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 -
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.
One doesn't impact the other. Especially given that the nation doing the conquering has its own demographic issues.
Nations give up clay, the point was that you don't do it easily. Not based on the whims of some Boomer who wishes he didn't miss the boat on land acquisition and who there's no evidence will be particularly grateful anyway. And especially not when said Boomer also has a deep contempt for weakness.
Sure, and it would make sense if people were upset about both, the issue is they are upset about one, and call you a Nazi for talking about the other.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
I think it's very simple and understandable. America is openly being a boorish bully and it is obviously a repulsive idea to submit to it. Canada's government is an incompetent boss and while it might well destroy everything good about the country, it requires a lot more epicycles to even start being angry about it, not to mention things like thinking of migrants as invaders and other stuff like that.
Many Canadians will be actually dead of natural causes (or have a doctor take them out before those natural causes do them in) before any postnational doom scenario actually sets in. It is just not as viscerally upsetting as Trump getting his way.
How is your own prime minister explicitly declaring your nation to be over not a "boorish bully"? How is submitting to outsider coming over and appropriating everything from realestate to government resources any more of an epicycle than consider submitting to Washington?
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