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 -
Agree mostly. Part of UK’s problem is bad geography. Brexit I think had some merits but would never work because trade is heavily influenced by closeness so structural issues in Europe will effect them. If they could move their island to 100 miles off the coast of Maryland they would boom.
But building costs and power seems like some forced errors they should have ways to correct. I bet there are areas they could be better even if the trading union doesn’t produce as many benefits as being tied into NAFTA with related transportation costs and time zone benefits. But they can’t fully integrate into our supply chains due to geographic distance.
The best thing the UK could possibly do is become the 51st state of the US (more realistically, something that involves full economic union with the US in all but name). Liberals could approve because Brits are ‘more progressive’, Cons could approve because it’s another 65m white people or something. Sadly, the British are too proud.
Isn't it pretty much that already? The untouched problem of the UK is that they (let's be realistic, we really mean England here since it is the major part that anyone cares about) have been declining since the end of the Second World War. The collapse of steel*, shipbuilding, coalmining and the heavy industrial manufacturing sector damaged the traditional economy, leaving large parts of the country to fall behind, while growth was concentrated in the south around new services like the stock exchange and financial services.
They haven't been a world power for a long time, the Empire is long gone and the Commonwealth does its own thing. Whatever fond notions they have about the special relationship, they are the junior partner to the USA and if they entered into economic union as suggested, they would be swallowed up much worse than ever the EU did to them.
*British Steel being nationalised, re-privatised, sold, resold, bought out to be propped up, and finally becoming part of an Indian giant conglomerate before the remnants of the historic entity were shut down and a new group using the old name started up, to be taken over in its turn by a Chinese enterprise, is a case to study.
You missed out an additional cycle of nationalisation and privatisation under Attlee/Churchill in the 1950s.
More options
Context Copy link
I think a big part of this was the feeling that (thanks to a combination of empire & socialism) there was a feeling that
was something that we'd grown out of as a civilisation. The future for us was meant to be easy, fun, profitable thought-work and not backbreaking, dirty, boring labour. Suggesting to people that they think seriously about getting into these sectors got the same instinctive revulsion that you'd get if you asked adults to go and do A-levels again.
(That said, I agree with @Butlerian that if the data doesn't show significant decline we should be careful about just throwing it away in favour of an emotional 'truth'. It doesn't feel like things are going well ATM though.)
I think it was as much the fact that by the 1980s these sectors were sucking up subsidies with little hope for the future, and those already employed in them were struggling to hang on to their jobs. The problem in these sectors was NOT a labour shortage!
40 years later, countries like China are still dumping cheap steel/coal as an international dick-waving contest. Young people were wise to stay away from these industries, assuming they'd even somehow get a chance to be hired.
Good point, thanks for the counter. You're correct that a lot of the misery from the 1980s was about a lack of jobs in the factories / mines, not the opposite.
I was thinking about the Blair years; the implicit promise behind the pledge that 50% of people would go to university was, "Someday everyone will go to university and work in creative / research industries. You and your children will never have to work in a factory again." The idea that, as a country, we might want to develop these industries post 1995 was mostly mocked when it occasionally reared its head.
There are a couple of other complicating factors IMO: one is dumping, as you say; the other is a long history of organised labour. The problem with having an industrial sector with expensive machinery in the UK specifically is that you know it will be taken hostage sooner or later. Take the current situation with the trains: the Conservatives are trying desperately to get drivers out of trains and ticket officers out of ticket offices. It's not because they'll save that much money, or because these people are useless (they're technically disposable but still very nice to have). It's to prevent strikes. Contrast with Japan, where they still have manned ticket offices at every (urban) station and train drivers with white gloves; employees will never seriously attempt to overthrow the system and can therefore be trusted with it.
Yes, one also sees a huge contrast in labour use between Hong Kong and the UK.
I also agree about the Blair years. For one thing, there was a double-pronged kind of Dutch Disease (sounds painful...) in that period: the pound was highly valued due to the high exports of oil and financial services, but this meant that manufacturers (a) struggled to export and (b) faced competition from cheap imports. Service industries like retail or hospitality, which couldn't be imported, had an advantage in this climate. Since oil price would always remain high and the UK financial service sector would not crash, this was a perfectly satisfactory situation, and there was no reason to do anything to conunter the Dutch Disease e.g. spend money on a sovereign wealth fund in the manner of Norway or Singapore. Instead, the Blair/Brown governments rationally chose to "invest in people" (spending on public services) since they could better determine the future needs of the UK economy than the chaotic and irrational market economy. This long-term thinking helped to lead to the brilliant situation of the UK economy today.
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
I’m picturing hundreds of airstrips on flattened hills in Scotland. The whole island vibrates as 10,000 jet engines roar to life at once. Tonight we attack Canada where they least expect it. From the North.
More options
Context Copy link
I definitely don’t approve of them becoming a state, the UK isn’t culturally compatible. I mean they don’t even have a first amendment like protections to say nothing of the royal family. I’d sooner annex Mexico.
I think a comma would help in this sentence!
Yes, for all the ideas that the US is more "socially conservative" than the UK, the first amendment means that in many ways US is a lot less conservative, in the European sense of "conservative". On e.g. free speech, the UK is somewhere between e.g. Germany/Austria on the one hand and the US on the other.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That would boost Americas ego for UK to be the 51st essentially. But regardless I just don’t think it works trade wise to be a 6 hr flight and any trade goes thru cargo ships.
Alaska and Hawaii function as States but neither is dependent on a high amount of low value trade. Combined they have 2 million people. One runs a military base and tourism. And the other is crabs, oil, and some military. That is a lot different than plugging into automobile manufacturing or even pcm jobs of managing some interstate business.
The Brexxit promoters did sell linking more with US trade but I don’t think it’s realistic. There just aren’t enough trade connections for 65 million people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link