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 -
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