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 -
If American poasters think the consequences of his policies were terrible but Canadians kept re-electing him, there is the definite possibility that the consequences of his policies were not, in fact, terrible, at least for his first two terms.
I can't speak for Canada under Trudeau, but the two examples in the UK of a long-serving, historically successful, Prime Minister becoming catastrophically unpopular in their third term both involve the country being worse governed and not chickens coming home to roost from the honeymoon period. Thatcher did the Poll Tax, which was a genuine disaster. Blair did Iraq, which was unpopular in itself, but also became a distraction which prevented him continuing to push his ambitious domestic-policy agenda (which had been working in the first term - public services got visibly much better with only a small increase in spending). The "domestic policy" section of the wikipedia article on Blair's third term is entirely about counter-terrorist policy, which was also something which was less important than it looked and should have been delegated.
But the first two terms of both Thatcher and Blair were genuinely great times to be British. (Unless you were a union worker in one of the industries Thatcher stopped subsidising, I suppose). Thatcher's legacy was generally good - most of the damage of "Thatcherism" is about the next generation of right-wingers hanging on the ramblings of an increasingly demented elderly lady rather than doing the work of applying her insights to the circumstances of their (our) own generation. The worst parts of the legacy Blair left were not entirely his fault - the things that are most wrong with the UK post-GFC (not building enough houses, failure to diversify the economy away from business and professional services, not integrating or civilising the descendants of Mirpuri Pakistanis who immigrated in the 1960's) are all the working out of trends which predate Blair, although he enthusiastically allowed them to continue.
Canadian poster here -- the consequences of the policies were indeed terrible. A bit of a slow burn for the first few years maybe, but the fact that he lost his majority after the first term seems indicative of some sort of decline?
National politics are weird here, because the country is large and diverse -- Ontario is basically full of sheeple, but a lot of them -- and therefore the electoral map is such that being Current Thing enough for that crowd is enough to coast along pretty indefinitely winning minorities. This is basically what he's done; tbqh I'm coming around to separation as a solution (although I'd much prefer decentralization) now that Carney's decided backroom deals to secure a "mandate" are his best way forward.
More options
Context Copy link
Before Boomers, the "Greatest Generation" and the Silent Generation were sold a bill of goods with the Hart-Celler Act, they were assured the character of the nation wouldn't change. Yet here we are. People are stupid in aggregate, some of them are malicious.
More options
Context Copy link
Um, she did a little more than "stop subsidizing" them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link