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 -
A follow-up to the Irish referenda. Both @Follamh3 and myself posted on this a few days back, and here's one reason why the Plain People Of Ireland voted (those who did turn out to vote) 70% "No" to both - nobody trusts the government because the reality on the ground is this.
The usual suspects try to pin the blame on anti-immigrant sentiment, the far-right, volatility, and just the yokels are too ignorant to know what's good for them. But the reality is, people see the disconnect between the fancy language about gender-neutral and inclusive, and what actually happens when support for carers and those in need of care is sought: you're not getting it, you're not going to get it. We think you're so special, we're going to have a referendum to put it in the Constitution! Also we can't even tell you if your kid will have a school place for the new term. Can you see why voters with that knowledge might just possibly vote "No" and still not be far-right gender-essentialist white supremacists?
Bad old sexist, misogynist, gendered language that asks the State to make sure that there won't be the necessity for choices such as the Lewis family say above about "It has left Greg and Celine in a situation where one of them will have to give up work to remain at home full-time with their son".
Shiny progressive new inclusive, non-gendered, non-marriage based language rejected by the backwards public:
I mean, c'mon! The Department of Education has been "engaging intensely with the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) in relation to the forward planning of new special classes and additional special school places". That's "striving", isn't it? Nobody said anything about actually paying out money so mothers (or fathers or non-binary babas) wouldn't have to engage in labour outside the home and wouldn't be at a loss by this, unlike the bad old 1937 Catholic bigots!
While the story is sad, as a fellow (ex?)government employee, I would imagine that we might agree a shortfall of 6 or 8 spaces in a city the size of Dublin is essentially nothing. Too many open spots and you're wasting public funds after all.
The fact the spaces needed is so close a match for those provided is a near miracle of demand prediction.
Does the government wanting to change the Constitution really have any link to decisions on special needs places by the Department of Education, that gets the predicted demand right down to single digits?
The government blathering on about gender equality and the role of carers and how much they're going to do for carers once the wording is passed can be doubted when you see "I can't even get a school place for my special needs kid".
Why believe in "jam tomorrow" when you're being refused "jam today"? And the point is that even Dublin has a shortfall of such places, so the situation down the country is likely even worse, as it's Dublin that gets all the resources first. "We solemnly promise to strive to support carers in the family" "Great, so our local school is going to get a special needs assistant place?" "Ah now come on, why would you expect that?"
When 6 or 8 people can't get a place for their kid, this is bad for them, but at a city level it is a rounding error.
That government doesn't deliver perfectly seems to be Constitution agnostic, as in the UK doesn't even have a formal Constitution and has the same problems. So the question is, whether linking this particular issue to the Constitution seems to be causative and I would argue it does not appear to be. You could be in a world where Ireland does not have a Constitution and still has exactly the same issue.
Just to be clear I am not arguing the Constitution should or should not have been changed, just that this particular example doesn't seem particularly linked to the Constitution at all, rather than funding constrained. The English city I worked in had even worse problems at not delivering special needs school places, and yet that wasn't impacted by whether language about supporting mothers was or was not in the Constitution, but rather the amount of money it was taking in in taxes plus it's grant from central government.
Do you have any reason to think that a shortfall of 8 special needs places in Dublin is actually linked to the way the Constitution is written? Rather than funding, or that predicting the number of places needed in advance is difficult to do perfectly?
What is the point of paying a huge percentage of ones income as taxes if the taxing authority can't provide the services it promises and you need, when you need them?
Practically the government can't provide and predict services perfectly. So you can over provide (therefore wasting tax payer money) or try to provide services at the level you think they will be needed. Balancing how much to spend on the health services and education and roads and everything else. Too much in one area means too little in an area.
Now governments can and do get that wrong and that should be rectified and fedback into your allocation process to improve it. But crucially the amount of money you spend getting your allocation process better also sucks money from the projects in question.
So there is a level of fidelity which is somewhere less than perfect but gets you close enough. And it is likely that you will under allocate somewhere and some people will suffer. Perfect is simply not possible.
So yes, it is likely some number of taxpayers will not get services they need at the exact time they need them. Minimizing that number is important, but making it perfect even if possible probably means reducing the amount of funding you have to spend in the first place. Possibly reducing the overall number of people who can access the service at all.
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
More options
Context Copy link