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 -
Elon Musk just posted a poll: "Bring back @DOGE staffer who made inappropriate statements via a now deleted pseudonym?" (It's yes/no, pretty steady at about 80/20)
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1887867644814020902
It didn't occur to me this was even an option, but bringing him back would be even better than not firing him in the first place (in my opinion).
Nothing says his behavior was unprofessional. He just said things which are "inappropriate" as described by who knows whom based on whatever definition of what's appropriate. Most likely not even in a professional setting, if I'm getting the "deleted pseudonym" part right.
There isn't a single mainstream workplace in the Western world where saying 'normalise Indian hate' would not be considered unprofessional.
From the New York Times through academia to Lockheed Martin, expressing racist sentiments has become so mainstream that I have trouble understanding how you could say this. Not only is it normal to shitpost racism on social media when you're off the clock, it's literally in some people's job descriptions.
I wish there was a bot which replied with just two words under any mention of that guy: "Sarah Jeong"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you're at home and you stub your toe and say fuck, is that considered unprofessional? Are people supposed to act 'professional' in every part of their lives?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What are you talking about? Non-white non-males say mad racist-sexist shit all the time, and not only don't get fired, but were on dedicated payrolls to do just that.
It's not an exception if the idea they should be fired is purely aspirational.
In what sense is it false? People like this had cozy jobs in both the public and the private sector for like a decade, and were in no danger of losing their jobs at any point. You said this sort of stuff would get you fired anywhere else, that's blatantly false.
Did Vance actually call for cancelling someone like that? It's not like there was a shortage of targets.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
An exception from what? Can you point to any left-winger who was fired for similar conduct? (preferably enough of them to make a pattern, but that's way to much for me to realistically ask for)
That's speculation. Can you point to any left-winger who was as an actual matter of fact fired for similar conduct? It doesn't even have to be at/by DOGE, anywhere in the American public sector is close enough for me.
Without that evidence, I think you're just projecting your ideals onto them and accusing them of hypocrisy when they don't live up to standards they never claimed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Case in point
https://www.dailywire.com/news/shell-game-the-feds-said-anti-white-activists-dei-unit-was-disbanded-she-was-actually-promoted
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And J.D Vance has endorsed bringing him back.
Beyond my wildest optimistic dreams - what is happening
More options
Context Copy link
From what I read it was under a pseudonym
He used to have the account under his name and later renamed it, which isn't great opsec.
Yeah not exactly genius level behaviour, although the account was deleted in December but people found the archives. Nothing safe online once you attach your name to it
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes he did change it later to a pseudonym
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Shitposting on the internet should not get him fired anywhere else.
Cool, but I come from a world where the idea of digging out someone's social media posts in order to get them fired was seen as absurd, and I'd like to get back to that world.
More options
Context Copy link
"would", not "should".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So Indian-hate is about to be normalized?
More options
Context Copy link
Wait, who fired him in the first place if not Musk?
More options
Context Copy link
They can't get entrenched on this specific battle. They took a casualty, gotta move on, keep the objectives in mind. The objective is not "give this 20 something a job," the objective is "Zero Base Budget (ZBB) the federal government, remove the welfare of the elites." They are at war.
If this person is crucial to the fight it is one thing. If they are just starting a new fight that's another.
This is true of 'both sides' (sorry, convenient shorthand) - but all they have to do is hire him back and go about their business. If anyone wants to blow up about it (which I imagine they would, biblically) then they're the ones getting entrenched, to their disadvantage. Presumably, new giant things will keep coming along for them to continue blowing up about.
Or, ideally they'd just do it this afternoon with an intentionally quiet announcement and everybody would forget about it by Monday after the Super Bowl.
Look at me, being all optimistic - feels good man
If we want DOGE to be popular long term, so that Congress backs its recommendations and they become more permanent than the sitting president, we need to stick with things normies can understand and get behind. If Edgy Tweets turns 5% of normie opinions against DOGE, then DOGE can lose significant ground in the theater that matters..
Here's something plenty of normies can get behind: "One shouldn't be fired for the posts they made on their own time on social media".
This is obviously not a principle without limits though, and for a lot of people being avowedly racist is beyond that limit. How would it even be possible not to take that attitude into the workplace?
Is this obvious?
Fairly obvious. If someone had tweeted [terrorist] did nothing wrong even on their own time it would be disqualifying. It's not so much the act itself but the attitudes it betrays, attitudes which are (or rather ought to be) incompatible with his position.
Alternatively:
"If someone had stated the Earth was round on their own time it would be disqualifying. It's not so much the act itself but the attitudes it betrays, attitudes which are (or rather ought to be) incompatible with his position."
"If someone had stated they were left-handed on their own time it would be disqualifying. It's not so much the act itself but the attitudes it betrays, attitudes which are (or rather ought to be) incompatible with his position."
"If someone had stated they were gay on their own time it would be disqualifying. It's not so much the act itself but the attitudes it betrays, attitudes which are (or rather ought to be) incompatible with his position."
etc.
More options
Context Copy link
If that's your position:
a) Beware of weaponization. Group A requires that you state X; Group B requires that you state !X.
b) Beware of blackmail potential. Group A requires that you state X, then will keep it quiet until/unless they need you gone.
c) Beware of the Abilene paradox, especially when combined with shifting social norms over time.
d) Beware that suppressing expressions of opinions is not the same as suppressing the opinions themselves. If I have a person with a weird position on foo that is otherwise a good fit for the position, I can compensate for that. If I have a person with a weird position on foo that they never expressed due to fear of consequences, I cannot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Idk, normies pretty regularly get behind firing teachers for starring in porn.
Sexual immortality is different than kids shit posting online.
Classroom teacher is also different from coder / sysadmin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Unfortunately I'm not sure that's 100% accurate. Most normies have a tipping point. "Maybe a teacher should be fired if they post photos of themselves stripping on Facebook." "Maybe a tech bro should be fired for posting that they would never marry someone outside their race." Everyone draws a line somewhere.
When I was in primary school, in a pretty normal place, there was no Facebook, but there were teachers who stripped. And at least some of the parents (and students) knew about it. And they remained teachers despite this. So no, I think the normies can chill.
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
Maybe it is about the principle that anti-Doge forces shouldn't have a say who Doge employs. If Doge fire anyone its enemies can dig up allegedly offensive postings of, then it isn't Doge draining the swamp, but the swamp draining Doge.
Or maybe it is a "No man left behind" sort of thing, where one precommits to spending resources (in Doge's case political efforts) to defend your own, as to make sure thoey fight with greater devotion to the cause.
I don't really care about Doge, I care about results. Elon Musk can take care of the Doge staffer by hiring him at Space X or Tesla. Everyone at Doge needs to be aware that success is everything. If they win, they will have a great resume, many tech billionaires willing to pay them nice salaries, etc. If they lose they may never be employed again. They may end up in jail.
These are the stakes. This is the mission. They have one chance at this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The polling is embarrassing, really. Asking your own fans whether you should do something they want you to do, like a king who needs his courtiers’ permission before every little ruling. Bring him back, do not, let that authority rest with you. Also, who asked him to resign, if not either someone very senior in the White House (in which case Musk would be dimwitted to overrule them) or someone in Musk’s own employ at DOGE? Neither reflects well on him.
About as "embarrasing" as the emperor getting the temperature of the colosseum before he gives his thumbs up or down.
More options
Context Copy link
The poll is to show influential people what the masses really think about it. Musk rehiring him is more defensible when a million people think he should be rehired. When an investor or politician presses him he can say that he asked the people, even if it’s not actually a fair sample size.
More options
Context Copy link
Is it just 'his own fans' now on twitter? I'm really asking, I'm still under the impression that none of the spinoffs took off enough to really change that 'everyone' was still on twitter.
Also, Musk is not the King, Trump is. Musk might be the sovereign of his own domain, but in the White House he is himself a courtier. One doesn't have to descend into Kremlinology to see that Elon was probably getting data to cover his ass. Or he might have just been genuinely curious, he does seem to do polls a lot for this kind of thing.
To your last question does anyone know how many employees DOGE actually has now? The memes took off so fast that this image of half a dozen guys reporting directly to Elon is already seared in my mind. Like my instinct is to say Elon personally let this guy go and the decision to hire him back is also his
In my experience on X, Musk's polls tend to overwhelmingly support Musk's side of any given issue. I don't think that Musk is faking the polls, it's just a combination of a certain degree of leftist exodus from X combined with the general tendency that online polls have to skew unrepresentatively heavily one way or another because of a combination of brigading and the natural emotional tendency of one side to get really excited to vote while the other side stamps its feet in disgust and refuses to participate. Since these polls have almost no real-world consequence, there is little emotional incentive for people who dislike Musk to participate in them, whereas people who agree with Musk want to show their support. Certainly the 80/20 figure means little when it comes to gauging the average American's thoughts on the issue.
I understand the dynamic you're describing and it all rings true except for I'm not convinced Elon's preferred outcome was having the poll come out in favor of the fella. Short of not hiring him in the first place, I think he would've preferred it just went away. But there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how we were regressing to the days of freely handing the enemy scalps and I think Elon maybe put the poll up as a result of the umbrage.
Although that's sort of just a little idle Kremlinology, sorry. Thanks for your thoughts, interested to see how it plays out
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The poll could be rigged. He owns the website.
The worst it could get it 50/50, do you really want to make a bet that most Americans want to get him fired given the result of the election?
Actually, would you want him fired?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link