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 -
Singapore does this by having housing so unaffordable that ~80% of people live in government subsidized housing, then setting approximately-proportional-to-general-population racial quotas in every housing block. For example, if you're looking to sell your apartment, but your building ownership is already >80% Chinese, then you're limited to non-Chinese buyers.
Interestingly, they also have quotas on permanent residents, presumably to encourage integration with citizens.
It's called the "Ethnic Integration Policy" and it's an interesting approach that obviously achieves its desired metric. I don't know enough to say if it manages to achieve anything beyond that.
Probably politically infeasible in most other countries.
With Singaporean integration, everyone had to integrate. The Anglo-Singaporean culture represented by LKY, S. Rajaratnam, etc, was foreign to the Chinese as the Malays and Indians. Now, Anglo-Singaporeanism is primarily a creation of the Chinese elite, sure, but housing was part of a package of military service, language and education reform, so on, that deserves to be analyzed as a type of internal colonization. The plan was cooked up by an elite intentionally seeking to suppress racial conflict and that had used questionably-legal means to suppress opposition and other civil society. Politically infeasible in other countries? Today's Singapore couldn't even do it - in today's politics you can see other technocratic, hard-headed but unpopular policies like open immigration and explicitly pro-corporate liberalism are starting to bend and buckle under public pressure. Specific to housing, Singapore has always sold property as 99-year leaseholds with rights reverting back to the government. This is a ticking time bomb under the government as the first generation of housing blocks start nearing that date, and the buildings are wearing out earlier than then - the next decade or two is going to have a large wave of these repossessions. We'll see how the government deals with that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was extremely populist compared to past policy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link