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 -
'Existence worthy of human dignity' is how it is described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, meaning more than mere survival. Living in a bare closet, eating tasteless gruel, dressed in rags, and staring at a blank wall when not working or sleeping, would not be 'worthy of human dignity' even if it isn't 'starving'.
'Full employment' in the economic-statistical sense is necessary but not sufficient for the concept I am attempting to point to.
If Alice wants an employee who will provide sexual favours/stand up for hours on end doing tasks that can be done sitting down/not eat rice on Tuesdays, and Bob wants a steady pay-cheque without involving genitals/allowing him to sit down if he can still get his work done/letting him eat whatever he feels like on whatever day he pleases,
The thing I am trying to point to is 'economic conditions in which Bob does not almost always yield first, and, in the absence of agreement, Bob's future is not vastly harder than Alice's'. It can be present in some circumstances while simultaneously absent in others; thus it is not adequately captured by a single figure, although it is more common with lower unemployment.
The other direction is not a good trade either -- a worker deserves a living wage (in the FDR sense, adjusted for the material progress of broader society) and security from being fired arbitrarily or for un-justifiable reasons and the ability to set reasonable boundaries. This is not an impossible trilemma unless one imposes the constraint that neither Alice's profit margin nor privileged social position be in any way inconvenienced.
Minimum wage workers have garish clothes, and spaghetti bolognese, and libraries, and dancing parties – oh, how they laugh and play together!
Who dares to call their lives unworthy of the dignity of a human?
Depends on the terms offered. If alice lists all of her demands in the interview, I think most people would refuse to work for her, especially if she’s ugly and they love rice.
Pretty easy for Bob, and Pretty hard for Alice I imagine, see answer 1.
If Jack wants a woman who will provide sexual favours, and else leave him be, and Susan wants a man who will buy her a cup of coffee and listen to her stories and dine at her parents’ and kill a spider.
I just want romantic conditions in which Jack does not almost always yield first. /s
I think in your search for a purely equal relationship, where consent is perfect, free from pressure, the entire concept of voluntary relationships gets dissolved.
Is there any salary amount where you will say : 'ok well that's a shitload of cash, I admit, the workers must have freely consented.' ? Because if 19th century-Celestial-body-NOS had agreed to the hypothetical, we would have reached that amount.
That goes without saying: As the gruel price decreases, so does the living wage.
Seems to me you’re just promising an imaginary state where workers are free/not coerced/secure/rich/ and no one is unemployed, and I don’t think science or history backs this ‘you-can-have-it-all’ utopia. Regardless, what measures are you proposing?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link