site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   32012 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is one of those things where I assume it can't be as bad as it sounds. I skimmed through 5 or 6 articles on the strike and only one of them mentioned the details of the equal pay ruling in 2012. If you just looked at the current articles, you'd never know the underlying issue.

So then I asked GPT4o for some context. The city is forced to deal with the costs and have tried to find reasonable solutions but the union is understandably not into the removal of higher paying roles and cuts to wages down the line for people that take those affected positions. The roles that are in question (bin men, street cleaning, parks - all outdoor jobs AFAIK) were deemed to receive higher than market compensation during that equal pay case due to union negotiated bonuses and regular OT hours. Those rates were hard to reduce as you would expect. I couldn't find any real hard evidence of the magnitude of all of this but it sounds like par for the course for long standing union jobs like this.

I did some more digging though and the real meat is the 2012 case which hinged on the legal principal of "equal value". According to 4o:

Legal Foundation:

Under the UK’s Equal Pay Act 1970 (and later the Equality Act 2010), women and men are entitled to equal pay for: Like work (same or broadly similar), Work rated as equivalent, or Work of equal value—even if the jobs are different, so long as they require comparable effort, skill, and responsibility.

What “Equal Value” Meant in This Case:

The women bringing the case—clerical, care, cleaning, and catering staff—argued that their work, though different in nature, required:

Comparable levels of skill and decision-making,

Similar responsibility and effort,

And that their roles contributed equally to the functioning of the council.

The tribunal agreed, finding that the systematic undervaluation of traditionally female roles, particularly through lack of access to bonuses and enhancements, violated the principle of equal value. Key Implications:

The tribunal rejected the argument that physical hardship or market tradition justified pay differences on their own.

It emphasized that job evaluation studies—not tradition or union negotiations—must guide pay parity.

It also showed that indirect discrimination can occur even in the absence of explicit exclusion or bias, through structures that consistently reward one gender over another.

It's noted that the female-dominated roles include more flexible hours, less physically demanding work, less exposure to the weather, later start times and shorter expected working hours. But those things would not be taken into consideration, except that those are factors that made those roles more appealing to women and that these differences in working conditions are part of the reason for the gender divide. In other words: the higher paid jobs are harder, lower status, less flexible. That means they have to pay more and they are more likely to be held by men. And because the easier, more flexible roles are filled by more women, but the "value" they create is the same, they must be paid the same amount.

I'm sure those male-dominate roles are overpaid to some degree due to the union doing what unions do. fair. But they don't seem to care about the real reasons for the pay difference. It's wild.

Even in non-union Texas, with strong right-to-work laws and a flat ban on public sector unions, you’d have gotten the same result.

These people are making me side with the longshoreman’s union.

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