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 I believe that progs are wrong on that, because <20% of the Western population allegedly being under-represented in media (I highly doubt it) does not really matter to the other 80%. Whatever public money goes into making movies (from the public education provided to the workers to state subventions) should surely go toward satisfying at least 80% of taxpayers, not the 1% LGBTQ lobby or whichever flavor-of-the-week. To my limited knowledge, nobody is really preventing anyone from making movies with diverse representation. There's plenty of 'diverse' movies being made, by Nollywood for example. Their 'What's the big deal?' should apply to them, who are challenging the status quo of adequately providing the majority of viewers what they want to see. Likewise, it appears to me that the onus would be on you to provide justification for getting rid of something most people historically liked, borders.
I still don't really see what the issue is for you, as if you really cared about having some random person immigrate to the US, you could spend a million dollars or less and get them on an investor visa.
The problem I see with your 'open-borders' proposition is that it has a huge cost. Satisfying 'your principle' would burden tremendously most people in the country you live in. I don't know if anybody else expressed that to you yet. In the same manner that you could theoretically want to dump heavy metals in the local river because that's just how you like it. It's your freedom to enjoy your 'seasoned' river. And then all that's left for everybody else who perhaps drinks out of that water is to install costly equipment to remove the seasoning you graciously provided at no cost to them.
How do you 'invade' an open-border territory? I have my doubt that these libertarians actually want open-borders. A billionaire like Musk says he wants free-speech on his platform that is until somebody posts the coordinates of his private jet. Would the seasteaders provide refuge to Hamas, Houthis, Somalian pirates... ?
While democracy is already the rule of the rich (with extra-steps of buying major media and nudging voters that they should give legitimacy to your policies) -here is a recent example at the Superbowl.- libertarianism appears to me to be straight-up 'let people wealthier than me do whatever they want'.
I'm not against freedom of association. I wish I had it. But I don't think destroying the country I live in by opening its borders is going to get me that in the short-term. Borders are nice to have, as long as you are the ones in control of them. And that used to be the point of nationalism. Now you want a bunch of (very) rich dudes to control your country's borders, but that's not you.
More options
Context Copy link