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 -
When people say "close the border" they typically mean closing it to all traffic entirely which would be utterly silly. There's tons of trade that goes between the border, and plenty of American nationals come and go all the time.
I agree the asylum stuff is BS, but again, this bill does crack down on much of that. I'm fine with a few statistically irrelevant dissidents coming through if they're seeking to evade persecution from a genuinely authoritarian government torturing them, but I'm not fine with people fraudulently claiming they're a refugee for essentially no reason, which is what a lot of the economic migrants are doing now.
Even if you think all asylum should be ended, surely no asylum > a little asylum > a lot of asylum. So I don't know why you'd oppose the bill.
The bill barely does anything to eliminate asylum.
I have repeated told you why I oppose the bill. But it summarizes to I believe the bill would increase immigration I do not want. You are fine to disagree with my logic. What is not fine is acting like I haven’t told you why I oppose it.
The bill lacks any teeth to limit immigration during a Democratic Presidency. America is also very bad at letting the legislature get a second crack at legislating. The Dems offered the GOP very little in this deal. Biden would claim victory if the bill passes, probably enforce the border during the election season, and once the election was over every loophole in the bill would be utilized by the left to flood the border again with immigrants.
I prefer to just boost Trumps chance at election which would allow us to actually fix the border.
If Dems gave us a real bill with teeth and banned the current asylum situation I would vote for the bill and give them the win, but they are not doing it.
The bill eliminates a huge loophole with asylum...
At this point I think we're just talking in circles so I'm going to bow out.
And I disagree that it sufficiently closes that gap.
I’ve never disagreed with your logic and understand why you believe it does. My issue has been the denial of my agency to look at the facts and view the bill as a net negative (when including political calculations) for those wanting much stronger restrictions on immigration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where are you getting that idea from?
When people say "close the border" with no conditions, it usually implies they want to close the border unconditionally, like for military or pandemic reasons. When people are just talking about illegal immigrants, they can pretty easily specify "we should do something about illegal immigration.
That would be the literal meaning of the phrase, but people often speak in shortcuts. I don't think it's a good idea to read so much into it, unless you actually talked to someone who supports "closing the border" and specifically asked them if they mean closing it to all traffic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link