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 -
Doesn't seem to be playing out that way in Canada -- I keep waiting for the egregoire to notice that we are locked in a cage with an 800lb gorilla and are responding to his shitflinging by poking him with a (slim) stick, but even normally levelheaded folks are so wrapped in the flag (the one they were spitting on a couple of years ago when it was being flown by truckers) that I can't see it happening no matter how bad things get.
If you go broke enough you may not become a state, bug I guess the US will accept you as a territory
There is no scenario where Canada becomes part of the US voluntarily. It just isn't politically possible. Canada has a deep-seated anti-Americanism, which doesn't normally manifest as hate towards the US, but it does manifest as a deep conviction to never be part of the US.
Remember, Canada was largely founded by Americans who were loyal to the Crown during the American Revolution and established new settlements in a freezing cold theretofore sparsely populated territory. It is the only country that was founded in explicit opposition to the founding principles of the US. And then followed two hundred and seventy years of selective migration of Canadians who did not care about this out of the country into the more prosperous and warmer US.
Today, the politics are very different, but not being American is still the single core defining feature of our national identity, which we latch onto because we are culturally so similar. Quebec is another story, in that they have a different ethnic origin and a separate national identity, but they only make voluntary annexation more certainly impossible, because a change to the constitution of this kind would require unanimous agreement by all ten provinces. And if English Canada defines itself by not being American, modern Quebec defines itself by its French language and there is no more sacred political principle in Quebec than the belief that the French language must be protected by law. These laws would undoubtedly violate the first amendment. They violate Canada's own constitutionally protected freedom of expression, but Quebec sidesteps that using the notorious notwithstanding clause. Quebec will not join the US and be forced to give them up.
No amount of economic pressure is going to make Canadians want to give up these cherished identities. For most of our country's history, Canadians have been able to increase their incomes substantially by moving to the US. The profesional class in Canada can still do this, and there is still a significant brain drain. As irrational as it may seem, the ones who remain do not care as much about their material well-being as they do about preserving their independence and national identity, even if they associate it with ideas about peacekeeping and free healthcare rather than loyalty to the British Crown.
Annexation is extremely unpopular and there is an absolute determination not to get stuck with what is regarded here as a seriously dysfunctional political culture.
Minor part of your broader point, but could you sketch out the argument here? I'm not sure whether I'm missing some portion of what these laws do or some portion of 1A precedent.
There are law that forbid the use of languages other than French in many situations. For example, businesses must be able to communicate to employees in French. Employees have the right to demand that all communication be in French. Employment offer letters must be in French. Engineers and doctors must speak French.
More options
Context Copy link
Core things like that in Quebec many things must be in French, from store signs to school classes.
I'm not sure what the 1A argument is, though. Moreover, I have a factual question. Do such laws prevent store signs from also having other languages, or do they just mandate that French must be present? If the former, I could perhaps see a 1A challenge that they are restricting speech. If just the latter, it's not so clear to me. There is some compelled nature to the speech, but the standards there are different, especially if it's just commercial regulation or gov't-run schools. So yeah, I'd really appreciate if anyone could put out at least a sketch of the argument.
It's a law that controls what people say and write.
It can have other languages, but French has to be more prominent.
You and I are talking. You are my employee. That means you can demand that I speak French and it is enforced by the government, so the government is controlling what I say. I cannot send an email to you in English if you have asked that I speak in French to you.
I'm a doctor and you're my patient. The government can force me to speak French to you if you want.
I'm an engineer and you're my client. The government can require that I speak to you in French.
I want to hire you for a job. We both speak English. We both want to speak English. The employment offer letter has to be in French.
I have a business and I want the name of the business to contain an English word. The government will force me to translate it to French.
You know what, I was going to go point-by-point and discuss some of this, but I'm going to wait on that. What I'd like to wait for is to hear you say anything at all about 1A law. I just don't see any of that yet. None of the keywords. Nothing about content-neutral/content-based, viewpoint-neutral/viewpoint-based, nothing about the compelled speech doctrine and its extent/limits, nothing about the standards for commercial speech, etc.
The first amendment prohibits state governments from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech, unless it falls under a few exempted categories of speech restriction, such as laws against obscenity, defamation, and threats. Forcing people to speak French is not in one of those categories. So you explain to me why those other concepts are relevant and why this is a case where abridging freedom of speech would be allowed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Quebec has a language police which goes around and makes sure that the French letters on storefronts and signs are bigger than the English.
Sure... weird to our sensibilities, but, uh, what's the 1A violation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska
Not necessarily a first amendment violation in this case, but still unconstitutional.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link