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 -
My top issues are basically identical to yours, but wouldn't it be fair to levy this criticism at Poilievre as well? From what I can tell, Poilievre is as wishy washy as Carney. Really, only Bernier is serious about tackling immigration, although I wonder if people can pressure Carney to get tough on immigration.
A close reading of statements and actions tells me that Carney is much more bullish on immigration than Poilievre. Carney appointed the founder of the century initiative as an advisor and is inheriting much of the same team as his predecessor. The current immigration targets which Carney has said nothing about are 395,000 falling to 365,000 per year.
Poilievre has been cagey but clearly wants numbers down. He has said good things about Harper’s system which was 200,000-250,000 per year and he has also said the number of immigrants will not be greater than the number of housing completions the year before. We are on track for housing completions to fall well below 200,000 in the next few years.
So there is daylight there, but I agree the Overton window has not moved sufficiently far towards the correct number which is less than 100,000 indefinitely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link