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 -
Kind of funny coming from a government elected by 33% of the populace.
I've seen conservatives, liberals, leftists, and rightists all make this argument about some form of election where they've lost as some form of pushback, and here's the thing. If you don't vote, and you have a free and open ballot, you're saying you're fine with any option that wins. Not voting is an endorsement of the current order, whomever ends up the winner.
I have far more respect for somebody who shows up, and even just spoils their ballot or writes in something off the wall than somebody who isn't part of the process at all, then tries to act like it's not legitimate. Those who show up are the ones who create the government. You can be upset if your preference loses and be upset with the choices made of course.
But non-voters, especially ones who act as if they're above it all are silly, especially when the reality most of the 67% who didn't vote aren't doing it for some noble reason, but because they don't care, and no, they wouldn't care even if the perfect politician who you think should be in charge showed up either (I've said the same thing to my fellow lefties about Bernie).
Not engaging with the system is not an endorsement of the current system. Suppose in the next election, there was only 10% turnout. Would you consider that to be a ringing endorsement of the process? Do you think politicians would stay the course, or would they attempt to win the votes of that nonvoting 90%? Do you apply this same logic to markets? Does dismal sales actually mean that the product is fine, and that nothing should change?
Plus one vote never changed anything.
More options
Context Copy link
They got 33.7% of the votes of people who did vote. The reason they won so many seats is tory voters going for reform out of frustration.
More options
Context Copy link
The UK does not have a free and open ballot if what you want to vote for runs into restrictions on speech. It makes it very difficult for candidates to legally advertise their political position, or for you to campaign for it. In the past, it was possible to get elected from prison, but the Representation of the People Act 1981 put a stop to that. Liberal Democracy depends on a tightly interlocking system of rights to enable free elections. You don't get to pick and choose what parts you have. Removing one element can break a whole lot more.
Spoiling your secret ballot is an option. That's what I did back when de facto suppression of anti-lockdown dissidents meant I had no anti-lockdown candidates to vote for. But those weren't free and open elections, since public assembly by those expressing my favoured political views was criminalized.
More options
Context Copy link
Funny you say that, because I've seen conservatives, liberals, leftists, and rightists all make this argument.
The legitimacy of the system is derived from people participating in it, that's where all the "come on, vote, even if it's just to spoil the ballot" thing is coming from, and precisely why people refuse to vote, and precisely why others get upset with them. Also, the idea of someone voting to spoil getting respect died a horrible death with Trump and Brexit. If you actually pick a non-sanctioned option on the "free and open" ballot, a ton of shit will be dropped on you, and steps will be taken to ensure you will not be able to do it again.
Not voting is not an endorsement, it's quite obviously the opposite, though it may express that whoever wins will be just as bad as the other guy. The police under the Tories were already going after people for spicy memes, after all.
So, how low does turnout have to get before the system becomes so illegitimate it can't stay solvent, if not 33%? 20%? 10%? 5%? At which point do you predict the People will throw their hands up and say "you know what, we never voted for any of those guys, time to wreck shit"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link