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 -
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?
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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
illegallyand 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)
Kinda makes the point: citizens and non-citizens aren't considered equivalent...except when you appeal to the asylum system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link