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 -
Musa al-Gharbi again? These events have always been sorta uncommon despite all the hype/attention they get on twitter when they happen. Right now, without deferring to Google, name at least four major campus protests or cancellations. Evergreen, but that a long tom ago. Middlebury, again, a long time ago. Berkeley protests over Milo? Three. Top Universities like Brown, Stanford, Harvard seem to go a long time washout any major problems despite the largely left-wing student body . For most of the year campus life is mostly uneventful, such as students going to classes , writing papers, taking exams, etc. , not protesting.
They are uncommon because cancelling an important person or even low-ranking academic always incurs a risk of backlash and defection, because of the media attention it gets (like regarding the rewriting of Roald Dahl books, which hardly anyone on the left supports even) . Cancelling someone or something important is like a nuclear weapon. Firing one is ok, fire too many and you destroy yourself in the process, too.
Rather, it's much worse in the private sector, stuff like DEI , social media censorship, being banned from platforms, etc., which is far bigger than academia and affects more people for most of their lives more so than academia or school, which is just 20-30% of one's life, and also is unseen and in the background, except occasionally when it does blow up (like the James Damore memo). The risk of being banned on Facebook, Reddit, etc. for committing 'bad speak', or even on twitter still, is still pretty bad and has not peaked. Gatekeepers on social media still command considerable power.
If you're claiming that they've stopped hammering down nails that stick up, and as evidence show that there's not much hammering happening, you also need to show that there's still nails sticking up.
they cannot hammer all of them down. it's an optimalization problem. Hammering down too many would mean losing legitimacy and support, like the backlash to re-writing/censoring Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl books.
they are still hammering nails but in the private sector , like social media or work, stuff which gets less media attention than highly visible targets. Going after highly visible targets incurs risk, so they cannot do it that often.
But this is a backlash that occurred primarily on Twitter, lasted about 48 hours, and resulted in no changes. No firings, no policy changes, not even an apology. Pretty weak tea I think.
More options
Context Copy link
...We're talking about academia specifically, right? Which academic nails are sticking up, currently?
My assumption is that within academia, within the corporate world, most places run on procedure and the manipulation of procedural outcomes, they absolutely can hammer down every nail there is. I've seen pretty much nothing that leads me to think otherwise in the last seven or so years. And sure, they get pushback sometimes, on specific issues. Usually this pushback doesn't even stop them on the specific issue in question, much less roll back previous wins; most commonly, there's simply a week or two of grumbling and then people give up. Seuss and Dahl are still censored. The "pushback" lacked any meaningful substance.
"that often" is a flexible term. it seems to me that they can do it often enough to consolidate their gains in preparation for the next push. Again, the policy/procedure/rules changes aren't rolling back. What they got, they keep, what they failed to get, they'll be back for soon enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Harvard canceled a Law School dean for representing Weinstein. There was also the Christakises at Yale. Then there's MITs cancellation of Sabatini for a MeTooing, and NYUs refusal to hire him. MIT also cancelled Stallman.
I suggest that if there are fewer events, it's because so many witches have already been burnt, and the remaining witches are keeping their heads down. We're not seeing a blossoming of intellectual freedom.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link