site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   32426 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

or the instance that the house of Windsor has only a "ceremonial" role and can exert no power over their domain.

What non-ceremonial power do you think that they can exert, that is not what, for instance, a celebrity could?

Happy to provide an answer but I need additional context:

- what is your level of knowledge about the UK's system of laws, the monarchy, and the commonwealth?

- are you a citizen of either the commonwealth or America?

See my reply to a similar comment above

@Tarnstellung

You should provide the needed context for the typical reader to understand. "Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion."

The King of Canada still has the right to dissolve his parliament. So does the King of England apparently.

Every time I've heard this discussed, the consensus seems to be that the King might be able to dissolve parliament once on a technicality, but would fairly quickly find himself stripped of that power, perhaps of the Crown itself, and possibly the dissolution of the office. Several post-colonial states have successfully done this, most recently Barbados last year.

But as someone not a subject to aforementioned crown, I can't trivially vouch for that expectation's accuracy.

I honestly doubt Canadians would fight back. Consecutive Canadian governments have used the crowns' power to suspend a parliment when things were getting too spicy and a vote of confidence neared. Harper's Conservatives twice and Trudeau's Liberals once (in the middle of a pandemic) so far. A modern Canadian wouldn't bat an eye if something like the King-Byng affair happened again.

I'm pretty sure if you went to a random coffee shop or something that's not particularly politically-biased-sample and asked people this, most people would not support the king using political power in a dramatic or disruptive way.

Consecutive Canadian governments have used the crowns' power to suspend a parliment when things were getting too spicy and a vote of confidence neared.

Done by Canadian Governor-Generals, chosen by Canadians no?

I'm more willing than most to mock Canada's lack of nationalism but I think King Charles doing it is a whole other thing.

I remember when Prince Harry was leaving the Royal Family and there was talk he was moving to Canada and the general impression I got was that Canadians just didn't want him mooching off them for security rather than the adoration you'd think.

Our governor generals are appointed by the Crown. The PM recommends, but it is still a royal function.

It worked out alright for Charles II but not so well for his heir. Did not work out quite so well for Charlies I. Third times the charm though, right? Barbados had some strong Republican tendencies already with how they handled independence and the Republican turn was timed with an anniversary of that event. Many of the other likely soon-to-be republics seem more like they wanted to go the Republican route anyways and were just waiting out the Queen and her general popularity.

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