach there, are widespread. As with most businesses, as businesses scale, they compete and improve in pursuit of profit and client-share.

-Local governments in the Darian Gap, Panama, and Costa Rica, being overwhelmed if they try to stop or hinder the flow and at risk of criminal malingering if they just ignore it, have gradually adopted policies of functionally regulating migration flow independent of national level (let alone American) desires. A migrant you stop is your problem; a migrant you charge for a clean hotel room before moving on is a revenue source, and less likely to be working with the cartels against you. Local governments are in some places functionally legalizing/displacing the more harmful criminal types.

-Nicaragua in particular has started a racket of direct migrant shuttle flights from high-migration capitals to Nicaragua. In much the same way of the Belarusian migration crisis bringing Iraqis to the Polish border while the Belarusian government got the money for the 'tour packages,' Nicaragua basically relaxed visa-arrival restrictions and starting flying in planeloads of migrants from countries like Haiti and Cuba, and then gives the migrants a short amount of time to get out of the country starting from halfway up central america. Naturally Ortega makes his cuts, and while the US has pressured some airlines to stop, there's still plenty of money.

-Building on public awareness, the US domestic squabble of the Texas bussing of migrants to sanctuary cities was an international highlight on the, well, 'free reception' on hand if you did arrive in the US and reach a Sanctuary city. When internationally recognizable cities like New York complain that they can't continue to spend thousands of dollars a month per migrant providing food, housing, job permisions, and etc., that's not a problem- that's an advertisement to get it while you can.

-Finally, there has been increasing regional coordination between migration-transit countries on the subject. Some of this has been urged by the US, and some has been about, well, using migration as a way to urge changes in US policy that interest the coordinating powers. Not too long ago, there was a Mexican conference with many of the migration-sources, with one of the resolution points asserting a general right to migrate- implicitly obliging the US to not only accept migrants in general, but actively facilitate safe routes and legal avenues into the US. (Other points included removing the current US legal structure that gives greater asylum weight to people from repressive/anti-US countries, like Cuba.)

Put it together, and migration to the US has become hybrid government-private commercial business, with spreading awareness and perceptions of safety and reliability, with highly public 'win' conditions and regional governments sympathetic to further facilitating it.

Yes, good comment. Social media is also the major driver of illegal immigration from Africa to Europe. Before there was little knowledge of what ‘life in Europe’ is like. Now, they see what are essentially infomercial TikToks by the smugglers themselves about how great life in Europe is.

They were sitting around in McAllen and eagle pass, which are in Texas but not that close to Houston.

Much prefer a start up city be in their nation where land is cheaper, they can leave whenever they please and the foreign founders are granted charters by the host government to operate with rule of law they enforce.

For Venezuelans we know that isn’t happening. I don’t know the solution but these seem like people who would do ok with a functioning government and the rule of law.

I don’t particular want them in America as most of the people of this background end up being lower middle class, below average education, but with limited criminality and that’s not a great deal for America. But the world should still be able to provide them something like 13-18k a year middle income life.

After seeing what they've done to their home country I'm really worried about what's going to happen to the US when these people and their children start voting in our elections.

Yeah, I don't understand this. Cubans and Eastern Europeans who lived under Communism, and their children, tend to remain anti-Communist. Latin Americans other than Cubans stick with communism even when they left due to it.

Was the life you had in Venezuela really that much worse than sitting on the frozen streets of a foreign country begging for money?

Genuinely, the answer is probably "yes."

Venezuela truly is one of those cases where it's hard to blame anyone for wanting to flee. Mind you, those who could largely did flee awhile ago, so there's some class resentment and I've occasionally heard of undertones of suspicion/contempt (of the 'you were happy to support the Chavistas when we fled, but now you're ruining our reputation' variety), but... yeah. Venezuela's been bad for some time.

I don't blame them for fleeing, but nothing about that empathy suggests that they should live in Illinois rather than Nicaragua.

There are many millions of Venezuelans all across Latin America

Nicaragua is also a communist country.

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