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 -
It seems to me that American hegemony has created such a prosperous peace in the remainder of the West that many non-American westerners have come to hold false beliefs about the nature of their prosperity and the quality of their societies, laws and governments. For example, I often hear and read comments from citizens of other western and Anglo nations which imply that their "rights" are fundamentally the same as those enjoyed in America, or the instance that the house of Windsor has only a "ceremonial" role and can exert no power over their domain.
Consider @johnfabian 's comment down thread on Canada's notwithstanding clause (no offense to @johnfabian intended):
...
I find both of the above claims to be obviously and plainly false. The intent of the notwithstanding clause was always to give the government(s) the ability to force people to do whatever the government wanted them to do, as the notwithstanding clause serves no other purpose. The people who wrote that clause were perfectly aware of its power, and were equally aware of the arguments against such power as made by the American founders (the American Constitution being the living embodiment and quintessential rejection of such power).
Similarly, to the extent that "turn[ing] the Charter into a piece of paper" means that the populace has no de facto or de jure recourse against the government's exercise of arbitrary power, the mere presence of the notwithstanding clause means that Charter was always a piece of paper. The Charter never recognized or provided "rights." The fact that the government did not exert arbitrary power against the populace in a manner they disliked was a happy accident; and no less an exercise of arbitrary power. The populace never had de facto or de jure recourse against the government's exercise of arbitrary power (at least not of the legal sort, baring a revision of the charter to remove the clause).
Not only is this conclusion plain on the face of the Charter (and its analogs in other nations), all western cultures are familiar with the concept that an "I can do whatever I want" exception invalidates any semblance of enforceable rights. A contract which ends with "and party X promises to promise to perform in the future and, in any event, can unilaterally decide to perform or not perform its promises at any time without penalty" is not a contract in America or Canada or the UK, etc.
I'm not sure why westerners don't see or acknowledge this obvious truth. My best guess is a combination of generalized cognitive dissonance and the mistaken belief that their "rights" must be as strong as those in America because of the apparent prosperity that those rights provided (when in fact, said prosperity was always the product of American power) and the happy accident of enjoying their governments' exercise of arbitrary power upon them.
As always, if anyone is aware of more comprehensive treatments of these issues, please link those sources below.
Edit: Including my reply to a comment below for completeness.
There is so much evidence to the contrary that I do not believe that anyone sincerely holds this position. Consider the right against self-incrimination, one of England's most cherished and hard-won "customary norms." The right against self-incrimination indeed proved to be practically "constitutional" when it was eliminated for the uppity Irish in 1988 and for the rest of the country in 1994.
"On paper," meaning according to the laws of the UK (and essentially the rest of the commonwealth), the monarch:
is the sovereign and literal source of all legal authority
has the sovereign right to declare war and peace
has the sovereign right over all foreign affairs (which is why the monarch needs no passport, because it is the monarch's authority which requires and issues passports)
has the sovereign right to call, dismiss, prorogue, and recall parliament
has the sovereign right to assent and consent to the passage of all laws
owns all the land
doesn't pay taxes
etc.
This is indeed "plenty" of things.
In my opinion, the belief that the monarch exerts no practical or effective political power is due chiefly to a combination of willful ignorance and propaganda. There are simply too many examples of power being exercised to believe otherwise.
For example, in 1975, the Australian parliament shut down over a budgetary impasse. The Queen, through her Governor General (a role commonly described as "merely ceremonial"), dismissed the Prime Minister, appointed a new one, passed a bill to fund the government, and then dismissed all of the other members of parliament, triggering new elections.
Consider also the power of Royal Assent, which is often trotted out as proof that the monarch is merely "ceremonial" and wields no political power. In order for a bill to become law, after it has passed through both houses, the monarch must give their Royal Assent. The glossary on the UK Parliament's website describes Royal Assent as "the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality." Emphasis mine.
It is admitted that the monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, but that right is handwaived away as a mere formality. Does the claim that 'Royal Assent is a formality' hold up to any degree of credible scrutiny? No.
In 2021, the Guardian published a series of reports ( well summarized by this article ) about the separate and distinct power of the Queen's Consent (Monarch's Consent).
Before any bill is introduced to Parliament, it must receive the monarch's consent.
The bills must be sent to the monarch's personal solicitors at least two weeks in advance. The solicitors then negotiate changes to the bill in exchange for the monarch's consent. Also, this can be done directly by the monarch in their regular (and legally required) consultations with the Prime Minister, which are entirely private, and of which no records are made. Oh, and assuming that there were any records made, all documents "relat[ing] to" communications with the sovereign or their agents have an absolute exemption from UK's FOIA.
As the Guardian discovered, the Queen used this power repeatedly, including for the purpose of preventing a law from revealing the size of her wealth. And the Guardian was only able to find this out because the parties involved didn't care enough to avoid putting the dealings to paper, and the relevant functionary forgot to stamp the documents as exempt from UK-FOIA.
So the monarch hasn't refused Assent in a long time...because the monarch has no reason to withhold Assent from a bill they already had the opportunity to alter through their power of Consent.
How very "ceremonial" a monarch...
The one that always pops to mind for me as a refutation of this claim is the ease to which civilians can arm themselves in much of the United States. I know that people in other ostensibly free nations will disagree, but I regard this as an absolutely core freedom, integral to whether an individual is currently free and whether they're likely to remain so in the future. If you're required to justify why you need a firearm, no, your place of residence is not as free as mine.
You haven't provided an argument as to why civilians need easy access to guns for a society to be free. You are just asserting that this is the case.
If they have access to guns, then they could form militias and wage an insurgency against the government if they wanted. That capacity reduces government power, increases the power of the population. The more power you have, the more free you are.
Imagine if nobody in Afghanistan or Iraq had any guns - I think we would have won those wars and imposed our will upon those countries!
When the threat is foreign governments - as it often happens to be in large stretches of the world - what you generally greatly would want is, in addition to guns, a strong goverment of your own to coordinate the use of those guns, ie. have an army. When it comes to the idea of Russians barreling to Finland Ukraine-style, I would much rather put my trust to the Finnish army than to civilians with guns to hinder the onslaught.
I realize that as a Finnish person, you are confronting this reality far more closely than I, but my immediate reaction is por que no los dos? In your shoes, I would like to have an army, an armed populace, many allies, and space lasers if I could get them, or at least as many of those as possible!
Finland has comparatively high levels of small arms ownership, which is good for defense - precisely in the sense that people who would eventually, in a crisis situation, defend the country as conscripts in the army can use their guns for practice (and the Finnish government has explicitly defended an opt-out from EU gun legislation for this reason). However, in the event of an actual invasion, this wouldn't do much good, since the purpose and intent is to leave no civilians remaining in any potentially occupied territories, ie. evacuate them to other regions before Russian troops might get there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link