site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29816 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 2024

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is a good summary. A few thoughts:

  1. Hopefully the Lib Dems' strong showing could set the UK up for electoral reform in the future. The lack of enthusiasm for Labour and the difficult problems they'll have to face could lead to a hung parliament next time. The Lib Dems would certainly demand a change to the electoral system in exchange for their support, and should not be bamboozled in the same way Nick Clegg was.

  2. One area where I think Keir Starmer could genuinely change things is in the planning system. The UK (like most Anglo countries) makes it almost impossible to build houses and other infrastructure. Labour's manifesto did promise planning reform, and hopefully his strong majority and lack of reliance on middle class rural voters (like the Conservatives) would allow him to push it through. He seems to believe the only way he can be reelected is through strong economic growth, so I think he'd be willing to spend political capital on this, particularly if the UK continues with high immigration (very likely).

  3. The next Scottish Parliament election is in 2016. I expect we'll see a collapse in SNP support as we did yesterday, but who those seats go to is another question. I can imagine a relatively even split between the five main parties (Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP) once independence fades into the background as a serious prospect. Previously, Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems fought for the Unionist vote. Now they might actually have to campaign on Policy!

  4. I don't expect Welsh nationalism to come anywhere near Scottish nationalism. Wales is poor, and the only reason it has a national identity is due to its language. Given that UK governments are broadly positive towards the Welsh cultural project (primarily Welsh medium schools) the only thing Wales has to gain from independence is the loss of vast subsidies from London. Wales becoming independent would be like Louisiana trying to secede because it has a large French-speaking population.

  5. This is the first UK general election where voter ID was required, having previously been trialled for local elections. Unlike in the US, this is considered by most to be a sensible technocratic fix rather than a sinister plot to disenfranchise anyone (although a few UK lefties seem to have imbibed US memes enough to see it as such).

  6. The fact that Commonwealth citizens can vote in UK general elections is looking more and more absurd. Polish and Italian nationals who have lived here for more than a decade and have visas that allow them to stay indefinitely cannot vote for the government that rules them, while Indian or Nigerian nationals on tourist or student visas can vote without knowing anything about UK politics or even knowing how to speak English. I do not expect the new Labour government to change this.

  7. I think the Conservatives will elect a true right-winger. They lost because right-wing voters were furious with ever higher immigration, ever higher taxes and woke takeover of every institution. Their only path back to government is to win these voters back and they're not going to do this with more Blairism.

This is the first UK general election where voter ID was required, having previously been trialled for local elections. Unlike in the US, this is considered by most to be a sensible technocratic fix rather than a sinister plot to disenfranchise anyone (although a few UK lefties seem to have imbibed US memes enough to see it as such).

I believe you correctly describe the general feeling about this, but even this UK centrist cannot help but notice how much more likely it is than an over–70 voter will already posess an acceptable piece of ID than an under-25 voter will. For example: why are travel passes for older persons accepted, but not ones for younger persons? Perhaps there is a good technocratric reason for the difference (maybe issuing of Freedom passes is more carefully regulated?) but I do expect that the incoming government to correct this apparent disparity rather than scrap the ID requirement altogether.

Since the 2000s every young person who drinks, smokes or buys scissors has gotten used to carrying ID, typically a provisional or qualified driving licence. It's basically impossible to function as a young adult without it, whereas older people don't get asked for ID when buying alcohol or cigarettes and so are much more likely to go without one.

Also, the list includes PASS cards, which are specifically intended to be used as youth identity cards. They are much more common than youth bus passes, which I have never seen in the wild.

These figures bear out my intuition, which is that old people are more likely to be ID-less than young people.

It's certainly within plausibility that Labour could be pro growth. The past years have been so bad that there's a lot of low hanging fruit, and in theory Labour have the ability to push through controversial changes. But at the same time, Labour is still enthralled by the Blairist civic religion of government, human rights and environment. They retain the primal socialist fear of someone, somewhere, being rich, and the liberal love of bureaucracy and process. Will anything actually happen? I think it is more likely that any ambitious project will be frustrated by endless judicial reviews, stakeholder consultations and activist action.

The median Labour activist isn't optimistic or resilient. They're bitter, envious, and neurotic. They despise most of the electorate, they despise success, they despise the country. The Tories insulate themselves from reality with a cloud of sunny complacency, but Labour wrap themselves in misery and cynicism.

Wales becoming independent would be like Louisiana trying to secede because it has a large French-speaking population.

Louisiana does not have a large French speaking population. Southern Louisiana has local areas with large-ish French speaking populations.

As a basic history lesson- and I’m oversimplifying immensely- refugees from the collapsing French new world empire were settled in then-Spanish Louisiana west of New Orleans to boost the white population. Their descendants we call the Cajuns and have a distinctive culture, including a reputation as amazing cooks that know how to throw a good party. However, the spread of Cajuns was limited by geographic barriers and poverty; today Cajuns are probably something like 20% of Louisiana’s population and only old people and hipsters really speak French anymore.

All of Louisiana tries to portray itself as Cajun because it’s the third poorest state in the Union right next to the fifth wealthiest, while also having the most liberal alcohol laws and some of the more liberal gambling regulations. This makes tourism a natural niche to aim for, and since Cajuns are known as really good cooks that know how to throw a party, playing up the Cajun/French heritage makes sense as a way to try to attract tourism dollars. Northern Louisiana is no more French than Arkansas and New Orleans proper is I suppose a bit more French than Mississippi, but not by that much. Strongly French areas are pockets of the rural southwest.

"I grew up in Louisiana..."

"Woo!"

"Yeah, see... Whenever I do that, people... Some people will 'woo', but that's for New Orleans. Which is the best part."

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WULYEegtTGc&t=10s

I’m oversimplifying immensely- refugees from the collapsing French new world empire were settled in then-Spanish Louisiana west of New Orleans to boost the white population.

Hoooo buddy. I definitely know an Acadian who would absolutely see red upon reading such an immense oversimplification. I would contend that the matter is somewhat subtle about the term "refugee", which often has a connotation of, "Well, some war or some shit was just happening, and it obviously sucked for people in the area, so they willingly chose the better of bad options to pick up and relocate," whereas the reality was that they were forcibly round up and deported. One can even have sympathies for the reasons why the deporters would do the deporting (or could even make a reasonable argument that whatever portion of the deported population shares in the blame for causing such reasons to exist), but my understanding is that the majority of them were collected by decree or chased down by men with guns, put onto ships at gunpoint, and then dumped in lands far away. It is not clear to me to what extent they were allowed much choice, once on the boat, as to which dump off spot they were dumped at.

The Acadians were ethnically cleansed(as were the white Haitians, which many Cajuns also trace descent to) but those who settled in Louisiana were mostly those who escaped whatever dumping ground they reached and made it too Louisiana voluntarily.

TIL that they didn't actually deport any Acadians directly to Louisiana. Thanks!

Oh I'm aware that Cajun French is basically dead, my metaphor was about a hypothetical Louisiana where it was a significant language, I should have made that clear.

This is the first UK general election where voter ID was required, having previously been trialled for local elections. Unlike in the US, this is considered by most to be a sensible technocratic fix rather than a sinister plot to disenfranchise anyone (although a few UK lefties seem to have imbibed US memes enough to see it as such).

It is well-known that voter ID was, in fact, a plot to disenfranchise young people. The main tell was that discounted public transport passes given to pensioners were eligible ID, but discounted public transport passes given to students and apprentices were not. Jacob Rees Mogg admitted this at the 2023 National Conservatism conference.

It is also well-known that the type of voter fraud that voter ID prevents (i.e. voting in person in the name of someone else) is not a problem in the mainland UK (it was a problem in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, so Northern Ireland has always had voter ID). The most corrupt election in recent British history was the 2014 mayoral election in Tower Hamlets, and the Election Court judgement convicts or at least credibly accuses Luftur Rahman of basically every form of electoral fraud or malpractice under the sun except that one. The in-person voter fraud Rahman committee involved Rahman supporters outside Tower Hamlets voting in their own name after registering at false addresses.

The difference between the US and UK voter ID debates is that there is no legal process where crying "waa waa it's racist" can invalidate a law, so the British left had no reason to do so. The Labour party did put out leaflets in student-heavy areas saying "the Tories are trying to use voter ID to disenfranchise you, here's how to stop them."

If it were really a plot to disenfranchise young people, it would be the least effective way of doing it I could think of.

In order to drink, drive or leave the country anyone 18 or over must have a form of ID which is also valid for voting in an election.

I don’t have much faith in the tories’s competence but I think claiming this to be a serious attempt at gerrymandering is really unfair on them.

"the Tories are trying to use voter ID to disenfranchise you, here's how to stop them."

I might be missing something, but I don't see why you need a plan more complicated than "Get an ID card".

If "voting in person in the name of someone else is not a problem in the mainland UK" then I can also claim it's simply not a meaningful form of disenfranchisement. It's bizarre to any outsider that this is something controversial rather than the most basic security feature.

  • The main tell was that discounted public transport passes given to pensioners were eligible ID, but discounted public transport passes given to students and apprentices were not.

What are the conditions for obtaining the elderly pass vs the youth pass? In the US some make a similar argument with regards to a firearms permit vs a student ID, and it turns out that, I think, even non-citizens can obtain the latter. But I am certain the former has more checks.

What are the conditions for obtaining the elderly pass vs the youth pass? In the US some make a similar argument with regards to a firearms permit vs a student ID, and it turns out that, I think, even non-citizens can obtain the latter. But I am certain the former has more checks.

Both can be obtained easily by non-citizens who meet the other requirements (as can a driving license, which is the most commonly used form of acceptable ID) - this is specifically an identity check and not a citizenship check. British citizenship law is such a mess that requiring proof of citizenship to vote would effectively disenfranchise everyone who hadn't already proved their citizenship to apply for a passport (admittedly, 86.5% of UK adults do have passports). The official reason given was that the checks made when issuing elderly passes are more stringent but it isn't clear why - in particular there is no attempt to verify the photo if you apply for an elderly pass by post, whereas the photo on a student pass is cross-checked against the photo on your student ID.

I would expect most young people to have at least a driver licence if not a passport. Some might not have but I think they could obtain some kind of ID. Although many would not bother.

Non-citizens holding these documents doesn't matter because the electoral register is made separately and non-citizens are not included and will not be able at the polling station.

I would expect most young people to have at least a driver licence if not a passport

Tangential, but I wouldn't be surprised if passports were more common than driving licenses, especially among young people.

That's because almost everyone in the UK goes on cheap holidays to Europe. Spending time on holidays in the UK is more expensive and only rich people can afford it.

It would be more accurate to say that both the poor and the rich will (sometimes) vacation in Britain, but the middle all go abroad. You have Butlins / Blackpool and St Ives and $4m vacation homes by the sea in Devon but little in between.

"the only reason it has a national identity is due to its language"

To which a lot of Welsh people are actively hostile, especially (I think) in South Wales, where most of the population is.

I do not expect the new Labour government to change this.

It won't happen if people are talking about Nigerians and Indians, it's too racially charged.

The solution is to demonize those sinister Canadians.

Get Kulak to write about how he's planning to spend a few months in the UK for the next by-election and his Canadian readers should go as well.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats