site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29886 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.

I voted Labour, begrudgingly, and desperately hope that I will not have to do so again in 2029. My political philosophy is not very well aligned with the Labour party, but Kier Starmer is not Jeremy Corbyn. I am glad that the electorate has rewarded labour for ditching the loony left and putting someone in charge who has achieved more in life than dropping out of a Trade Union Studies course at North London Polytechnic. Your analysis is that this was not Labour’s win, but the Tory’s loss. I don’t entirely agree with that. I, for one, have been sick of the Conservatives since 2017, but I voted tactically to keep Corbyn away from the top job, and my feeling is that many did the same. In FPTP it is not sufficient to have concentrated appeal over a small geographical area – you must appeal broadly and Corbyn didn’t do that. Starmer has very conventional attitudes toward economics, foreign policy, patriotism etc. That was all I needed.

Given that, and how backbiting, ineffectual, and directionless the Tories have been under Sunak, it is hard to make an argument that the country will be worse off under Starmer for 4-5 years.

My primary issue with the Conservatives is that after 14 years in power, they are doing poorly on all the metrics that they as Conservatives should like to be measured on. Low taxes, law and order, an effective miliary, home ownership, robust immigration controls. They have achieved none of these things. Should I vote for a party that claims to want these things, but is unable (or unwilling) to achieve them? Their track record on the economy is poor as well, and from a purely financial point of view, Brexit was the Conservatives delivering a nasty self-inflicted wound. ‘A rising tide lifts all boats’ is a saying that conservatives are fond of. Well, If they can’t raise the tide, maybe we should see if someone else can. God knows I want my boat lifting.

Ultimately, the Conservatives are dead, and they will not resurrect without a substantial change in attitude. They are the party of the geriatrics. The age at which a person is more likely to vote Conservative than Labour is seventy. Seventy! They have pandered greatly - and transparently - to their aged base at the expense of the young. This strategy always had a time limit on it. The generation who remembered Thatcher as a great leader is dying out, and they will need to mint a new one. They need to figure out how they can turn the current generation of young adults from lonely nomads into professional homeowners, with a nuclear family, a well paying job, and something to lose, as these are the people who historically have voted Conservative. They also need to figure out how, after so many broken promises, they can win back the trust of the electorate.

You correctly have a problem with the conservatives for failing at being conservatives (they are also so far to the left they fail at being moderate) but then then you decide to vote for labour under an expectation that Starmer would be a moderate. I am sorry but I find that highly unlikely considering what labour politicians are advocating and the history of both labour and Torry governance after Tony Blair. Plus, how other promised moderates like Biden have ruled. A Starmer rule will at best be a continuation of the Torries, and therefore not moderate, or probably more likely, will result in the blatant woke elements that Labour has bringing Britain into even a further left direction than they were even under the Torries. The Torries who also brought things in a considerably farther left direction under their rule.

I mean, very possible. For me voting Labour was indeed a bit of a throw of the dice. Even ignoring their policies - and there are some good ones in there I think - my suspicion is that they will do better simply becase they have more competence, more ideas, more vigour. Britain's primary problem is stagnation, and a stagnant government doesn't solve that. But if Labour do fail, and the Tories come back in 2029 with a bit of sincerity, a bit of talent, and a goddamn plan this time, well then brilliant. If marginally worse governance is the price the country has to pay for a reinvigorated Conservative party than I think that's a price worth paying. Certainly the Tories were never going to improve until they got a punch in the mouth like they got today.

The Torries might earn your vote in 2029 and be convincing to you, but why would they rule well? You complained that they weren't conservative but now you claim they might come back with a bit sincerity and competence. Why would that happen? Seems more likely they will act sincere, convince you and fail to deliver again. I don't see a good reason for them to change their stripes, when promising to be conservative and competent and not delivering is what they have done so consistently. The lack of competence has something to do with the assumed competent but not actually competent, mixture of ideologies and priorities of the kind of politicians labeled "moderate", or "neoliberals".

A bit like communism was the darling of people who loved the idea of technocracy and strongly associated with technocracy but was actually a disastrous and incompetent mess.

Of course, I don't expect Starmer to be to the right of the Conservatives; that doesn't make sense. But, fundamentally, he is a free marketeer. He is pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine, and won't get rid of our nukes. He hasn't pandered to the Muslims over Gaza, nor has he pandered to the LGBTQs over gender ideology. He has also overseen a pretty serious purge to neuter the hard left in Labour, including the previous leader Jeremy Corbyn. That's about as much as I'd dare hope for. I'm not too worried about woke - it doesn't have as much of a toe-hold in the UK as it does in the USA, and common sense is the rule rather than the exception. Race is less of a hot button topic. I think Starmer sees clearly that there are more votes to be lost than gained by courting the ultra-progressives.

Seems more likely they will act sincere, convince you and fail to deliver again.

Well that's a judgement call to be made at the time. It's up to the Conservatives to be convincing and sincere, they certainly cannot count on my vote. how strong/weak is the rhetoric, how detailed are their plans, how unified is the party, how good is the talent, how coherent is the philosophy. And, of course, does Labour even need replacing? If Starmer is somehow able to drag the country into a productivity boom then I might be perfectly happy to keep him no matter what the Tories offer.

The Tories promised to cut immigration by 75% (“to the tens of thousands”) and instead increased it 300%. Certainly Starmer can make the situation worse (one need only look at Canada). But the Tories clearly deserved to be removed from power.

Ultimately, the Conservatives are dead, and they will not resurrect without a substantial change in attitude.

You probably know more about your own country than me, so take it with a grain of salt, but...

There's this old quip that a pessimist is someone who says "it can't possibly get any worse", while an optimist is someone who'll respond with "oh yes it can!"

You're right that Tories are a failure on their own terms, and because of that the idea that the neoliberal wing of Labour will be some sort of an improvement is absurd to me. You'll get the exact same thing, but more. By the time they're done, people may very well decide that Tories weren't that bad after all. They might implode, but for that to happen they'd have to be replaced by someone like Reform.

You're right that Tories are a failure on their own terms, and because of that the idea that the neoliberal wing of Labour will be some sort of an improvement is absurd to me.

I disagree. Specifically, I think that Labour is considerably more likely to be good at growing the economy and reducing the deficit for several reasons:

  • Labour is much more likely to spend money on services (and in particular on public sector salaries), rather than on tax cuts for the wealthiest, and this is likely to be better for overall economic growth.
  • The Conservatives dedication to austerity, Brexit and lettuce-brained tax cutting has been so appallingly damaging that it would be difficult to do worse.
  • Labour has not suffered from the purge of competence and expertise that the Conservatives inflicted upon themselves in an effort to get Brexit through. There has certainly been a purge of Corbynites from the party at large, but the parliamentary party was mostly dead set against him from the beginning so this was much less costly of experience and expertise what the Tories did to themselves.

There is also historical data to suggest that Labour tends to do better on economic growth than the Conservaives, which fits with the pattern that I have repeatedly observed: that, at least in my lifetime in the US, Canada, and the UK, the centre left party (Democrats / Liberals / Labour) has typically done better on some of the key measures, such as deficit reduction, than the centre right party (Republicans / Conservatives / Tories) usually try to lay claim to. (I recall some years ago finding a nice set of graphs looking at defecits in particular; alas I can't quickly relocate them, so consider this more my stating my priors than making a specific claim.)

Labour is much more likely to spend money on services (and in particular on public sector salaries), rather than on tax cuts for the wealthiest, and this is likely to be better for overall economic growth.

Unlike in 1997, there isn’t much more money to spend on services and public sector salaries. For all the much-maligned cuts in NHS spending, NHS spending grew every year under the Tories, even when inflation was almost nothing. The only way to spend more is to raise more, and that doesn’t mean taxing the rich, it means taxing everyone, either by bringing the 40% bracket down further or adding a new 30% bracket from, say, £25k, both of which would be extremely unpopular.

the idea that the neoliberal wing of Labour will be some sort of an improvement is absurd to me. You'll get the exact same thing, but more.

That's my expectation. There probably will be some modest benefits if you're a front line public sector worker, and some negligible trickle down in turn to their clients, but the overarching mismanagement and short-termism will continue as it has for the last 20-30-40-x0 years. In the meantime I expect mainstream variety wokery to continue unabated while Labour's biometric-internet-porn-licences style of soft authoritarianism gathers momentum.

I mean, very possible. For me voting Labour was indeed a bit of a throw of the dice. Even ignoring their policies - and there are some good ones in there I think - my suspicion is that they will do better simply becase they have more competence, more ideas, more vigour. Britain's primary problem is stagnation, and a stagnant government doesn't solve that. But if Labour do fail, and the Tories come back in 2029 with a bit of sincerity, a bit of talent, and a goddamn plan this time, well then brilliant. If marginally worse governance is the price the country has to pay for a reinvigorated Conservative party than I think that's a price worth paying. Certainly the Tories were never going to improve until they got a punch in the mouth like they got today.

If marginally worse governance is the price the country has to pay for a reinvigorated Conservative party than I think that's a price worth paying.

Absolutely, I abhor the "lesser of two evils" logic.

Sure, but the alternative logic is so much worse.

You are not alone.

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