site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15305 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean they literally refuse to hire white male firefighters.

Are you sure there is a literal refusal to hire white male fighters? The small story from the LibsofTiktok outrage slop -- slop you chose to share -- reports on this organization which facilitates recruitment of minorities. If wildfire firefighters are primarily white, male, and have shit wages why would it not make sense to target other demographics to fill the ranks?

Maybe Californian disasters would be better managed and mitigated by voting Republican. Makes sense to me that competition has a better chance at breeding competence. They might have less damage from fires if they paid firefighters $30/hr instead of 15-20. I'm not sold it's because of bait from LibsofTikTok for one organization doing recruitment in one area targeting one demographic.

If wildfire firefighters are primarily white, male, and have shit wages why would it not make sense to target other demographics to fill the ranks?

Why would it?

Being a janitor is a job with shit wages. Do you have to go target minorities to take the position?

It seems like a pointless discussion anyway: the fact that it's too white and male implies that it's just the usual thing. I can see racial diversity but some jobs probably should be have gender skews.

I mean janitors work a shit job with shit wages that is also heavy on brown women.

Why would it?

Because minorities can probably adequately haul water to flames for 15/hr too.

Being a janitor is a job with shit wages. Do you have to go target minorities to take the position?

You don't have to, but many janitors do happen to be minorities.

In 2021 this Marin County Fire Dept. unit looks pretty white and male. Maybe they need communication operators and support staff. They think they can make quota by getting some girls. I don't know what goes into firefighting. Yes, yes, it could be the woke mind virus and probably is to some degree. I don't think Marin County Fire Dept's program is burning LA at the moment. This was my main objection to the framing in the parent.

Let's not slam down LibsofTikTok slop-bait as if it is authoritative.

You don't have to, but many janitors do happen to be minorities.

The point is we didn't need a diversity programs to make this happen.

Maybe they need communication operators and support staff. They think they can make quota by getting some girls. I don't know what goes into firefighting. Yes, yes, it could be the woke mind virus and probably is to some degree. I don't think Marin County Fire Dept's program is burning LA at the moment. This was my main objection to the framing in the parent.

I mean...sure. If your argument is that they did not categorically refuse to hire while male workers but instead showed a preference for non-whites,to the point of quotas (what happens when they don't fill their quotas and have more white men than they can use? They're not going to "literally refuse to hire" those excess wypipo?) and that it probably was driven by wokism...then I guess we have no disagreement.

I won't defend WhiningCoil's maximally uncharitable statements, but that's really the only set of charges this sort of argument is a defense again.

Yeah, the devil's in the details. Firefighting, like all fighting, should probably continue to be mostly male. There are a lot of ponytails on that website, suggesting they would really like more women, which seems unlikely for physical reasons. Who's the girl in the overalls and headband supposed to be? The local police force here hired a woman with beautiful long hair and her bouvier or some such animal to give presentations, such as at elementary schools. She starter out as a vet tech, and now brings the dog around and lets the children pet it while teaching them a bit about safety. That's fine, sure, but not very central.

Of course there doesn't seem to be a reason English speaking mestizo men wouldn't be firefighters. In a heavily hispanic state like California, I'm surprised they're not, and I suppose worth reaching out to?

I’m pretty sure there’s an under representation of mestizos in wilderness firefighting because wilderness firefighters come from rural communities which value wilderness firefighting- ONCOR in Texas is similarly very white for the same reason.

It's anecdotal, but Seattle attempted to solve its "white male firefighter" problem by testing recruits on "memoirs of a transgender firefighter." Applying to this "fire foundry" program requires you to write a Diversity Statement just like applying to the UC system, and we already know how that process works to commit racial employment discrimination.

After so many years of the same pattern repeating over and over in "the unbearable white maleness of X" campaigns, I would need significant evidence to assume something different. And I don't trust that anyone who gleefully supports it isn't trolling.

Claim: the majority of California, or even area, firefighters aren't recruited through organizations such as this one. Which is most likely an ineffectual, tax skimming grift via state grants. It could also be a genuine, if misguided, attempt to scoop bodies for the Marin County Fire Department as it claims.

I wouldn't implement it. If they have a dearth in recruitment and need bodies they should either open parallel grifty grant programs for anyone likely to be qualified, or make one big one and take whoever qualifies as they apply.

I'd be open to the idea that, like the military, we see firefighter recruitment issues that may be worsened by poor propaganda or DEI preference. Which I don't consider a top 3 factor, but do consider a top 10 one. I would not require much evidence to update this way. Even a credible enough looking firefighting forum post could do it for me. I won't update off of Libsoftiktok bait though.

Yep, if anything I’d expect the headline shared to work to increase the number of firefighters not decrease it?

Trying to target new demographics who typically don’t go for those jobs, sounds pretty cool.

This argument is outdated by about a decade. SocJus outreach programs are always originally justified through "we don't want to discriminate, it's just to tap in to new demographics" and they've descended into attacking straight/cis/white/males enough times, that you have at least an equal burden of proof to show that it didn't happen this time.

we don't want to discriminate, it's just to tap in to new demographics"

And then, when the untapped population of gay hijabi prodigies who were clearly being held back by racism don't show up when the barriers are pulled down, the finger has to be put on the scale.

Sometimes, even if they do:

Blind auditions, as they became known, proved transformative. The percentage of women in orchestras, which hovered under 6 percent in 1970, grew. Today, women make up a third of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and they are half the New York Philharmonic. Blind auditions changed the face of American orchestras.

But not enough.

American orchestras remain among the nation’s least racially diverse institutions, especially in regard to Black and Latino artists. In a 2014 study, only 1.8 percent of the players in top ensembles were Black; just 2.5 percent were Latino. At the time of the Philharmonic’s 1969 discrimination case, it had one Black player, the first it ever hired: Sanford Allen, a violinist. Today, in a city that is a quarter Black, just one out of 106 full-time players is Black: Anthony McGill, the principal clarinet.

The status quo is not working. If things are to change, ensembles must be able to take proactive steps to address the appalling racial imbalance that remains in their ranks. Blind auditions are no longer tenable.

I thought that article looked immediately familiar.

Has it worked that way in any other "there are too many white men" cases? At all? From air force pilot recruiting to air traffic control recruiting to electricians to engineering students to orchestra players to academic jobs?

Can’t speak to the rest of those things, but if you are a white male and want to become an electrician there will be no one attempting to stop you.

Oh right, I never finished that post about the new WA electrician apprenticeship program requirements. They all need to be licensed by the state now, and the license renewal is contingent on not training too many white men.

Things are worse than most people know.

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