site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32965 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.

In no sane world should a "human resources coordinator" with a Communications degree who sends out emails for a living, feel that the Electrician who wired up her house is beneath her.

Counter point - We lived for millennia without electricity, but communicating is a key factor in building community, consensus and indeed society. Creating and nurturing those bonds has been a female role for a long time (see who tends to organize church events et al even where the milieu is explicitly patriarchal). It is those artificial but carefully maintained social ties that are what have allowed us to scale tribes into cities, nations and overarching cultures. Those roles are high status because they are absolutely VITAL in a societal sense.

This is not to denigrate electricians, most of my uncles on one side of my family are electricians or plumbers (and most on the other side are teachers) but I think there is a tendency especially in the rationalish sphere to devalue just how important emotional and social cohesiveness is (possibly due to the fact that "normie" women are not exactly well represented either there or here). And from what I can tell in both my own and others marriages, and in every company and organization I have ever worked for it is nigh exclusively women in these "useless" communication roles that do that. There probably isn't much need for the Communications degree but building a corporate culture begins with communication that most men, again in my experience are not interested in. Women are heavily involved in the social shaming, rewarding and so on that is the foundation of our societies, top to bottom.

Which leads to the solution. If you want more babies, you have to convince enough socially influential women to shame and judge other women for not having enough kids. More easily said than done of course, but the only real answer. Social status, social shaming and judgement will outweigh any amount of financial incentives or law changes.

I already replied below, but this bit up here caught my attention:

Which leads to the solution. If you want more babies, you have to convince enough socially influential women to shame and judge other women for not having enough kids. More easily said than done of course, but the only real answer. Social status, social shaming and judgement will outweigh any amount of financial incentives or law changes.

Women already shame and judge the fuck out of each other, to a frightening degree. What makes you think re-directing this age-old social weapon will be to anyone's benefit?

Because you can't stop it. Something will be shamed. The fact that it has existed for so long suggests its important as it is nearly ubquitous as you point out.

So its either pointed randomly, or pointed at things we like or things we dislike. But it will be pointed somewhere.

Why would i be trying to be insulting? As far as I can tell you're agreeing with me?

Carefully creating and nurturing social bonds is a role that has historically been fulfilled by women through marriage and childcare i.e. assuming the role of wife and mother, mother-in-law, grandmother etc., forming communal bonds with other women in the context of childcare, motherhood and preparation for these roles.

Not through signing up for some bullshit job at a corporation.

But I think you already know that.

Yes, but roles adapt. A company of 1000 people needs those social bonds and culture just as a village of a thousand does.

A village of a 1000 is a community with traditions, a shared history, identity, familial/blood relations, tied to the soil etc.

A company of 1000 is just an urban office where mostly rootless people who otherwise have rather few things in common and usually have high turnover go to toil away for money in front of screens.

Precisely why it takes a lot of effort to create in the company.

A company is not a community, but, in the current context, a facilitator of corporate profit, nothing more.

I'm baffled by the suggestion that voluntelling people to put their pronouns in their email signature, attend pointless diversity seminars and wear green ribbons on their lapels is somehow improving social cohesiveness within a company.

That isn't all or even most of what HR does however. But even so thatv is exactly what building social cohesion is like. Attending church, publicly espousing certain views, being judged for being outside those views, are all replicated inside organizations.

Social shame and social judgement is the building block of society. It's the reason we're so good at, it limits the differences accepted in a society, or in this case a company.

Of course all that "social cohesion" goes out the window when it turns out a plurality of your work force goes through the motions purely cynically.

Does it? People going to church still cheated on their wives and husbands. Some went to church and then secretly snuck out to a gay bar. Social cohesiveness is largely concerned that we publicly adhere to the shared values.

If you think a rule is nonsense but you follow it anyway, whether engaging in Church or at the DEI seminar you are still following the rules outwardly. You don't actually have to be a believer.

Does it? People hoingvto church still cheated on their wives and husbands. Some went to church and then secretly snuck out to a gay bar. Social cohesiveness is largely concerned that we publicly adhere to the shared values.

Yes, it does. We're not talking about believers going to church, but occasionally falling to the temptation of sin, we're talking about half of the congregation secretly following a completely different religion. Social cohesion is not people following the rules when they're afraid they might get caught, it's them following the rules even when they know they could get away with it.

Which is why God can see all and HR can read your emails and slack chats and anyone you talk to can inform on you.

Social cohesion is exactly people following the rules when they are afraid they might be caught. We're selfish individuals at heart, society has to fight against that and it has a lot of tools in its box to do it. The basic ones are fear and shame.

Which is why God can see all and HR can read your emails and slack chats and anyone you talk to can inform on you.

Your God's threats don't scare me when I think he doesn't exist, and my God is the true one, and HR snooping in my emails is proof there's no cohesion.

Social cohesion is exactly people following the rules when they are afraid they might be caught.

No, it's not. Social cohesion is being able to leave your doors unlocked, or to leave your bike on the sidewalk. It's not being afraid to turn your back towards someone, and it's knowing your hard work will be appreciated. You westerners really have no idea what made your society better than the rest. So be it, I'm happy to milk it for whatever it's worth until it collapses.

There probably isn't much need for the Communications degree but building a corporate culture begins with communication that most men, again in my experience are not interested in. Women are heavily involved in the social shaming, rewarding and so on that is the foundation of our societies, top to bottom.

"Communications coordinators" are the type of people who destroy corporate culture, not create it.

Great corporate culture is created from a groups of people working together to solve difficult problems. So to build this culture, you want to hire intelligent and conscientious people who are passionate about solving the types of problems your organization needs.

Having worked everywhere from blue chip tech companies to the civil service, I very much disagree. The high performing go getters are required but they don't care much about corporate culture, but the 90% of people in the organization who do the grunt work benefit from it highly.

Most work in most organizations does not involve solving difficult problems. Your high performing, high IQ, problem solvers will do great regardless of culture (though a great team with a great facilitator will do even better than one without). The work of billing and managing and the boring day to day work required for a company to survive benefits from cohesiveness and shared culture.

You're off topic. You were supposed to defend "human resource managers" by showing how they build corporate culture, and you're arguing whether or not high-achievers are more important than average workers.

I've also worked in a bunch of places, and never saw an HR activity that didn't feel like a communist rally. You march, you smile, you clap, because if you don't you get a one way ticket to Siberia.

I'd also like to note that we've had communication and community building without communication degrees for longer than we've gone without electricity.

Yes, and what do you think being judged for not going to church or not going to the rally is? It puts social pressure on you to conform. Thats what social cohesion is, limiting the options available.

You may not like the culture they are building and enforcing, just the way i don't necessarily like that small town America forced gay people ro stay in the closet but it is a step towards a more homogeneous culture. And often that is led by "church ladies" or the equivalent. HR are the church ladies of your company. They tell the pastor you were seen at a strip club or with a woman other than your wife, so as to shame you and enforce certain standards.

And i already noted the communication degree is probably not necessary.

Yes, and what do you think being judged for not going to church or not going to the rally is? It puts social pressure on you to conform. Thats what social cohesion is, limiting the options available.

Social cohesion is persuading me to work for the benefit of the group. You can make me go through the motions with threats of ostracism, but you're not going to make me walk the extra mile for you, not unless there's something in it for me. That's the opposite of cohesion.

Maybe you're an outlier but history shows us people will do a lot to avoid being ostracised. Fear and shame are strong motivators and every cohesive society uses them liberally. Because they work on most people.

We learn them as kids very early. You'll get mocked for having the wrong shoes or being a nerd, or nowadays not being a nerd, and most people react by publicly at least going along with it. Not everyone of course, but enough.

People here are likely to be more contrarian than average, but for most people thesectools are extremely effective.

Maybe you're an outlier but history shows us people will do a lot to avoid being ostracised.

I'm not. The entire Eastern Block functioned the way I described, and you've misunderstood everything I'm saying. Yes people will do the bare minimum to avoid getting ostracised.

It seems the West is now determined to reproduce the East's success. Have fun doing so, but don't act surprised if the progressive dream of equality is achieved through making everything equally crap.

My point is this is already how it is and has been in the West. The change is just in what not how.

I'm in my 50's and this dynamic is entirely normal here.

More comments

Counter point - We lived for millennia without electricity, but communicating is a key factor in building community, consensus and indeed society. Creating and nurturing those bonds has been a female role for a long time (see who tends to organize church events et al even where the milieu is explicitly patriarchal).

This work may be important, but formalizing it and ranking it within the same hierarchy as male status is not inevitable, and in fact is historically fairly recent. In most pre-modern societies a young woman who helped facilitate social relationships in her village would not on that account consider herself to be of superior social rank to a blacksmith or a baker and therefore refuse to consider them as partners, the way the HR manager now considers herself the social superior of the electrician.

Rather, young people of both sexes would usually have the same social rank as their fathers. Because about as many male vs. female children would be born to families at each social rank, there was little possibility of an excess of women who couldn't find similarly-ranked men.

She probably would internally consider herself socially superior to an uncouth blacksmith even if she wouldn't say it.

But the very social pressures she uses are used on her by other even more socially influential women to promote marriage et al.

Tales of women having to put up with and improve poorly socialized men are age old. You can't fix that "Women are wonderful" effect so don't even try. You just make the alternative of spinsterhood even more shameful. Once she is attached to Perrin she can turn her talents to improving his status and thereby her own. Women wanting to "fix" a man is an age old stereotype, presumably for a reason.

The shaming by other women of being single and childless is your key factor to push the union. Assuming as per the OP's conditions we can't mandate arranged marriages at least.

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