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 -
Virtue signaling works at achieving certain objectives, but these objectives only loosely fit with commercial success.
It'd be pretty funny to figure out how many of these people are actually true-believers. I would not be surprised if this was all a giant Rube Goldberg machine of mostly 'meh gotta roll with the punches' type of people. I had the idea recently that one of the strength of the American economy is that Americans are uniquely shaped to do almost anything that corporate requires, pushing the limits of technology way beyond what should be ethically agreed to.
It's truly a marvel.
They're just confused. I'm just being myself, apparently bad people are like the opposite of me. It seems that they just need some reeducation to figure out which way the wind is blowing.
It does seem uniquely tiresome. And I thought I was tired of the media production, but the Sisyphus clearly is somewhere else.
Yes I've read about this phenomenon in the scholarly greentexts.
Why is that a mistake? Are you passionate about the job? Is there nothing else you could do? Have you tried amplifying the grotesque to push it further? Some kind of progressive gish-gallop like what allegedly happened to atheism+?
It seems like it would be amusing to constantly shoot down others' ideas by claiming that they violate this or that rule of the ideology. Especially if the originator is somebody higher on the hierarchy that would appear to be better knowledgeable of the rules.
Another idea you may have already been implementing is not to show the final design of your work. This is what scientists do to get published. They know reviewers will demand additional experiments or work before approving publication, so they always keep something ahead to quickly be able to deliver when the criticism comes back.
You could even exaggerate some specific traits to have your boss shoot down the design solely on that one aspect and have them forget the other minor criticisms they could have...
More options
Context Copy link