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 -
I think that people treating assholes differently from other people in their local community is likely older than the modern human. Of course, in larger societies, the more basic social norms are generally codified into laws. But there is still a zone of behaviors with negative externalities which nobody bothers to make actually illegal, not every minor annoyance is worth a criminal case, after all.
Like criminal law, social shunning is a double-edged sword in that it can be used both to enforce good norms (don't run around randomly insulting people) or bad norms (don't have gay sex, don't criticize the Fuehrer). However, where laws are at least factually clear (such as StGB 175, which used to prohibit gay sex in Germany), the norms enforced informally have less scrutiny. It is easier to argue against a bad law than against a bad norm which is enforced informally, and laws can be more easily changed.
All of this applies to pre-social-media villages. In a village, if someone says or does something which one percent of the villagers hate totally, while the rest are 'meh' about it, nothing much will happen. With some 22% of the US population on twitter (probably heavily selected towards 'activism'), 1% is still a rather huge mob.
For offline celebrities, it is a bit different. They are selling themselves as a brand, after all, so if anything they do they do is bad publicity, that may have repercussions on how they are treated by companies.
But the average person on the street should not lose their job over icky opinions they post online. Either what they say is actually illegal, in which case it should be a matter of civil and criminal law, or they should be allowed to keep their job.
For pseudonymous opinions, I only see two cases in which doxxing might be justified:
This misses the weaponized middle ground of "Being around people who think such stuff makes members of protected classes uncomfortable, therefore it creates a hostile workplace environment, therefore people who are known to think such stuff must by law be fired"
I think the crux for me is how colleagues in protected classes became aware of the distasteful opinions of their colleague.
If it was because he came to work wearing a swastika shirt, then firing him sounds like a great idea.
If he ran an offensive twitter account under his real name, but with no link to the company, I would argue that this should not be a firing offense for a lower level employee -- don't google stalk people if you can't handle what you might find.
Even more so if he ran a twitter account under a pseudonym and got doxxed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link