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 know the reasons, but it still blows my mind to hear of a housing shortage in Canada. A shortage of ice or spruces seems even more ex ante plausible.
Elections generally aren't decided on particular issues. Widespread approval of the death penalty has been compatible with its permanent abolition in many countries. Those in favour of mass immigration just have to ensure that (a) opposing parties almost never get into power, (b) let the opposing parties play tough, while throwing everything against each step, so the parties are incentivised to do cosmetic measures, and (c) if they do get into power and introduce substantial measures, ensure that their laws/executive orders are not enforced or blocked by the judiciacy.
While this is true, unlike many republics, Canada's provinces have a huge degree of power that even many other federations don't usually have. When Canada merged the western provinces into the Federation in 1867 they gave many powers that didn't seem consequential at the time into the hands of the provinces, ones that they probably wished they hadn't done so in hindsight. Civil rights, for example, is in large part up to provincial discretion. Education in all forms as well. So in theory there is only so much the federal government could enforce, and it's not just a matter of keeping one opposing party in check, but many in different provinces.
Honestly, Sask.'s recent actions on this front. Have me conflicted about its use of the Notwithstanding Clause to brute force its own view of education/civil rights.
On the one hand the potential for abuse and tyranny seem obvious. On the other hand, I honestly don't trust the federal government or judiciary. If you told me Canadian elites watched TV for stuff that couldn't get passed in the US to try to pull I'd believe you.
They really shouldn't need to have used this (and I find it strange they went that route, since a lot of this is just "Conservatives driving the speed limit"- of course, the fact that it limits transitions of children of non-progressive parents is the thing trans advocates are angriest about for what should be obvious reasons), but I don't trust Ottawa not to try anything for a base that could really use a "fighting oppression" narrative right about now.
Provinces don't have the power to override the federal Criminal Code, so all an unfriendly government would have to do is make it illegal for a parent to not sign the consent form, then enforce that law with the usual prejudice. Or just pull federal funding for programs in non-compliant provinces; SK is better off than Atlantic Canada but it's still a weaker province.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link