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 -
It's actually significantly more common in British politics (though still much less common than in America). For example, in the UK 56 Labour MPs broke ranks with the party over the Gaza issue, as opposed to just one here.
In neither system can the party instantly replace you. They can kick you out of the party or deny you pre-selection though, and that functionally means you will not be re-elected in most cases.
Australian Labor Party discipline is very, very tight. Payman is only the 20th Labor MP to ever cross the floor. I think the last time it happened was back in the 90s.
The Conservative side of politics is less extreme. You won't be kicked out of the party and you probably won't be denied preselection. But you have to give up any ministry positions and generally it hurts your political career. So a few opinionated people decide it's worth it, for example Bridget Archer has crossed the floor dozens of times. But overall it's still pretty rare, and the vast majority of Liberal MPs have never crossed the floor.
The British parties actually have a system for telling MPs (and Lords) just how unacceptable a rebellion would be. The party whips produce a roughly weekly newsletter for their MPs (also called "The Whip") giving warning of forthcoming votes and telling them which way to vote. The preferred vote is underlined once for an important vote where MPs are expected to show up, twice for a vote where MPs are required to show up (unless "paired" with an absent opposition MP) but only habitual offenders will actually be punished for not showing, and three times for a vote where MPs are required to show up and unauthorised absence will be punished by default. Rebelling against a three-line whip will, in theory, get you kicked out of the party caucus (in British terminology, "having the Whip withdrawn" because caucus membership is de facto defined by the circulation of the newsletter) but in practice only happens where there is safety in numbers such that the Party leadership can't afford to kick all the rebels out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link