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 -
(0) Some products and services are so complicated to manufacture that making them competitively requires certain size.
(1) If the megacorp has monopoly / oligopoly / regulatory capture on the markets, they can deliver more than enough largesse to both owners and the management without need to optimize their processes. (Boeing receives orders because not everyone can buy Airbus planes without doors that disintegrate midair -- Airbus has limited production capacity.) And if you have the capital, you can buy off the competition, which is easier than try to fix your corporation.
(2) Running a company like a planned economy is bad, but perhaps running it with an internal fake market economy is worse. Stands to reason that you try to design a fake market with both benefits of market and benefits of integration, it is easy to mess it up and obtain only the downsides of both.
I do wonder why we we see more acquisitions leading to mergers than "unmerged" companies. Why own a megacorp when you could own a collection of leaner, smaller companies? Capturing large enough of size of the market beats the command-rule inefficiencies? Perhaps, (3), the modern IT and communications makes the command economy to work well enough on the scale that wasn't possible with the tech-level of 1970s?
More options
Context Copy link