site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29676 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’d heard there was a nullification crisis going on in Canada- is this true, and to what extent is it driven by that stuff?

Yes, its related. In Canada provinces can create carbon pricing schemes, but if they dont, the Federal government imposes a 'backstop' carbon tax. The revenues of that tax get rebated to people per capita, creating a 'climate UBI' of a few hundred bucks. The incidence of that tax falls hardest on rural people who drive the most since in practice the tax is implemented as a tax on gas and various ways of heating homes. The crisis started when the Liberal government removed the carbon tax from home heating oil which is only used in a handful of provinces which vote liberal as a vote buying maneuver. Sounds uncharitable, but a minister came on TV and said that if other provinces wanted carve outs like that they should elect more liberals.

In response, the conservative government of Saskatchewan -- one of our most right-wing provinces -- promised to nullify the carbon tax by refusing to collect it. Its still a live issue, as the nullification starts Jan 1.

This is emblematic of another thing our government loves to do: alienate its conservative citizens. The danger is that many of those people are highly geographically concentrated on the prairies. And the support is overwhelming. In much of the rural west, the Liberals get about 15% of the vote compared to conservatives with 65%. This sort of thing is partly why I think we underestimate the likelihood that western provinces leave in the next few decades.

I'm not that familiar with the culture of western Canada, but don't people there have very shallow roots? Aren't most of them, if they're not foreign, from eastern Canada within a few generations? I find it hard to believe that such people would separate. It's a totally different situation in Quebec.

It would also become harder to sell their oil unless British Columbia left with them.

Aren't most of them, if they're not foreign, from eastern Canada within a few generations?

Well, that depends on where you go in Western Canada- even those provinces are not the same.

For instance, if you go to Manitoba (and to a point, Saskatchewan) there's a significant chunk of that population with native ancestry that goes back to the earliest French contact (which is why the word that describes being a half-breed, 'métis'(1), is French), and this faction was politically powerful enough in the late 1860s to rebel hard enough to force the newly-created government of Canada to create the province as a distinct entity in the first place. So ancestral roots of a non-trivial portion of the people who live there run a bit deeper than those of the average western US state, and that's reflected in its governance even today.

Manitoba doesn't have many resources as the land to its West does, mainly because the province is one giant peat bog whose total theoretical arable land is basically 50% underwater (so... not great for farming)- Minnesota may be the land of 10,000 lakes, but Manitoba's title of the land of 100,000 lakes is actually kind of underselling it given its three largest bodies of water are roughly the size of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie combined. If you want a better look at where economic activity is possible in Manitoba, it is illustrative to look at its 1870 border... which to this day, still encompasses every city and town in the province with a population over 15000; this further speaks to a shockingly bad distribution of resources.

The land gets easier to work as you go west to Saskatchewan; which had fewer people and was populated later by the typical settler population one would expect to see in western US states. Most of its land is above ground this time (it is the flattest province) and the granite slab ends in this province- plus, it has some oil, so while there are less people they're wealthier on average. Most famous for its universal healthcare system (which would be used as a model for every other province) and competently-run government; traditionally a purple state like the Dakotas and Montana, much like Manitoba, for the same reasons (and the same kind of immigrant population).

Alberta is a different animal since it actually has economic opportunity thanks to its oil fields; both of its major cities contain an order of magnitude more people than those in Saskatchewan. Cold Texas is the right way to describe it- the land in Alberta is 1/6th desert, 1/3rd mountains, and the growing season is much shorter around the major population centers due to their latitude, but the province has managed its wealth well enough to diversify (the existence of non-resource-extraction jobs being something that, along with the relative ease of building homes on its land, have kept prices to reasonable levels while still allowing rapid expansion).

BC is... well, a lot like Washington in that the two major cities on the ocean and the rest of the province tend to find themselves at odds politically, for most of the same reasons.

It would also become harder to sell their oil unless British Columbia left with them.

If push came to shove separation-wise, I think BC could quite easily be torn in half more or less along the 52nd parallel- Vancouver is probably powerful enough, and its culture common enough, to retain both the cities below that line and the various islands that depend on Vancouver to survive, but I don't think it's powerful enough to keep Kitimat (which is currently the sea route Alberta is already using to sell its oil).

I find it hard to believe that such people would separate.

I do too, but for the exact opposite reason: it's that significant sections of Upper Canada are generally, by and large, OK with rule by Western Canada. It's both Lower Canada (that is to say, Quebec) and the Maritime provinces that generally aren't- the latter are relevant because they're essentially the Rust Belt of the nation and fully dependent on handouts ever since the Grand Banks were destroyed... which naturally puts them at odds with provinces that would like to keep more of their own economic output. They've been in decline for the past 3 decades and the average resident age of the province that took the brunt of it is pushing 50, with the others not fairing much better at an average of 45.

As far as Quebec goes... well, I defer to Kulak on that one, though I think the bureaucracy in Ottawa (and to a point, Toronto) also counts as intentionally hostile. Perhaps the attempts to inculcate hostility in these power bases against the rest of the country actually was an attempt at long-term strategy?

(1) Pronounced the way a pirate refers to his crew, not "meh-tiss".

(1) Pronounced the way a pirate refers to his crew, not "meh-tiss".

Wait, what? I've never heard it this way. (4th gen Western Canadian checking in -- I guess that's more than 'a few' but considering that people were still going overland in wagons 5 generations before my birth it's indeed rare to be much higher without native ancestry)

If they leave, where do they go? Try to join the US? Create the Dominion of Based Canada?

A smarter US would be trying to get them to join the US.

They would contaminate us with their policies. Our politics would be to some degree merged with theirs.

Western Canada only has about 12 million people compared to the US's 330 million.

Correct. And 3 or so new blue states would each get a couple senators, a few congresspeople and a corresponding amount of electoral votes. Which could drive American politics in a new direction.

It's the idea that if Texas turns blue then the Republicans are finished. A few successive Democratic administrations with supporting congress will rewrite our laws and stack our courts full of judges who will support them. And the Republican path too electoral victory is to narrow to survive a blue Texas (or blue British Columbia plus Albert plus maybe some more).

Assimilation only happens on US terms. It would quickly overwhelm Canada and bring it in line with US politics.

Most of the distasteful shit (from my perspective anyway - anti-migrant Canadians must hate both parties since I came over in Harper's time...) is Liberal stuff they can get away with because there's no GOP and governmental splits. That changes in the US system.

People keep wrongly thinking the Republican party will be vanquished forever as a contender for president and having a majority of congress if only Texas would drift a bit bluer. The thinking goes that any year now they will be a permanent minority in terms of national elected officials.

If we let large portions of Canada into the US, then eventually they will get to vote for Congressional representatives and president. Then the Republican party will be vanquished forever. Or until they realign in such a way as to capture around half the national level power. Which I characterize as being contaminated by Canadian politics.

Western Canada is HEAVILY covservative, and the most immediate impact would be all the Blue canadians move to blue state for bureaucracy jobs and tons of Red Americans move north for Resource extraction jobs

Canada is so far to the left of the US that a Canadian conservative would still fit comfortably in the Democratic party.

I thought BC was majority social democrats NDP. They aren't about to vote Republican.

But googling a bit I seem to have been off base claiming Alberta would be blue. They might side with Republicans. News headlines are a bit comical about their "hard right turn", etc. Such scary language.

Yukon is surprisingly liberal. As an American I naively wouldn't have guessed.

But maybe I deeply misunderstand Canada. Which I really might. Please no one take my American clicking around on Google as serious understanding of Canadian politics.

More comments

Alberta is cold Texas. Who doesn't want more Texas in the US?

Obligatory reminder that Texas is not actually a bastion of freedom

For non-potheads, Texas is relatively free, and education savings accounts will happen- Greg Abbott is personally campaigning for primary challengers to republicans that voted against it, you’re looking at a much darker red in the Texas state legislature ‘25.

I'm sorry I promise I will read the full report and treat it with absolute seriousness, as soon as I get over laughing at #Cannabis And Salvia Freedom

If that section doesn't end with the writer becoming a gelatinous 5-dimensional cube falling through an endless universe of mirrors for ten billion years, I will concede that his Salvia Freedom has been Infringed.
Not mocking anyone here: libertarians are my favorite people because they're the only fun political group left.

If you download the full spreadsheet and reduce the weight of incarceration rate to zero in the calculations, Texas still ends up at a pitiful #46 on personal freedom.

Gambling: #39
Marriage: #44
Education: #35
Marijuana: #50
Asset forfeiture: #42
Travel: #50

More comments

Would help the US in its great power competition with China.

If Canada lost some territory to the US, it would become even more dependent on the US.

Western Canada is much wealthier than eastern Canada. The GDP per capita there is only slightly less than it is in the US.

Like how Italy ""helped"" the Nazis in WW2. Bad allies are a liability. Unless the plan is for Americans to "drill, baby, drill" Canada for natural resources.

Does the US really need an additional few (compared to them) poor states added to it? Maybe linking up to Alaska by land would be nice but beyond that?

Alberta is the standout but Saskatchewan and Manitoba are no slouches either: as global warming progresses the US agricultural zones slowly creep northward. All of our Ukrainians have historically lived there, as well.

Alberta and Saskatchewan are richer than the US as result of their natural resources, but Manitoba is well below the Canadian average.

Alberta is a rich province thanks largely to oil. It is way above the Canadian average and would be in the top half of states.

Fair enough. That would definitely be a good add to the USA. Probably worth the rest of the baggage too if you can get Alberta.

At least Alberta is a massive subsidy to the rest of Canada, I think.

Would they still be poor if they were inside the US?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats