site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29974 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 2024

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's "if I refuse I will be black balled from acting forever" my boss made me do it. There is "I have to pay rent or get evicted tomorrow and my boss offers pay in advance exclusively for sex" my boss made me do it. Finally, there is "if I refuse I might have to apply to one of 100s other employers" my boss made me do it, and I really do believe an adult woman should and does have the agency to refuse that last kind of ultimatum.

I really do believe an adult woman should and does have the agency to refuse that last kind of ultimatum.

Empirically, they don't. I employ nannies, and I have had young women working in my house who would not have been able to say no to a well-executed "question expecting the answer yes". As well as the threat to employment (and housing for a live-in nanny) and the possibility of a bad reference (references are essential for childcare employment for obvious reasons), it is easy to add a plausibly-deniable implicit threat of violence. Plus 19-year-old girls just don't have as much agency as adult men.

Even if she did have the agency to say no, having to do so would be expensive in financial and reputational terms - particularly for a nanny who relocated to take a live-in role (as Gaiman's did, and so did some of mine). In general, managing the risk of shitty behaviour by a counterparty sometimes requires people to avoid trades that would be mutually beneficial. (This is why high-trust societies are richer than low-trust ones).

If it was common for men in my position to engage in quid-pro-quo sexual harassment of nannies, I wouldn't be able to hire nannies, and my wife would have to give up her freelance business, with a knock-on impact her clients' businesses. (She is one of <10 skilled technical writers in a niche subspecialism). Empirically, where quid-pro-quo sexual harassment is tolerated, it is common. So, with the greatest possible respect, Gaiman should FOAD. If the events happened as described, regardless of whether it was formally consensual, I would cheerfully hang him myself.

FYI your comment was presented to me for janitor duty, and as I read it I marked it as Good, until I got to your last two sentences calling for Gaiman's murder. That made me change my rating to Bad. You have great points and I think it's a shame you've ruined a good post with that ending.

I'm sorry - I wasn't intending to call for Gaiman's murder - I was trying to say that I favoured, in full knowledge of what it meant, a society where quid-pro-quo sexual harassment of employees was treated as a serious crime on a similar level to rape.

I suspect I have fallen foul of a difference between the cultural significance of hanging and nooses in American and British society - in the UK a noose is a symbol of excessively harsh laws, not vigilantism.

You should have said "hang him while wearing a silly wig", then it would be legal and morally in the clear.

I suspect I have fallen foul of a difference between the cultural significance of hanging and nooses in American and British society - in the UK a noose is a symbol of excessively harsh laws, not vigilantism.

Americans will absolutely use hanging or nooses in the same way('put him up against the wall' or for a very old southerner 'should go before the monitor'), it's just not politically correct because of neuroticism over potential references to lynching.

Interesting. I would interpret “put him up against the wall” as a reference to unofficial political violence - the same context as “first against the wall when the revolution comes”

I might be in the minority perspective here, given Amadan's response, so please don't take my feedback as anything more than one person's opinion. Thanks for being receptive to it!

Ironically enough, it appeared for janitor evaluation because it got an AAQC (I think Zorba should fix the system so that AAQCs don't get flagged the same as "Reported").

Also fwiw, while we do frown on implicit threats or wishes for violence, context and tone matters. So I agree he could probably have omitted that last comment, but as a mod, I would not read it as "Calling for Gaiman's murder."

(I think Zorba should fix the system so that AAQCs don't get flagged the same as "Reported").

The potential Quality Contributions are the best part of janitor duty.

AAQC (I think Zorba should fix the system so that AAQCs don't get flagged the same as "Reported").

I kinda disagree, the blinding improves impartiality.

Appreciate the perspective.

Finally, there is "if I refuse I might have to apply to one of 100s other employers" my boss made me do it, and I really do believe an adult woman should and does have the agency to refuse that last kind of ultimatum.

Even from a libertarian point of view, that should be unacceptable under real world conditions. The "boss" probably isn't the CEO and if he fires someone for not having sex with him, that's a principal/agent problem; the boss's boss doesn't want him to fire people for this reason.

You'd need a situation where either 1) the boss runs the whole company and doesn't answer to anyone or 2) the people who the boss does answer to approve of the boss firing people for refusing to have sex with him. Furthermore, to avoid bait and switch (which is a form of fraud), having sex would have to be part of the job description. And the boss would not be permitted to claim that he fired the person for some reason other than refusal to have sex (though he could stay silent if he wished). This will never happen.

Even from a libertarian point of view, that should be unacceptable under real world conditions. The "boss" probably isn't the CEO and if he fires someone for not having sex with him, that's a principal/agent problem; the boss's boss doesn't want him to fire people for this reason.

That's a financial matter for the company, not a social or legal problem.

If the boss was pocketing some of the employee's paycheck under threat of firing, there would be no question that it's a legal problem. Using his position to take sex instead of cash is just a slight variation. It is not actually legal to rob your employees.

This is all fair. I'm talking more about the power imbalance part of the issue, not the libertarianism argument.

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