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 -
Okay, let me explain myself. The government is the bunch that decided we needed to rewrite language in the Constitution, and they tried to sell it to the public who were, in general, "why the fuck is this considered an urgent problem when we have real urgent problems?" as among other things "we totally super promise this will mean we're fully committed legally to having to dish out the cash to pay for support for carers":
This, despite the fact that it came out that the legal advice from the Attorney-General on this was "the hell it does".
So the aftermath is all "why did people vote No, did they not believe us?" to which the answer there is "No shit, Sherlock". As to why the people didn't believe them? Cases like this: ongoing for ten years that there is a shortage of places, all the responsibility dumped on the family to make it work, and now the same guys that are telling the parents "sorry, nuffin' we can do" are going around saying "we wuv carers SO MUCH we're gonna put special language in the Constitution to say we wuv them SO MUCH!"
To get all Scriptural about this, let me quote the Epistle of St. James:
In the same way, what good is shiny new inclusive language about "carers are awesome!" if there is no movement on "okay, for ten years there's been a shortage of school places, what are you gonna do?"
EDIT: It's not just school places, it's the entire system around special and additional needs. Like I said, I worked in a school in a designated area of educational disadvantage, and now in a day service for preschool kids with additional needs, and for parents trying to get advice, recommendations, assessments, places, you name it - struggle, struggle, struggle. Funding is key, oh yes definitely: we're constantly begging for more funding, we added five additional places and could easily add even more to cope with demand but there's no funding. We're the sole centre for such children in this geographical division of an entire county outside the city. That's why all the government rhetoric over the new amendments to the Constitution, especially selling it as gender-neutral non-sexist language, was regarded with "and pigs will fly" by me and everyone I know working in the sector. 'We will strive' commits them to nothing; 'yes, we strove to see if we could fund an extra place for your kid but oopsie, no luck!' isn't much help but it means they can go around patting themselves on the back about how progressive they are now that the definition of "family" includes "if you're shacked up together and we don't even care about which gender you are".
EDIT EDIT: Suppose we give credit to Minister O'Gorman there and if enacted, the new wording would put a legal obligation on the State. The parents in the article go to court (if they can afford the lawyers) and the case trundles on for five years or so (because the Department is going to fight it). Eventually the decision is "the State must provide a place for the child". Well, if he hasn't aged out yet, the Department comes back with "fine but we gots no place". Then what?
Build more schools and hire more staff? You know how long the planning process is, how long it will be before the school is built, the arguments around where the funding to hire the staff will come from, etc. The kid could be 30 before ever anything happens to provide a new school with places for special/additional needs kids. It will benefit that set of children coming along then, but what about the current children? They're the ones with no places and no supports. And if the State is saying that they have to be forced by the courts to carry out their duty of support, that's not very promising, either.
So the State may be being terribly inefficient (believe me as an ex-civil servant this would not surprise me!), but if they aren't being inefficient BECAUSE of the Constitution. Then linking the two together just seems a reach. Are the bureaucrats in the DoE who were making projections and predicting places needed having anything to do with rewriting the Constitution? Is the amount of money the State has going to change appreciably?
In other words I can believe that the DoE is inefficient AND that changing the Constitution is a bad idea. What i still can't see is a real connecting link between those. The DoE seems unlikely to have spent much time on the Constitutional changes and even if the Cabinet Minister did, well in my direct experience the time he spent on that probably meant he was not spending his time hindering his department.
The administrative state (DoE) and the executive are largely spending their time on different things for different reasons. As in Bob in the DoE whose job it is to plan school places may be bad at his job, but it doesn't sem likely that is any way related to the Constitution aa it stands, nor is it likely he was writing Constitutional drafts.
More options
Context Copy link
If they move to the American system where the families can and do sue and receive large awards and tons of legal requirements burdening the entire state if they aren't accommodated, they'll doubtless find the places soon enough. I guess it sounds like they are able to drag the cases out too long? But it also comes with its own problems.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link