site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31570 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

else Brexit would have falsified it

It took multiple constitutional crises (including a proguation of parliament, which many regard as undemocratic), a general election in 2017 where parties promising won over 85% of the vote, the biggest defeat of those parties ever in the 2019 European election when they reached deadlock over Brexit (and 30.5% of the vote for the Brexit party, a completely unprecedented rise for a new party in UK political history), and Labour losing their MP in Bolsover.

It also involved setting up internal trade barriers in the UK, against the wishes of most people in Northern Ireland.

You can’t expect the state to act on every whim of the populace.

True, but it is typical that if the state seeks a mandate from the populace in a referendum for X, it doesn't choose to do X even if the referendum goes against X. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Remain side had narrowly won the referendum, but the Conservatives implemented Brexit anyway, saying that membership of the EU was unworkable? Or even had a second referendum a few years later, saying that the Remainers had misunderstood the issues?

Still, even if you argue that Brexit was a transient and uninformed whim, it's still not comparable to the public's desire for less immigration, which is a very persistent preference in the UK, and many other EU countries. The problem is that, at least on this issue, democracy has been ineffective as a means of incentivising politicians to act in accordance with that preference. I think that this is a general flaw with democracy: people generally vote for candidates, who come as package deals, and who can afford to change parts of that package after the deal in order to appeal to special interest groups who are better organised than most voters.

You might argue, with Churchill, that "Democracy is awful, but it is the worst system of government, save for all the others," but that's a prima facie argument for less government, not more democracy.

It also involved setting up internal trade barriers in the UK, against the wishes of most people in Northern Ireland.

They voted for a barrier. So there was going to be a barrier somewhere, either between the irelands or the islands. Democracy doesn’t have the power to alter reality to make people’s wishes come true.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the Remain side had narrowly won the referendum, but the Conservatives implemented Brexit anyway, saying that membership of the EU was unworkable?

You keep talking as if Brexit hadn’t happened.

They voted for a barrier. So there was going to be a barrier somewhere, either between the irelands or the islands. Democracy doesn’t have the power to alter reality to make people’s wishes come true.

Yes, my point was that implementing what people wanted was costly, partly because democracy is limited in what it can do.

You keep talking as if Brexit hadn’t happened.

No, the point is that the hurdles for Brexit were high, partly because a considerable majority of the political establishment was against it. Again, this is an instance of one of the limitations of democracy: a referendum result can be incompatible with the wishes of those with the power to implement it.

Do you agree that Brexit not happening after the referundum would have been evidence in favour of ‘elites make all the decisions’? Then Brexit happening is evidence against.

People don’t update generally, fine. But you’re using anti-evidence as evidence.

a referendum result can be incompatible with the wishes of those with the power to implement it.

Sure, but the thesis you're defending here is that those with the power to implement it get their way regardless of the will of the people or referendums.

But you’re using anti-evidence as evidence... the thesis you're defending here is that those with the power to implement it get their way regardless of the will of the people or referendums.

I didn't say that elites make all the decisions. I simply expanded the facts about Brexit, which are relevant to assessing the strength of elite opinion in developed democracies.

My own view is that democracy provides weak incentives for politicians to enforce majority preferences, except insofar as these preferences correspond to the balance of political profits from special interest groups. Of course, the circumstances vary, e.g. there are arguments that special interest groups are more influential in proportional representation systems, while widely-encompassing special interest groups are arguably less harmful. Mancur Olson's The Rise and Decline of Nations is a good introduction to this topic, even if Olson was pushing too hard for the One True Theory of Society.

They voted for a barrier. So there was going to be a barrier somewhere, either between the irelands or the islands. Democracy doesn’t have the power to alter reality to make people’s wishes come true.

Isn't it funny how democracy results in erecting barriers they don't want, and abolishing barriers they do want?

You keep talking as if Brexit hadn’t happened.

In practice, it kind of didn't.

Isn't it funny how democracy results in erecting barriers they don't want, and abolishing barriers they do want?

The problem though is 'the people' seemed to want no barrier at all, which was incompatible with the Brexit which they also apparently wanted. If they ask for no border in the Irish sea, and no border on the Irish border, but also a border somewhere, you can't blame the politicians for failing to deliver on the impossible wishes of the 'people'.

In practice, it kind of didn't.

How so?

The problem though is 'the people' seemed to want no barrier at all, which was incompatible with the Brexit which they also apparently wanted. If they ask for no border in the Irish sea, and no border on the Irish border, but also a border somewhere, you can't blame the politicians for failing to deliver on the impossible wishes of the 'people'.

What's impossible about letting in the Irish, but not other EU members?

How so?

A lot of policies end up copy-pasted from the EU anyway, I think that's what happened with the Even More Annoying Cookie Banner Directive. Another curious thing is how all of Europe, including the UK, is now simultaneously passing gender self-ID. To be fair I think the problem is bigger than the EU but also let's not pretend the UK is independent now and it's elites are listening to the people.

Why should it be a surprise when Brexit did, indeed, mean a Brexit - UK exiting the organization called EU - and did not in fact mean all the other stuff that Brexiteers kind of vaguely implicated Brexit would bring, like lower immigration? If anything wouldn't it just prove that EU is actually fairly inconsequential insofar as migrant flows from outside of EU itself are concerned?

Sort of. All official layers of government are inconsequential, the elites coordinate independently from them. Although the EU is deliberately set up in such a way as to allow them to make decisions with minimal input from the people they rule over.

What's impossible about letting in the Irish, but not other EU members?

Well because in order to determine which people and goods are Irish, and which are not (which in itself already creates problems given the free flow of EU goods into Ireland, so the distinctions are not entirely clear), one has to have a 'hard' border, with supervised crossing points etc. in order to carry out the necessary checks. No-one supports such a border because it endangers the Good Friday agreement, and the only other possibility if you want a border somewhere it so check goods moving between NI and the UK.

The transplanting of EU law had to happen. One cannot simply abolish a regulatory framework built up over decades overnight.

I can agree about the goods, that's a lot trickier. People? You can have it half automatized by scanning the cars coming in, and then checking for passports.

The transplanting of EU law had to happen. One cannot simply abolish a regulatory framework built up over decades overnight.

How does the regulatory framework require stupid cookie banners, and gender self-ID? These are new / relatively new laws even in the EU itself.

I can agree about the goods, that's a lot trickier

Goods has always been the main sticking point really, and it's integral to the border question.

You can have it half automatized by scanning the cars coming in, and then checking for passports.

Maybe? This is what Gove would occasionally to try to square the circle, 'technological solution blah blah blah', but at the current moment it does seem that one does require some physical border presence/infrastructure to keep some people out, so there really is no getting round the Good Friday question. A border must fall somewhere.

How does the regulatory framework require stupid cookie banners, and gender self-ID? These are new / relatively new laws even in the EU itself.

The government did not comb through EU regulations one by one (that is hardly plausible), they just transplanted them all directly into UK law with the view that if they wanted to get rid of any they could just do it later, which they still can do (and the usual suspects keep prattling on about a 'bonfire' etc.), but no-one in Britain actually cares about GDPR so they have no compelling reason to really bother.

The government did not comb through EU regulations one by one (that is hardly plausible),

I'm pretty sure transplanting a law involves more than CTRL+A, CTRL+C, and CTRL+V, so someone is actually combing through these regulations. The easiest thing to do would be to just ignore them. If they are just taking the path of least resistance, like you seem to be implying in the border example, they'd just ignore the cookie banner directive, and self-ID.

You mean, aside from the barrier around Britain the elites didn't want?

As is often the case, the EU was just a scapegoat for pro-immigration forces which operate both inside and outside the EU. They have met the enemy, and it is them.

You mean, aside from the barrier around Britain the elites didn't want?

Which barrier is that?

As is often the case, the EU was just a scapegoat for pro-immigration forces which operate both inside and outside the EU.

Right, and now the scapegoat is the voting public, even though they voted against it

The trade barrier, ie, what Harlequin was talking about.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats