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 -
Based on the news coming out of the UK, it looks like this might be the end for Queen Elizabeth II.
I think it's easy to underrate how important she has been as a figure of calm and stability after WWII. The Empire fell apart rapidly, and the Commonwealth and the UK itself might have as well if not for a universally respected figure to rally around. We'll see how things go after the initial period after her death but I would expect there to be greater support for Scottish independence and Irish reunification in the aftermath, and a growing republican movement in Commonwealth countries. Some anticipate that Charles will not become King (at the very least he probably wouldn't rule as Charles, given his namesakes) and instead abdicate for his much more popular son.
It's hard not to feel a keen sense of decline that over the course of her life the UK has gone from the likes of Churchill and Attlee to that of Bojo and Truss. Western nations have a tendency to devour each other in the culture wars and one of the few stalwart defences against that was a unifying public figure like Elizabeth II. I don't see any good coming of this.
Abdication is very unlikely. The basic principle of monarchy is that no one chooses the king, not even the king chooses to be king. If the king is chosen by a popularity contest inside the royal family, then just extend the contest to everyone and elect a president. Moreover, it would create a competition among members of the family which is not a very good idea.
More options
Context Copy link
Hate to say this but this has more relevance than when it is usually used, but UK poster here.
It feels quite eerie. The Queen is (was now, I suppose) a part of the country in a way that will be felt. You could at any time in any place put on a voice of an old woman speaking in an extra refined RP accent and people could immediately tell who you were referring to. Moreover, she lived through several decades of incredible, breakneck change. Several PMs have said of her weekly meetings that they were the most valuable time in their week, to be able to talk to someone who was as close as you could get to impartial advice and had such experience.
She was also the only thing the country could have theoretically united around as a single cultural marker. Before the Jubilee you could go outside and see union jacks and banners depicting the queen's face on almost every house, then on the day everything shut down and neighbours roped off streets to get large open spaces so that they could celebrate the event. That is gone now. Charles does not have the benefit of being a still point in a moving world and comes with several bizzare views about coffee enemas, and it is likely he will be King for the rest of this decade. We may very well see the end of the Monarchy as a cultural touchpoint and the transformation of this country into a complete satellite state of the US will be done.
There was rain and thunderstorms here all throughout the afternoon, which if you believe in portents is not a good sign.
The Queen: "Apres moi, le deluge".
More options
Context Copy link
When in real life or in social, talking about this death, I say to people that the greatest risk is the permanent loss of British cultural independence, and the loss of their social-political-cultural rally point, they see me as a crazy
Incredible how the basic function of how institutions works has been completely lost in the liberal age
Gotta agree. When bemused foreigners ask me why we have a monarchy, I point at things like royal weddings and jubilees. Because it's what we do. It's grand, old, tradition, and it's opulent spectacle without being too tasteless, and we're the best and most authentic in the world at it. And it provides a lot of cultural export and soft power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sounds like he's going with Charles III as well -- which is potentially portentious.
Very portentious.
Soon
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not one to like celebrity culture and not a brit so perhaps I'm just maximally not the target audience, but I've never understood the point of the royal family after the end of monarchy. What is the actual difference between her passing and like a Kardashian passing? As far as I know her greatest feat was being born.
What end? The monarchy is still in place.
Part of it is that her lack of controversies and the sheer length of her reign bred a pleasent familiarity, and another is that she's a symbol and common cultural touchstone for British (and more broadly and to a lesser extent Commonwealth) citizens. She has sentimental value for people.
More options
Context Copy link
The way I think of it is every country needs someone to do ceremonial bullshit. In Commonwealth countries, that's the Queen (now King) or appointed representative. In the US, it often ends up being the president. But the president also has political ties so the opposing party will complain about Obama or Trump shaking the hand of a political enemy. The president of the US has a dual role where they're both the embodiment of the people as well as the political enemy of about half the country.
The royal family serves the role of embodiment of the people while also trying to be above politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Never been a better time to abolish the monarchy than now.
More options
Context Copy link
Sounds like we won't find out whether the Queen sends a centennial congratulations letter to herself.
More options
Context Copy link
As a (non-British) subject of Her Majesty, I have never had any strong feelings towards the monarchy. But I will say this seriously, just this once:
God Save the Queen.
More options
Context Copy link
Aw. I was hoping to see her beat Louis XIV. Still, though, "second-longest reign in verifiable history" is nothing to sneeze at.
Louis had couple of years if regency... so they don't count in my book.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll be fairly surprised if the monarchy survives the decade. Charles nowhere near as endearing/feature of everybody's lives.
Well there are several monarchies in Europe and none of them has someone as popular as Elisabeth as a king or queen (spain, belgium, sweden, netherlands, luxemburg,...). Yet those monarchies survive because it is not useful to anyone to change the regime. Perhaps the british monarchy will have to be less fastuous
More options
Context Copy link
I think if there is any sign of growing anti-monarchy sentiment, Charles will step aside.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A very sad day indeed. Avoid twitter and reddit is my advice.
I especially don't see anything good coming of it as the successor is... well: https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/thegreatreset
https://web.archive.org/web/20220428181802/https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/thegreatreset
More options
Context Copy link
Whole website's down, presumably as he's no longer a Prince.
More options
Context Copy link
He's already 73 and it's a largely ceremonial role. I'm sure he'll be a bit more outspoken, but can't really see it turning into much in practice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link