site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32961 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does this count?

US stock exchange sets diversity rules for listed companies

America's second largest stock exchange has said it will set binding gender and diversity targets for its listed companies.

Firms on the Nasdaq, which include tech giants such as Apple and Tesla, will have to have at least two diverse directors, or explain why they do not.

The directors should include one person who identifies as female and another as an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+.

It follows complaints about the lack of diversity in corporate America.

According to a Nasdaq study last year, more than 75% of its listed companies would not have met its proposed targets.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates financial markets, approved the plan on Friday, meaning it will be binding.

"These rules will allow investors to gain a better understanding of Nasdaq-listed companies' approach to board diversity," SEC chair Gary Gensler said...

Is a binding decision that requires changing the boards of 75% of Nasdaq companies something worth taking note of?

It does say "or explain why they do not" which can either be meaningless or the option 75% will take depending.

If I say because I put my family members on the board, or because I think diversity is stupid, what actually happens?

The quote "these rules will allow investors to get a better understanding" seems to suggest that either the numbers or your explanation will be visible to investors.

Checking the text it does say companies that choose not to comply will have to say why. There don't appear to be any official punishments for picking that option. "The Exchange would not evaluate the substance or merits of a companies explanation" seems to support that.

Which isn't to say this is not a big deal, its essentially a capitalized social shame model, using investors as the instrument. Assuming investors lean a particular way it might be more effective than a simple requirement in actuality.

But it is useful for context to know what the unspoken "or else" is.

Checking the text it does say companies that choose not to comply will have to say why. There don't appear to be any official punishments for picking that option. "The Exchange would not evaluate the substance or merits of a companies explanation" seems to support that.

But then Blackrock has ESG/DEI guidelines.

BlackRock Is Sick of Excuses for Corporate Boards Lacking Women

BlackRock Inc. isn’t buying excuses from companies that say they can’t find women to fill diverse slots on boards.

The world’s biggest asset manager earlier this year sent letters to companies in the Russell 1000 index with fewer than two women on their boards, asking them to explain their lack of progress. Some of the responses were surprising, said Michelle Edkins, the firm’s global head of stewardship.

“On board diversity, frankly some of the answers we got were from the 1880s,” Edkins said Friday in an interview at the SRI Conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Among the most frustrating responses: “There aren’t any qualified women,” “We don’t need a woman director” and “We’re not a consumer-facing company.”

But BlackRock, whose research shows that more diverse boards get better results, sees a wide pipeline of female directors available. Edkins said the New York-based fund giant, which has five women on its 18-member board, wants companies to look for directors in more uncommon places.

“Every man was a first-time director once,” she said. “If someone took a bet on an untrained director who happened to be a man, you can take a bet on an untrained director who happens to be a woman.”

From one side or another, at an earlier or later point of your business development, if not from Nasdaq then from Blackrock or Goldman Sachs or silent or not-so-silent conspiracy of antagonistic HR managers whom you cannot replace with loyal ones, you will start to feel pressure mounting and compelling you to actually make costly decisions.

Right if enough investors are on board, then it's a problem. But the change of rules is then downstream of that. It's a symptom, not a cause. If the Exchange is correct that this is information the investors want then the Exchange should probably facilitate that.

Though I'll note some of the companies did reply "We don't need a woman director" and the "punishment" presumably will be Blackrock not investing in them. Which I am fine with, you can choose to invest or not invest for whatever reason you want. Maybe someone will choose to invest because the company said that, and if not well that is something companies should have to take into account.

If Blackrock were asking Why don't you have 2 evangelical directors, I think that is fine too. They should be largely free to make their investment decisions as they like. If they make bad choices they'll presumably lose money (or if they are right and diverse companies make more they will be making those companies more profitable). Companies should be able to take moral stances, Hobby Lobby should be able to not fund contraception for their employees and Blackrock should be free to only invest in companies with a female director. Then I am free to decide to use Hobby Lobby or Blackrock based upon their choices or ignore them entirely and use some other criteria.

Assuming that it's just the social shame model, should we consider this intervention acceptable?

Assuming we accept it, will it actually fix the problem it's purportedly aimed at?

Assuming it doesn't fix the problem, what's the likely next steps?

Well "just" a social shame model is underselling it. Social shame is arguably more effective than a law or regulation in many cases.

But it does depend on the people doing the shaming or in this case investing. Do they prefer to invest in companies that hit the target or ones who say this target is stupid (though actually i think this will not be very common, see below) My guess is it won't be particularly effective because profitable companies will still get invested in, because there will be plenty of investors who think thats the most important thing.

I suspect most companies won't hit the target , but will also not say this is stupid. Their explanation will be, we tried, we are commited to diversity and will continue to search for blah blah. Something with plausible deniability.

What will happen after? Well i think it depends on why they stopped short of a mandate, was it due to investor push back? Or they thought it wouldn't hold up legally? Or the Exchange themselves wouldn't go any further (as at least it can be framed as only giving investors nore information). I don"t know enough about that to make a good prediction.

Christ. Yes it is. Objection retracted.

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