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 -
This is spurious reasoning and it's an argument that requires inferring causation based on correlation alone. Accenture tries to protect themselves from this criticism by employing motte-and-bailey, stating "it is important to note that research can only establish correlations, not causations, between the two" while very clearly attempting to push the reader towards the conclusion that diversity is good for companies. Even if the studies they're seeing aren't fucked with and there isn't a massive file drawer effect going on (and I would probably wager there is) there are plenty of ways a positive correlation between performance and diversity could be seen even if the promotion of diversity has a negative effect.
For example, it's possible that the companies that already have a large advantage can afford to implement bullshit like diversity initiatives. They can make all sorts of profitability-hurting decisions without actually impacting their position relative to other companies all too much, whereas other companies not in the same position would get selected out if they did that. One of the big examples of a hegemonic company caving to internal pressures and going nuts on the DEI shit is Disney. Its position is so strong that it can do such things like incessantly arrange internal DEI initiatives (one of which they literally got Ibram X. Kendi in for), and take strong public stands on controversial legislation which immensely hurts their public image but in the grand scheme of things doesn't make too large of a dent. Additionally, if you wanted to pressure companies to endorse your social goals you would probably mostly target dominant players since they have the most clout to push the agenda through. So the more successful a company is, the more attempts at ideological capture it will be subject to.
All this then becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. For instance, if many large institutional investors become "woke" and attempt to use their influence as a shareholder to remodel the internal leadership of the companies they invest in to be more diverse, this is going to strengthen that relationship even further. This is, in fact, exactly what the world's largest asset manager is doing. "According to BlackRock, insufficient board gender diversity was the main reason for voting against a director in the Americas region, where it voted against 1,554 directors at 975 companies - or 61% of the votes that the firm cast against directors in the region - for board gender diversity-related reasons." This creates a situation where companies that are getting funding (which would also be the companies with the most promising prospects) are the companies that are facing most pressure to be woke.
There are many more plausible explanations you could add that don’t amount to “diversity is good for your bottom line” (some of which have already been covered below, such as urban-rural divides possibly affecting the results). In short, even if the relationship detailed here is real I would say it is very premature to come to the conclusion that this means diversity is beneficial. Rather, it is far more likely that profitability creates the conditions that lead to DEI and not the other way around.
EDIT: added more
More options
Context Copy link