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 -
I don't think that's true.
Look, I know that it's fallacious to assume that people always act rationally and therefore if they're doing something that seems to not make sense it must make sense in some hidden, often evil, way.
On the other hand, well, I took a quick look, and let me quote the Final Report of the Referendum Council, which AFAICT is not a forgery (if it is, please tell me so I can don the Mask of Ultimate Embarrassment and Shame):
These would seem to be activists who want it to have the power to block legislation.
I agree that a lot, probably most, of the "Yes" supporters honestly do not believe it will have power, and that their enthusiasm is therefore not explained by this idea (whether or not I believe their protestations to be accurate descriptions of reality*). But there definitely do exist some who want it, and they seem to have been among those that originally called for this to be Constitutional, which would seem to explain at least those people's motives.
*If the referendum were to pass, it is nigh-inevitable that someone in the Greens would publically ask for it to have powers. And at that point, the superweapon of "you racist" comes into play against Labour and (the rest of) the Greens refusing to comply (though not against One Nation, the Nationals, and to some degree the Liberals; they've written that off as a sunk cost). Do I think it'd actually make it through? Probably not; the HoR can be won with only people vulnerable to the superweapon, but while the Senate's mathematically possible it'd need every single LW party member and both non-RW independents so I think there'd be at least one person going "fuck it, I didn't sign up for this, shoot me" and one's enough. I'm certainly concerned enough about this issue not to risk voting Yes, though.
That's certainly in the report, yes. See page 30 of the full report (38 of the PDF). I'll grant that 'nobody' was hyperbole on my part. However, the report is collecting the suggestions of panels of indigenous people all over the country, rather than putting them forward as a practical proposal. As far as I can tell nobody is seriously putting forward a proposal for an indigenous Voice with the power to block or constrain acts of parliament. Any such proposal would be even more dead on arrival than the Voice currently is.
I certainly agree that the intent behind the Voice, particularly for existing indigenous activists, is to use it as a stepping stone to Truth and Treaty. I expect a move to Truth and Treaty regardless of the outcome of the referendum. If Yes wins, I think the Voice will be a body that pushes for further reforms. If No wins, I think it will be taken as evidence that the Australian people are deeply racist and ignorant (hence the need for Truth) and that Aboriginal people need a body that gives them real power (hence Treaty).
Oh, they'll try. But as I noted to AshLael, I think getting decisively defeated in a referendum (they're looking at something like 60-40 and losing five states) could well solidify consensus against them. Remember: we're not as far gone as the USA. The Greens might be close, but Labor can't get away with simply calling 60% of Australia a "basket of deplorables". Look at the ABC's referendum coverage. It's slanted as fuck, but there is a pretence of neutrality that is just not there in the US's MSM; there is clearly an editorial policy in place that they cannot explicitly say "Yes is right" and that they do have to give a fair hearing to even central examples of "No" voters. Under a Liberal government that would be expected*, but Labour's in government and Labour wants Yes to win. There are still rules in the culture war here in Australia. And the SJers have been pointing out that one of those rules is that defying a referendum is bad juju.
(NB: it's great that there are still rules, and it's bad that we're having this referendum because that frays those rules just a little more. I didn't want this, even though I did vote Labor because elections unfortunately don't give you unbundled choices. But hey, silver lining, right?)
*for non-Aussies reading this: because the ABC is a government organ. While the ABC usually is willing to criticise the government, and it's considered bad juju to fuck with its editorial policies for partisan reasons (another convention that remains in place here), there is a threshold of hostile propaganda at which the Liberals would say "fuck it" and start firing people or simply defund the whole organisation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link