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 -
The oddest thing to me is the repeated insistence that Canada will be the 51st state, when Canada would clearly be states 51-61.
That would irreversibly destroy the American Republic. 22 Canadian Senator and that many votes in the electoral college would ruin us. I'd rather the dissolution of the US compared to being chained to that anchor.
In fact I'd go the other way and make them a territory. They can have non-voting Congressional representatives and nothing more. Cold Puerto Rico.
More options
Context Copy link
It's a humiliation ritual. Canada as a single state would not disrupt elections for Republicans too much.
Though you know. I would like to see our dear based conservative Mottizens make the case that Canadians are inherently a slave race without telos, and thus get no votes at all. And cite X frying my brain as an explanation for my lack of comprehension. I want more Sephiroth posting like this shit.
Might even be fair.
I didn't see your comment before I wrote mine. Yes I just commented saying I'd prefer them to be a territory. Like Puerto Rico. I think the US would be ruined if Canadians get dozens of electoral college votes.
It would be a second California for Federal elections. I mean that in the worst sense possible.
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Marianas islands. The residents of these places are not slave races. They are not lower than me in terms of dignity. They don't get senators. Their Congressional representatives can't vote. They don't vote for president. That's fine. That's about right for Canada.
George III, welcome back! We missed you.
More options
Context Copy link
The first statement is contradicted by the subsequent ones. Not only do the people of PR, Guam, etc... not get an equal say in their country's government (as is the case between the residents of various states); they don't get any say. They are beneath you in dignity because they are your subjects. Subjects on fairly generous terms, I will grant you, but those terms are dictated to them by Congress and are subject to change without their consent.
Why, in hypothetical US-Canadian union, shouldn't Canadians get terms at least as good a deal as California, if not Wyoming?
In a hypothetical US-Canadian union, Canada has shown itself to be incapable of independent self governance and needs to be kept away from influencing American federal politics. Some moderate amount of local control would be tolerated but absolutely no say in Federal matters. Otherwise they would drag us down to their level.
What insanity could cause Americans to chain themselves to that anchor? Canada is a sad lesson in the possible governmental failure modes America could suffer from. The wounds were self-inflicted through poor governance. I'm a father; I can't force that bleak Canadian future onto my kids. They can't be allowed to harm American politics like this.
The truly baffling thing here is Canadians thinking they are somehow privileged and above Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans have been US citizens for over a century. Canadians have been (understandably) oppositional to Americans since 1812. I get it, but they are truly last in line for getting electoral votes. I'd grant the Philippines statehood and Senators before Canada.
Apparently the desire of the current president for territorial acquisitions, but a slightly more charitable answer is that it would facilitate military and economic cooperation.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to illustrate. Much of this document is blotted out for some reason, about half of the remaining space is dedicated to talking about climate change, and the remainder is some pretty generic faff about future law enforcement problems.
Not to put too fine a point on it, this post just seems like chauvinistic posturing without substance. What specific aspects of poor governance would you identify in Canada or Canadian provinces relative to the US or particular states? The US already has whole regions of badly government territory e.g. the South, and so far disenfranchising the South remains a relatively fringe opinion.
That document was an internal RCMP risk estimation for the near future. It was obtained using the Canadian equivalent of the freedom of information act. They heavily censored it before releasing it resulting in those blanked out sections. They left in one relevant part:
This is a direct result of Canadian federal policy. For every three Canadians, import one immigrant. But don't build a new housing unit for every three existing units, so the number of units per resident decreases over time and the costs increase.
The young are screwed in Canada. To the point it is a law enforcement cause for concern regarding social stability.
I don't want my country made similar to their's by them swinging every presidential election in their direction. I get their natural resources are valuable. Their economy already is an extension of ours with something like 80% of their trade being with us and 90% of their population being within 100 miles of the border. There's much to be attracted to for a closer economic relationship. I'm not objecting to their lumber and car parts. But the rot in their politics would be a fatal disease.
Which is why I want the culture of the people that voted for it utterly destroyed, as do the other 49% of Canadians.
A simple '51st' would probably be fine so long as the US mandates the new state incorporate its system of "prevent urban New England and California from imposing the dictatorship they want", because those are the people, and that is the culture, that causes the vast majority of the problems here. The soap and ballot boxes are in the rearview mirror.
Those 49% of Canadians were already moving that way before you got involved, of course.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This makes it sound as if the response to the 51st state about seat allocation and not just terror and anger at the idea itself.
Any Canadian who wants to become an American and can hack it takes a short drive down. The ones who stay were fine with deep economic and cultural links without being Americans. Well, mostly.
Someone has to step me through the terror and anger at the idea itself. Canada is actively suicidal and self-hating, I honestly don't see what a postnational country is supposed to fear about losing independence.
The European reaction to the Greenland affair is similarly deranged.
I can channel @ThisIsSin and say that there's actually nothing particularly arcane or hypocritical about it. The "post-national" state is still ruled by the powers that be in eastern Canada, so it's really their state regardless of whatever legitimizing ideology they stamp on it.
One can also say that Trudeau's point was essentially just an entrenchment of the compromise on Quebec that is now being applied to new migrants. The lack of a Canadian mainstream means the lack of any national identity that excludes French Canadians and other premium minorities (First Nations) which is really just securing their position and the status quo. Why would they want to lose that? Especially since the current status quo gives them more of a lever for cultural preservation than Anglos (there'd also be no escape hatch from the Supreme Court in the US like they currently have with the Notwithstanding Clause). It's in line with self-interest to prefer a non-assertive federal government.
Even putting that all aside, Trump's offer was admirably concrete for once: 51st state. One state for all the disparate interests. Even if you had no sentimental attachment to Canada at all and actually trusted Trump's word you can see that as a bad deal. I doubt even Sin would consider that optimal.
But, honestly, who cares? The whole point of sovereignty is that you decide, even if it's stupid. I don't understand this weird complaint that, because people want to configure their nation in a particular way (in ways Americans or even I might find insipid) that compels them to yield any demand made by odious, unserious bullies like Trump.
I especially don't get the complaint that it's a violation of truth in advertising. I don't know how you square the idea that Canada is anti-nationalist, with the claim that Canadian nationalism is loudly and consistently about being anti-American and act surprise that Canadians don't react well to the idea that they'll be annexed against their will. And I'm seeing all three in this thread.
Never give up clay if you can help it. Very old law.
I'm not saying it's hypocritical, I'm saying it's insane. I honestly don't see how one is supposed to be a cause for a freakout while the other is not.
One way or the other you're still being displaced by foreigners.
Nations lost territory and survived, or even thrived. Full-fledged demographic replacement didn't usually end half as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This strikes me as when a reddit atheist meme smugly says "if you believe you're going to heaven and heaven is so much more important than anything on earth, why don't you let me kill you".
It is obviously bad to be killed (even as the more articulate Christian replies with "that would be aiding you in committing the sin of murder", which I believe is post-hoc reasoning and not something that is the first line of mental defense against the idea of being killed), and it is obviously bad to be dominated by a contemptible enemy.
I don't see the similarity. For one, Christians aren't actually that sure they will go to heaven. But more importantly, post-nationalism is not a promise of a utopian future, it's a policy of depriving the native populations of their sovereignty that is being implemented right now. The only argument I can imagine why it would be preferable to becoming a province of another country, is that it is happening more slowly, and gives you some hope of turning it back around before it actually happens.
On the other hand once it does happen it's a lot harder to reverse than loss of independence, and (again) more importantly, no one upset at the prospect of losing independence is upset at the prospect of having their nation deconstructed from above.
The actual analogy would be a Christian being afraid of getting shot in the face vs. a Christian cheerfully signing up for euthanasia.
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
No thanks, and no thanks.
Very well. May Canada and the US never join. That's a nightmare scenario. Quibbling over the number of Senators would be the least of our problems in that existential crisis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm a firm believer in the CanadAnschluss, and think it should be offered in a brotherly manner. Canada should be ten states. There is no purpose to the border.
That is a pretty fair offer I think, but it doesn't have that oomph of real Domination. Also it would legit give Canadians massive political power.
More options
Context Copy link
Vancouver and Island, West[1], Ontario[2], St. Lawrence[3], Quebec, Maritimes [4], Newfoundland/Labrador [5], North [6].
Those are all the states you need.
[1] Might need a couple of subdivisions due to geography, but the GVRD and Island are distinct nations compared to everywhere east of that. Removing the crooked law that banned all greenfield development in the rest of BC would be a massive boon to that area.
[2] I mean the part of Ontario on the East of the Canadian Shield, but excluding the parts less than 100km from the St. Lawrence- basically, excluding the region below.
[3] This region is the most culturally belligerent and needs a containment area so that it can't run roughshod over the rest of its area like it does now. It includes Montreal, for if they did not exist, Quebec would have separated 30 years ago.
[4] They'll say they have distinct cultures. If they had any cultural or economic output maybe I'd agree, and they have the same fundamental problem- the destruction of the Grand Banks and shitty geographic location- in common.
[5] Technically still Maritime, but I don't think NB/NS/PEI should have to suffer Newfie English being an official language. Different weather and with much less connection to the rest of the country.
[6] Dividing line at 54'40".
I don't understand why I should be humiliated when an entity with whom I depend on strategically offers me the right to vote on what it does, and I also want my all of my EHC that ran away to the US under NAFTA to have a reason to come back.
Rough illustration
Pretty much, yeah. Canada is mostly huddled around the border because, with the exception of Alberta (and why they're the natural seat of any Western Canadian government), that's where the good land is, and it's also as close as it can possibly be to its largest trading partner.
It does depress me to be talking about this. Maybe if I had grown up in a different time I'd have my elbows raised just as high, and we're ultimately talking about the possible/eventual erasure of peoples and cultures that still ultimately may have value.
But the culture in power, for ever- that in a different time once could and did respect the value of mine- has already clearly been erased, by the Americans, long ago (we venerate the American flag[1] so much we paint it on crosswalks and prosecute its desecration, and the ruling power holds the Blue view that they're bringing civilization to the wasteland from their urban exclaves). So I'm now in the unfortunate position of being dominated by the excesses of American culture even more than I ever think I would be if they were actually in charge, because were we under American law, I'd have far more robust cultural and legal protections against that.
Instead I suffer unilateral domination by that culture that I know I have no hope of checking... unless I am under American law, with an American vote, and American freedom of movement/employment.
[1] That rainbow one with all the chevrons is an American flag; it is intended by a certain subculture to replace the Stars and Stripes. All this stuff is what Blue Americans want for themselves, but they're not restrained by law and process here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it should be humiliating to join the metropole. That doesn't mean that it can't be made to be humiliating. Having sex with a woman isn't humiliating, but her demands can make it so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Alberta is the 51st state and the rest becomes the Great Convexity in the spirit of Infinite Jest.
More options
Context Copy link
It seems incredibly bizarre to me that we should allow any Canadians, except for the good people of Alberta, to vote. I prefer "Canadian Territory".
What's this "we" shit, paleface?
It's not in Republicans' interests for Canadians to vote. It's very much in the interests of Democrats.
More options
Context Copy link
And the French-Canadian Exclusion Zone.
iirc we're supposed to catapult toxic waste into it until they help us make shortform video more addicting
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, even though Canada has 20 times the land area of California, it also has basically the same population (40 million) and significantly smaller GDP (2.5 vs. 4.2 T$/a). So making it all a single state isn't the most unreasonable idea in the world, though it is pretty unreasonable.
And if we use North Dakota as the referent, twenty states wouldn't be enough!
I do think the funniest outcome to Trumpisme is the incorporation of Venezuela into the Union, resulting in an end to illegal immigration, as we'll simply have 25 million broke venezuelan citizens who will suck up so many low-end labor jobs and drive prices down so far that there will be no gap in the market for the illegal migrant to fill.
I mean the US have a working model for offshore possessions they'd rather not grant freedom of movement to. Far more likely to be a Puerto Rico, Guam or an American Samoa situation. Though even the US Military doesn't really have the slots required to process as many Venezuelans who'd immediately be hammering down the recruiter's door.
Puerto Rican citizens have the right to migrate to America. Basically all of them did; it’s not one of the big Latin American countries and they’re one of the most represented ethnicities among Latinos in America. Guam and American Samoa are less notable, largely because there’s just so fewer of them. US territories have very large percentages of population living in the continental USA.
They began flooding into East Harlem right after V-J Day. I think there was some drought or crop blight in Puerto Rico that pushed them, plus affordable flights that made it easy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you under the impression that Puerto Rican citizens are prevented from migrating to America?
Fair. I thought they were closer to the American Samoa model since I'm more familiar with it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What? Puerto Ricans and Guamanians are citizens, and American Samoans are non-citizen nationals, all with freedom of movement within the US. Apparently, back when the Philippines were under US control, even Filipinos were non-citizen nationals with freedom of movement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IMO, the best yardstick is the product of land area and population. According to a spreadsheet that I compiled a while ago, the USA's current states range from −3.0σ (Rhode Island) to +2.2σ (Texas) on this scale, while Venezuela is at +2.5σ (versus the current states, before annexation) and Canada is at +4.0σ.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link