site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Even Thatcher, elected on an inflation-fighting platform in 1979 and subsequently said by many to have brought inflation down too rapidly, only brought inflation down to about 5% by late 1982, which was exactly the figure that Labour promised in their 1979 manifesto:

That is more that the UK followed USA monetary policy. Even after the fixed exchange rate system that was Bretton Woods ended, countries still didn't want their exchange rates to the dollar to change very much. It was the tightening by the Federal Reserve that forced the Bank of England's hand.

True to some extent, but the UK exchange rate with the dollar did vary a lot in this period:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=19Q2p

Exchange rates always vary alot for various reasons. The question is if they follow changes in USA monetary policy. And they do. It's easy to see in the graph.

Insofar as exchange rates are varying due to divergences between UK and US monetary policy, the Fed is not forcing the Bank of England's hand.

In theory they could just let the exchange rate vary, but in practice they don't. That was my point. It's no coincidence inflation fell world wide after 1982 when it fell in the USA. Just like there was worldwide deflation in 2008 when there was deflation in the USA.

It's hardly relevant to his point. They were still being criticized for implementing the Labour platform. Your argument means they might not have even done that, were it not for the US.