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 has Trudeau opposed Canadian sovereignty?
He has done so in the link provided, unless you believe Trudeau is himself sovereign. Trudeau's statement that 'Canada is a postnational state' is indistinguishable from the denial of Canadian sovereignty and is in fact a naked argument for Comintern.
Is this rhetoric surprising? It shouldn't be. Its Trudeau, the literal communist heir. And not just any type of communist, the type of international communist who believes that nationhood is a moral evil and that sovereignty and moral righteousness lies only in global communism.
If Canadian sovereignty has any reference to the people of Canada, discounting any non-integrated individuals, then it must be the case that Trudeau's statement denies Canadian sovereignty.
What would "postnational" mean without reference to some non-arbitrary, non-"I'm-not-touching-you" definition of Canadians? Who or what is sovereign on Trudeau's definition? Trudeau?
Apparently not Canadians. Trudeau's vision of Canada is "post" all such concerns. Thus, the concept of Canadian sovereignty, on his thinking, is "post" the fact of or concerns of the people who inhabit Canada's borders. If that which is sovereign is "post" Canada, then sovereignty doesn't lie in Canada in any meaningful respect. Therefore, Trudeau's claim that Canada is a postnational state is a denial of Canadian sovereignty.
Trudeau being Trudeau, and not any other person, its clear that his declaration of a "postnational" Canada is little more than an argument for Comintern.
That’s absurd. Sovereignty is obviously not the same thing as nationhood. Governments do all sorts of pedestrian tasks, like issuing passports or regulating products, which don’t require a national character. A post-national state, then, would happily implement those even as it opens the gates to immigrants.
You’re committing the mirror-version of appealing to Hitler. It is possible to have patriotism, aggressive foreign policy, and even a racial identity without trying to start a Fourth Reich. Likewise, preferring the boring bureaucratic parts of state sovereignty does not make one into Daddy Stalin.
More options
Context Copy link
Presumably Canadian citizens, the rules for becoming one which are determined by the elected representatives of the current citizenry. Could such rules be considered arbitrary? Sure, but I think you need more than that to claim that they are illegitimate e.g. you can argue that the representatives were not enacting the will of the citizens, you can argue against democracy as a process for deciding questions of citizenship, etc. Also, if Canada had really ever been a single nation they would be speaking English in Quebec.
More options
Context Copy link
That is a ridiculously huge leap.
Canadian sovereignty doesn't have any reference to the people and even if it did, that wouldn't mean his statement denies Canadian sovereignty.
This is a clearly incorrect interpretation of his meaning, which is about a lack of mainstream culture, not the lack of concern for the people. He states this explicitly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link