site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   29233 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 2024

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

you already have, for decades. Build some other public institution, and they'll use their current position to make a play for that as well. The problem isn't the idea of public institutions; those are both inevitable and necessary. The problem is that it's not possible to share a society with people who don't share some minimum level of values with you.

I believe most people share a value for wealth and money. Or at least it is a fungible thing that can be converted into other values. That is why the stock market works and publicly traded companies exist. Until DEI crap came along most of them have been legally obligated to pursue money and profit as a singular value, because that is one thing everyone can agree on.

Certain values matter way more than others. I think there are only some minimum values of non-interference that I need to live around others, and everything beyond that is just icing on the cake.

Until DEI crap came along most of them have been legally obligated to pursue money and profit as a singular value, because that is one thing everyone can agree on.

...And yet, DEI crap came along. Is your assumption that market forces will make it go away again? Why didn't they prevent it in the first place?

More generally, I think the idea that money is a reliable least-common-denominator fallback value is simply not accurate given what we observe of human nature. I think there was a similar argument in the last belle epoque, that the contentions and resentments couldn't get too far out of hand because it would interfere too much with making money. It didn't work out well in the last century; I don't expect it to go much better in this one.

I think DEI stuff was a bit like peacock feathers in an era of easy money. It was a way to stand out in the market.

Once the easy money ended a lot of places quietly axed their more meaningful DEI initiatives. Or not so quietly did massive layoffs that just disproportionately affected those departments.

I have a cousin and some former co-workers that worked with DEI stuff. They all have expressed frustration that the companies they work for basically only give lip-service to the ideas, and that they actively avoid measuring themselves in any way that might suggest they've failed or could do better.

If DEI stuff was more meaningful and continued to exist in tighter markets, ya I think market forces would destroy it. There has been ongoing interest from investor groups on ant-dei funds. Which make a ton of sense as an investment strategy. If you were going to choose to either invest in a group of companies that pursue profit as a primary objects or pursue anything else as a primary objective, you'd probably expect the profit group to make more money. DEI is a handy categorization in that regard.

I have a cousin and some former co-workers that worked with DEI stuff. They all have expressed frustration that the companies they work for basically only give lip-service to the ideas, and that they actively avoid measuring themselves in any way that might suggest they've failed or could do better.

As a complete aside, this paragraph amused quite a bit for the multiple levels of irony going on here.

First, presuming that these people aren't cynical mercenaries after a paycheck but rather believers who are doing this job because they truly believe that this DEI work makes the world a better place, it's incumbent on them to actually measure how effective their DEI training is and adjust their training to get the positive results they desire. If they keep noticing that companies that take their training decide to keep paying just lip service while actively avoiding meaningful measurement, the frustration should be directed at themselves for failing to measure and adjust the effectiveness of their training to convince these companies to actually take DEI seriously. If they just keep giving their training to companies while complaining that the companies don't take them seriously instead of introspecting on their own failures, then these trainers are clearly just paying lip service to DEI values while not really taking them seriously.

The other layer of irony is also dependent on them being true believers. Because the belief in positive consequences of what DEI is pushing is also largely dependent on actively avoiding taking measurement that could suggest that one might have failed (or perhaps it's more accurate to say actively avoiding making interpretations that could suggest that one might have failed). To get to the very point where one can express this sort of frustration at others refusing to take measurements for fear that the judgment could be negative requires one to have committed the exact same (intellectual) crime!

Its often less of a training thing and more of a hiring thing.

There are two competing ways to view jobs:

  1. A job is a thing that needs to be done. It is not something people normally want to do, so you need to pay someone to do it.
  2. A job is a societal role and measure of social standing. The best people have the best jobs, the pay is part of the package for being such a great person.

The problem as I see it is that both views are correct, but only so long as most employers view jobs in the first way "as a thing that needs to be done".

DEI is specifically trying to push a set of social standings that it wants, by make that part of the company hiring practices. That is a luxury belief for companies to indulge in. At the end of the day labor is one of the most expensive factor inputs for most companies, and being dumb about a huge portion of your costs isn't a way to run a successful company.

The type of complaints I hear from DEI people are along the lines of "you say you want to hire more female or [specifc race] programmers, but the gender/race mix of our employees is unchanged". To which the companies have somewhat hilariously responded by saying "well it was our DEI department's job to get us more female and [specific race] programmers, and they failed so we are going to fire them to show that we take this job seriously". Because the companies still view jobs as a thing that needs to be done, and DEI departments are failing to get the thing done.

If DEI stuff was more meaningful and continued to exist in tighter markets, ya I think market forces would destroy it.

It seems to me that DEI arose as a tribal response to social conditions, and that those social conditions persist, so the drive for something like DEI likewise exists. DEI is a way to focus discontent over social outcomes into fungible money and power for a particular tribe. Why not simply demand DEI through law? Why not simply use social coordination or the powers of the state to squash any actor that attempts to exploit the market forces in question?

Why not simply demand DEI through law?

They've tried, but the opposite has so far been more successful. I.E. banning DEI initiatives.

Why not simply use social coordination or the powers of the state to squash any actor that attempts to exploit the market forces in question?

I don't have tons of faith in the US political system. But it is pretty good at protecting wealth. DEI screws with people's ability to maintain wealth, so its been a losing prospect in US politics.

They've tried, but the opposite has so far been more successful. I.E. banning DEI initiatives.

Affirmative Action seems to have been pretty successful. HR encroachment and enforcement backed by the CRA seems to have been pretty successful. Are you using a definition of DEI that excludes those legal structures? It seems to me that both of those and many similar efforts besides strongly shape the pool of PMC types who are going to be running the relevant industries and drafting, passing, interpreting and complying with the relevant laws.

Where has banning DEI been successful? I'm not aware of any instances that have actually born significant fruit, but am open to the idea that I've missed something.

But it is pretty good at protecting wealth. DEI screws with people's ability to maintain wealth, so its been a losing prospect in US politics.

DEI might screw with society's ability to maintain wealth. I see no reason why a DEI-committed elite could not profit immensely from the practice, at the expense of essentially everyone who isn't them. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water and you can make him drink if you shove a hose down his throat. The idealistic point of DEI is to solve inequity. The practical point is to amass wealth and power, which can be exchanged for power and wealth. When they write the laws, as they have in the distant past, the recent past, the present, and which we should expect them to continue into the future, I do not see a barrier to "correcting" "toxic market forces".

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