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.
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.
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.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link