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 -
On an individual level, anger is a good deterrent. You do stupid, irresponsible things when really angry, potentially seriously harming yourself and your future prospects just to hurt the target of your ire. It's not that doing so is rational--it's that in some ways being an angry person, and in a sense precommitting to being irrational when angry, can be a good strategy. This is the case for revenge more generally. It's not particularly in America's interests to nuke whatever country has sent nukes flying America's way, but doing so is a good deterrent, so credibly precommitting to nuclear war is ironically possibly the best way to avoid nuclear war.
I see the mob the same way. It's not that cancellations etc. are good per se, but the existence of repercussions for voicing seriously delusional takes creates a chilling effect and prevents many of those takes from being voiced in the first place. Being a bit unnecessarily cruel towards people who cross major lines is a generally pretty good way to prevent those lines from being crossed at all.
this is good in principle, but it would seem as of it when one side is typically on the of said repercussions. California has the right approach in this regard, for everything else that is wrong with the Golden state.
More options
Context Copy link
That's the thing though - I don't care about people voicing delusional takes, I care about people being fired for their takes (whether they are delusional or not). You can still frame it in some "if you go after us, we'll go after you" game-theory way, but in that case, go after the actual cancellers, not a rando cashier.
I think it depends. For a political opinion, unless that opinion in some way affects your ability to do your actual job or you’re the public face of your company, I think not only should it not get you fired but it should be protected with the same sort of rules that religion gets — you shouldn’t be able to fire liberals or conservatives for simply stating something you disagree with, much like you can’t fire a Muslim for being a Muslim. If it’s an opinion like “woman can’t do X” and people who do X are direct reports, you hire people to do X, or serve clients who do X, that’s a different thing, it’s affecting your ability to do your job. Likewise if you’re doing marketing for a company or are in some public facing role for the company, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a company to protect its image by firing a person who’s going to make them look bad.
Having said all that “too bad the shooter missed” isn’t political, it’s condoning violence. I don’t think she’d get the same response if she’d have just said “I don’t like Trump.” That’s not why she got fired. She wanted Trump dead, that’s why she got fired. It’s a different opinion.
I would rather both religion and politics lose those rules than maintain the mostly one-sided semblance of protection they currently have.
More options
Context Copy link
Seems like this principle could be stretched arbitrarily far. "I support Israel and hope they are able to achieve their military objectives in Gaza in a timely fashion" is also condoning violence.
Eh. All succinctly-stated principles can be stretched arbitrarily far. This is a good thing, because it's not that the principle ever "runs out" or stops, it's that it runs into a conflicting principle with a greater priority in the topic at hand. When "don't advocate for violence" runs into "sometimes we have to support just wars," the former principle doesn't cease to exist, and should in fact inform and temper to some extent our obedience to the latter principle.
Obviously we all obey multiple principles, and each of them takes priority in different situations. Objecting that a single stated principle can be stretched overly much is similar to an isolated demand for rigor, because it assumes/implies that the original comment advocates for following only that one single principle, meaning that the only way for the principle to be correct is if it encapsulates the sum total of morality.
Put another way, statements like "self defense is justified" and "violence is not political" do not inherently claim to solve for all possible edge cases and shouldn't be read that way.
More options
Context Copy link
Reciprocal violence is still violence.
Of course, my point is that no one here thinks that someone should lose their job because of tweeting something like that, even though it violates the "condoning violence" clause outlined above.
No probably not.
I suspect some may draw a distinction between condoning or advocating for specific political violence domestically and general or specific military violence by a foreign state against their forever conflict opponent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We saw people twist Damore’s words on overlapping distributions into this statement, and fired on the rationale that women couldn’t work around him.
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree. Wanting Trump dead is political. But a line has to be drawn somewhere, and you draw it here. I feel it's arbitrary.
If political expressions of employees should be defended, then even the wackiest of nutjobs should be safe from getting fired.
What is uniquely bad about violence? Would you say that violence is an assault on the system that protects freedom of expression and freedom of political affiliation? That because the employee rejects this system, he no longer deserves its protection?
But what if the employee is a rabid monarchist, a communist, or Nazi? The explicit aim of these ideologies is to dismantle the current democratic system, to overthrow the government, and to impose authoritarian rule. Fired?
Line where free speech ends and crime begins had been drawn, in US, as "incitement to imminent lawless action".
"Billy Bob deserves to be hanged" - free speech.
"Here lives Billy Bob, go and hang him!" - incitement.
Yeah. Saying, "too bad the shooter missed" isn't incitement, so the employee shouldn't be fired.
If the person she posted about wasn’t famous in any way, would you still see it as “just an opinion?” If she saw news about a drunk uncle getting robbed at gun point and said “so sad the shooter missed,” it’s hard to see this as anything other than wanting them dead. And I think in either case, the same thing — businesses are perfectly free to have policies that forbid violence or threats of violence.
There was no actual violence or even incitement of violence in what the Home Depot lady said. You implicitly acknowledged this by making your hypothetical non-political since wishing a politician's death is just another political opinion.
Trump is not just any person. This comparison doesn't make sense because Trump is literally the presidential nominee. The opinion expressed about Trump's shooting is a political one.
You specifically stated that political expression should be tolerated. If you were to adhere to monarchist, communist, or Nazi beliefs, you would be advocating for even more violence. And this would be actual violence, not just wishing someone be dead.
To make the equivocation you want to make, this "drunk uncle" would have to be himself at fault for getting robbed. The uncle, after getting drunk at the local pub, looking for a fight, approached some guy on the street. But he messed with the wrong guy and got himself robbed at gunpoint.
What your hypothetical person would say is, "fuck around and find out." Because this is what many liberals believe.
The Home Depot lady, like many liberals, likely believes that Trump is a threat to democracy and that he is responsible for the current state of political affairs. Trump is at fault for destabilizing politics and, consequently, almost getting himself assassinated.
From this point of view then, it makes sense to wish that the sniper had not missed. Trump fucked around and found out (almost). It would have only been fair.
The problem is that our current political situation is not the fault of one single ex-real-estate-mogul-cum-reality-TV-star-cum-President. It is the fault of the sum of the actions and reactions of millions of Americans (and foreigners) on both sides, spurred by concerns material and ideological. Part of the blame rests on Trump. Part of the blame rests on liberals who are so quick to condemn democracy to save Democracy that they encourage assassinations of former Presidents/current candidates.
So going by the Home Depot lady’s logic (or rather, your logic): she is part of the problem responsible for the current state of political affairs. She fucked around and found out. Her losing her job is only fair.
Do you see the problem with this sort of approach to politics?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's enough to conclude the employee shouldn't be arrested; not enough to conclude the employee shouldn't be fired. If Billy Bob is among your customer base and there's now only one way to make him feel safe walking down your rope aisle then maybe you do what you need to for him to feel safe.
IIRC the (ex-)Home-Depot lady didn't even go that far, it was more like "Billy Bob's favorite candidate deserves to be hanged", with Billy (and his compatriots) in no danger, but it's still defensible for a judgement call to land somewhere in between "we should just ignore this" and "we need to call the cops right now".
Being a communist will upset some customers too; however, it shouldn't get you fired. OP stated that employees' political expression should be protected as long as it doesn't "affect your ability to do your actual job":
I do not think that the Home Depot lady's opinions affected her job performance. If, instead of saying that the shooter shouldn't have missed, she had expressed literally any other political opinion, I assume OP would have defended her.
But OP's standards for who to fire suddenly change here. This political expression is out of bounds. But why?
Politics will inevitably make some customers uncomfortable. If you decide that employees have the right to express their political opinions, then you, as an employer and business owner, will have to just suck it up and deal with the uncomfortable customers.
This one includes an implied threat of violence. I don’t think it’s that hard to follow. Most companies already covered this in their “zero tolerance for violence and threats” policy.
I also don’t think I’m defending politics at work. This was her own private page, and to my knowledge she wasn’t going around talking about politics to everyone who walked up to her area. On the clock, I would expect anyone checking people out to stick to business and not harass people with political opinions.
Just to be clear. My policy in a perfect world would be that employees opinions posted on their own social media on their own devices on their own time are none of my business unless they promote or condone violence. The only exception would be public roles (media or marketing directors, C-suite, paid actors) or people making hiring decisions directly related to the political opinions they’re giving.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link