site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   33018 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Finland has a new right-wing government. It's been called the most right-wing one in Finland's postwar history, since it is headed by centre-right National Coalition, contains the right-wing populist/nationalist Finns Party and doesn't contain the Centre Party, which has been previously been in government with these two but is, as the name says, more centrist.

Essentially, the new government is combining an anti-union, austerity-oriented economic agenda of the center-right with a list of anti-immigration measures favored by the nationalists. However, while the foreign papers have mostly been concerned with the claims that the most important thing about this govt is far-right inclusion, the economic agenda comes first; the anti-immigration measures, while they probably will lead to immigration cuts, are still not as hard as , for instance, what a roughly similar coalition in Sweden has set last year.

Among other changes, a work-based residence permit would expire if an individual fails to find a new job after more than three months of unemployment. Those with a student-based residence permits would not be allowed to rely on Finnish income support, while the tuition fees of Finnish educational institutions are to be reviewed.

The annual refugee quota is to be cut by more than half to 500 people, down from the present 1,050. Asylum would be granted for a maximum of three years , after which the need for international protection should be reassessed.

In future, obtaining a permanent residence permit will require six years of residence, a language proficiency test, a two-year work history without long-term unemployment or income support, and a requirement of an impeccable record.

Citizenship rules are also to be tightened, with the minimum residence requirement extended to eight years, along with an income requirement and mandatory civics and language tests.

Insofar as economic measures go,

The four parties have agreed on many other changes to the labour market, according to STT. It says that in the future an employee's first sick day would be unpaid, unless otherwise stipulated in their collective agreement.

Iltalehti reported that – assuming the government's plans are approved by Parliament – in future it will be possible to dismiss an employee more easily, simply citing any "reasonable cause". It will also make it easier for employers to offer one-year fixed-term employment contracts without having to cite any special reason for them.

The future government also wants to expand local bargaining – as opposed to centralised national collective agreements – to cover all companies. It will also seek to curtail the right to launch sympathy strikes and politically based labour actions.

There's also two minor parties, the Christian Democrats who basically set no demands for participation and are just happy to be a part of this government and Swedish People's Party, a liberal party that watches over the interests of the Swedish-speaking minority and had considerable troubles fitting in with the Finns Party's nationalism and probably managed to prevent some of their more hardline immigration proposals from taking force.

The merging of right-wing populism with capitalism has usually not ended well in the West. It's instead in places like Denmark where the social democrats have embraced immigration restrictionism that such change has been lasting.

Sooner rather than later the white working class understands they're getting the short end of the stick economically and such a realisation will often make these marriages of convenience between mainstream right-wing parties and the populists shaky at best (Wilders' dalliance with Rutte in the Netherlands is a textbook example but there are many others).

Finland has the fortune that its left-wing parties have been less crazy than those in Sweden, so there may be a zeitgeist change even among them in due time.

I'd just add that I find it somewhat interesting that the Nordics, long a place considered hyperprogressive, is now one of the most restrictionist areas of Europe. Sweden was the final piece and Finland is the hammer to the nail. Of course, the Nordics are still very liberal on things like gender and LGBT. A very curious and non-intuitive mix is emerging.

Sweden takes roughly 100 k migrants per year. That is the equivalent of the US taking 3.4 million. We are taking fewer refugees but are being flooded in nearly every other quota. Combine that with almost no migrants getting deported.

The "right wing" economics in Sweden isn't even really right wing, it is kleptocratic. Sweden has extreme taxes on income yet zero inheritance tax, low corporate tax rates and low capital gains tax. We tax productivity to death while rewarding a rentier class. The right wing policy isn't lowering taxes and market solutions. It is to have high taxes on labour so that the government can buy services from companies. So Svensson pays taxes and companies run schools and hospitals, getting paid for each student or treatment. The companies lay off staff, bring in cheap romanian nurses and slash costs. The government bureaucracy is still in control, as it is the government buying the service with a multi-thousand page contract. The public sector is increasingly being managed by venture capital firms that barely pay taxes. Svensson still pays 50+% in taxes. It combines the worst of both systems.

low corporate tax rates and low capital gains tax

Low corporate tax and low capital gains taxes are good, they're encourage people to invest in capital. Having more factories, office buildings, etc. is good. Inheritance tax is tricky imo because on one hand taxing large fortunes going to people who did nothing to earn them directly is good, but on the other hand you're double taxing it- all that wealth was already originally taxed when the person originally earned it.

Probably the best way to target the wealthy is luxury items tax, like charging them big when they actually frivously spend that wealth on stuff like yachts or $10k bottles of wine or anything else that is very expensive but adds little value to wider society. But figuring out what items are a reasonable purchase for a middle class person or a capital investment for a business vs a luxury purchase for an elite is very tricky in practice I think and every prone for loop holes

taxing large fortunes going to people who did nothing to earn them directly is good

I strongly disagree with this. It is no business of the state to decide how anyone spends their money after death. What is the meaningful difference between giving your children $10M when you die versus giving that to a local animal shelter? The animal shelter didn't do anything to "earn" that money either. It's the decedent's money and the only reason the state can take any of it is because the owner isn't around to protest anymore. If you can't do it to people when they're alive and able to complain about it, you shouldn't be able to do it to them when they're dead and can't fight back.

It's good in the sense that any tax can be good. The state taking someone's money while they're alive to fund public necessary projects and services is good in a consequentialist sense. It's theft, but taxing someone's income so the government is able to pay a public school teacher their salary instead of that person buying a new car is good. And I think taxing large fortunes that are going to people who didn't earn them is even better than taxing income. Except for how it'd be double taxed, which does feel unfair.

I don't think there are any easy solutions to optimal taxation.

Probably the best way to target the wealthy is luxury items tax, like charging them big when they actually frivously spend that wealth on stuff like yachts or $10k bottles of wine or anything else that is very expensive but adds little value to wider society.

So soon we forget the story of the ill-fated US 10% luxury tax. tl;dr took down the yacht industry, mildly annoyed the rich.

Planning out smart taxes really isn't easy stuff, I shouldn't be surprised. Maybe just limit it to tariffs on foreign made luxuries? Or what the author suggested and put the luxury tax on already made stuff like old artwork and antiques. That might help solve the tax loop hole where a rich person buys a painting for $1 million, gets a guy to appraise it as worth $2 million a couple years later, then donate it to a charity and get a huge tax write off because it looks like they donated $2 million when they really donated $1 million

That's not a tax loophole, it's fraud. A loophole is a legal, non-fraudulent way to avoid taxes and is typically the result of the state trying to use the tax code to do social engineering.

Of course, the Nordics are still very liberal on things like gender and LGBT.

Eh... I think they all slammed the breaks on transing kids, at least.

The main issue with immigration in most of Europe isn’t the laws on the books, it’s the utter inability to deport most people who are in the country illegally or semi-illegally (failed asylum seekers etc). The deportation apparatus doesn’t exist, deportations are subject to years of legal challenges, whole regions of the world are “too dangerous” to deport to or don’t have the appropriate level of relations with European countries (or just don’t want the listless young men back) and so on.

While the law needs changes, and incoming illegal immigration needs tackling, large scale deportation of those illegally in Europe is the biggest hurdle. In the US politicians openly declare they have zero intention of deporting all 15 million illegal immigrants, in Europe they say they want to but then just…don’t.

I recall a story about a guy being deported for rape and the whole plane protesting until he was released (and went on to murder someone else). If the population is clamoring for more "enrichment" how is mass deportation even plausible?

Seems there should be some suitably populous and miserable country that would accept them if you just paid them to take them... A la Australia and Papua New Ginea.

If you paid the Nigerian government 5k a head to take them off your hands they almost certainly would.

don’t have the appropriate level of relations with European countries, or just don’t want the listless young men back.

Correct, but you can't really force regimes like Assad or the Taliban to take them back as their countries are disasters anyway. They don't need more young people causing trouble. And while they might accept bribes, history has shown that such regimes often engage in double-dealing and backchannel smuggling to enrich themselves even after such deals are made.

In short, there is no easy solution to this problem even if the considerable liberal domestic opposition was overcome.

They don't need more young people causing trouble.

Neither do the countries these people are invading.

but you can't really force regimes like Assad or the Taliban to take them back

Yeah, you definitely can. At gun point. Load them up, ship them. Dump them. Country too "dangerous"? Not my problem.

but both those places are recovering, it would be weird for Taliban to say they cant take more people when they claim they are doing a good job.

And Syria actually looks better by the day.

I dont get why countries have to take hits socially/economically just so the people doing the damage dont suffer. Makes no sense at all.

it would be weird for Taliban to say they cant take more people when they claim they are doing a good job

Isn't there mass starvation in Afghanistan? The last thing they need are more people.

I read the comment as a statement that the Taliban would be forced into a political choice between taking more people and admitting that they're incompetent. I didn't really read it as a statement about the actual state of affairs of Afghanistan (except that it "recovering" seems to imply that it was worse before now).

@sliders1234 said he read an article about how they're doing okay-ish, but he never got around to posting it.

I think it would be absolutely possible to bribe Assad into taking them back without him immediately reneging on his commitment. Rapprochement between him and the West is already approaching. The Taliban situation is arguably different but even there negotiation is possible and ongoing, the US regularly meets with them in Qatar etc. Rwanda is also an option, deportations from the UK would be ongoing were it not for extensive legal challenges.

The main issue is that the deportations would be (or are) blocked by the ECHR and by years of legal proceedings.

The easy solution is ‘fly them to a poor but safe shithole in exchange for giving aid to said shithole’s President’s Swiss bank account after helping him win re-election with more votes than voters’.

Yes, and it’s more than possible, Rwanda already agreed to the UK’s plan. It’s domestic (or regional ie ECHR) courts that prevent this happening on a larger scale or at all.

What are “sympathy strikes” and “politically based labour actions”?

Sympathy strikes are when a Union goes on strike because of issues between a separate body of workers and their employer. For example in Denmark McDonald's refused to abide by hotel and restaurant sector wide labor agreements that were technically voluntary. So in 1988 the Danish labor movement declared a series of sympathy strikes against McDonald's

Dockworkers refused to unload containers that had McDonalds equipment in them. Printers refused to supply printed materials to the stores, such as menus and cups. Construction workers refused to build McDonalds stores and even stopped construction on a store that was already in progress but not yet complete. The typographers union refused to place McDonalds advertisements in publications, which eliminated the company’s print advertisement presence. Truckers refused to deliver food and beer to McDonalds. Food and beverage workers that worked at facilities that prepared food for the stores refused to work on McDonalds products.

McDonald's caved and agreed to the sector wide standards and today McDonald's workers in Denmark make $22/hr.

More relevant to Finland is that in 2019 there were sympathy strikes in support of postal workers that spread throughout the transportation sector and led to flights being cancelled. I'll leave it to our resident Suomiposter to get into the details of that one but you can see how sympathy strikes can be incredibly powerful tools for unions. However they can be unpopular with the general public who don't like missing flights because the postal service is fighting over how to classify package handlers.

Sympathy strikes are industrial actions which don't directly concern the wages, conditions etc. of a particular striking union, so let's say the railwaymen go out in protest at a wage reduction, and then the miners go out too despite not having any demands of their own, in sympathy and in an effort to force the government's hand. The latter is similar but over action not based on any specific wage dispute at all, unions going out over some government policy they don't like which doesn't really impact their wages etc.; both used to happen in Britain a bit until Thatcher banned it.

What are “sympathy strikes” and “politically based labour actions”?

Going purely by the plain meaning of the words, and not looking into the context at all:

  • “Sympathy strikes": strikes organized solely for the purpose of expressing sympathy for another group, rather than resulting from a labor dispute of the group organizing the strike.

  • “Politically based labour actions”: labour actions (I would guess that boils down to "strikes" as well, but maybe it's a broader category), that aim to push for a political change unrelated to the work conditions of the striking group.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

expressing sympathy for another group

Yes but more specifically in sympathy for another striking union which does have a work condition/wage dispute they are acting upon.

It's nice to see a party platform that doesn't hinge on American idpol exports.

Do you expect these policy changes to be effective? That's a pretty loaded question, so perhaps split it:

  • Will they be able to implement most or all of their policies?

  • Are said policies likely to have the intended effect?

  • Are they leaving existing democratic norms intact?

The big issues are what happens when the economic policies face the test of Finland's powerful union movement and when economic and social policies come to grips with Finland's welfare-state-oriented constitution. Regarding the latter one, I've read (though can't fully confirm) a number of people saying that the economic measures are likely to pass the constitutional test but at least some immigration measures might not, which would of course be just another example of the economic right being the top dog in this coalition compared to the nationalist right.

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