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 -
Voters in Britain apparently considered it to not be a sufficiently important issue to vote for a different party over. There is a clear enough choice: you can continue voting for the parties that made it clear in word and deed that they want more immigration, or you can vote for literally any other parties, or you can start your own.
What are they supposed to do when their major parties both say 'oh we'll lower immigration' and then raise it? They voted for Brexit, many thinking this would finally reduce immigration and it still didn't.
https://twitter.com/t848m0/status/1560662923101347840
When the major parties, NGO blob, big companies and the bulk of the media have a consensus to increase immigration it's difficult to start new parties and move against them, let alone to actually get into govt and implement policies.
You seem to be painting a picture where the problem is basically that voters are too stupid (to see through lies and avoid repeatedly being fooled, or pay attention when the proponents of Brexit make it clear that they aren't actually against immigration) and helpless (to build their own institutions and political parties, or even "just" start a revolution) to get their preferences satisfied. At that point, it's hard to even invoke something like a social contract for why politicians should heed voter interests in this matter, since a contract implies a deal which implies some sort of mutual benefit and evidently there is no detriment to politicians from defecting; and all that you can appeal to is some sort of slave-morality pity or obligation towards their inferiors. Wolves and lambs can never be of one mind, etc.
They're not stupid, they (rightfully) get apathetic about the prospect of achieving change through electoral politics when they face a myriad of manufactured legal/political constraints to achieving their goals. This leads to much less trust in the government and less national cohesion. On the whole, the Brexit campaign was associated with future immigration reduction, this is the broad essence of what was communicated. It's very hard to argue against this:
That the Brexiteers didn't formally promise to reduce immigration afterwards does not remove from the fact that the referendum was about reduction of immigration as far as voters were concerned. And putting communications to one side, Brexit was a necessary prerequisite to preventing immigration, EU had freedom of movement.
They'll have lots of fun with a population that instinctively resists their policies and distrusts their leaders. I'm eager to see how they fill the ranks of the grossly understrength British Army in this climate. Do they think people are going to make any sacrifices for their country, when it is not their country?
Politicians aren't wolves, they're fat cats who rely on the increasingly grudging consent of the governed. Haven't you read the hundred million articles complaining about the decline of democratic ideology, trust in government, populism, political radicalism, misinformation, conspiracy theories? This has severe longterm consequences for the sustainability of the system, it induces fragility.
If you are being lied to repeatedly, but still continue believing what you are told, that seems like a pretty canonical indicator of insufficient brainpower, informally known as stupidity. Your subsequent quote also further confirms that Brexit voters voted for Brexit because they expected it to lead to a reduction in immigration. If being able to predict the consequences of your actions is not a measure of intelligence, then what is?
I mean, the first half of your post, put in the context of everything that happened before Brexit (and I'm sure that any attentive participant of the political system can show me a long list of instances of the electorate being deceived since the dawn of democracy), seems to suggest that the population is actually quite credulous and trusting of their leaders despite everything. At the moment Labour seems to be leading in polls, but I'm sure that if they get elected and screw up in some way power will revert to the Tories. Clearly there is no sufficient distrust to make people do something as drastic as vote third or rather fourth party, or do anything else that would reveal a preference for not continuing in the same way and deferring to the same leaders. I doubt politicians will lose many nights of sleep over people saying in TV interviews that they don't trust them and will resist their policies, as long as those people reliably keep paying their taxes, spinning in the hamster wheel, obeying the laws and voting for them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, if there's a secret amount of people who's #1 view is cut immigration, then just like w/ UKIP, an anti-immigration party should be able to run and effect politics the same way UKIP got moderate globalist David Cameron to OK a Brexit referendum.
The UK is a different animal than the US when it comes to minor parties.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link