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 -
I’m taking a diversity training today which opened with the following:
Obviously, the architects of this particular training didn’t decide to “spend less on candles.” Nor did they pivot into a deep discussion of training efficacy and reform, which I would have found fascinating, but isn’t remotely relevant to my job. The rest of the training segment, instead, fumbles towards the idea that cultivating Belonging is the real goal.
Out of curiosity, I tried to track down the initial study. Carr and Reece wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review which included the 40% claim, citing a separate HBR article written by an Ernst & Young executive. In turn, that one pointed to an E&Y press release. Supposedly, there was a “Belonging Barometer” survey of 1,000 adults. The trail ends with a link-rotted press release and no sign of any peer review or data.
This doesn’t stop stop the training from embedding an E&Y video and otherwise parroting points from the articles. It concludes with a quiz and a cutesy certificate. If I go make fun of it with my coworkers over drinks, we can bond. Perhaps the company would consider its slice of that $8 billion to be well spent.
The term belonging has a specific meaning in critical studies, there is a good writeup on James Lindsay's encyclopedia. So this concept basically takes inclusion even further, you are not only required not to do bad stuff like microaggressions that can exclude marginalized categories, you also have to participate on all DEI activities proactively and enthusiastically, otherwise you are excluding. I feel sorry for you.
In the broader sense I like how Lindsay described DIE initiatives. Diversity really means experts on diversity. It does not necessarily mean to have people of different colors and genders and sexualities, it means having all those people but above all else they must adhere to Social Justice movement and ideology, otherwise they do not count - they "ain't black". So diversity means employing ideological commissars. Now the main tool of these commissars is inclusion. The agenda is to exclude all thoughts and ideologies opposing Social Justice, marking them as violence that creates unsafe space and so forth supposedly producing exclusion. Inclusion really is censorship. And equity is of course the age old left doctrine: you have to build commissariat that administratively redistributes resources, positions, social status, promotions and so forth from those who were identified by commissars as oppressors to those who are in line with what commissars want and who are thus oppressed or allies. And of course it goes without saying that given that commissars have a very important and tough job ahead of them, they have to get some resources as well. Equity is just expanded concept of socialism.
Even though DEI may sound good and for sure many people genuine believe in it, it is exceedingly prone and one can even say designed to incentivize grift as well as reproduction: it saps company resources aimed at making their products or services in order to spread Social Justice inside and outside of the company.
I don’t actually think that’s how “belonging” was used here.
I’d believe that it’s also a term of art. There’s a natural place for a motte-and-bailey. But the usage, in this training, was aligned with normal interests.
HR is incentivized to avoid “hostile environment” lawsuits. The broader company benefits from better cohesion and reduced turnover. I’d like to have coworkers I can trust.
As a result, “belonging” scans more like management technique than something subversive. (Yes, I realize that could be intentional tactics.) It helps that they’re not actually asking anything of me. I’d expect the microaggressions and D&I activities you posit to appear in advance of any of Lindsay’s italicized bogeymen.
Hostile environment lawsuits are skewed in certain way, it is just HR protecting the company and there is just these small things that need to be enacted or incentivized. But sure, it has to be just a coincidence that "belonging" was used as a term and theme for the presentation, while at the same time it is used by DEI experts as the main reason why we need to go even further. For sure by belonging they meant things like aptitude or capability to do the job as opposed to personal and political agenda bleeding into your company. Go away with this boogeyman, it is just normal corporate "conservativism" not to be slammed by lawsuits you silly Lindsay enthusiast.
Again, all I want to say is good luck. I hope you at least get some “fuck you” money from all of this, this would be my advice. And I do not really want to belittle you in any way. I gues my point is to advise you to get on a little bit more “cynical” or calculating outlook in order to navigate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your post, especially in lines like
reads as a chain of assertions that all these different ideas you are opposed to are really the same or closely related (and so presumably you expect all those who oppose a subset of them to join you in opposing all). You need to justify statements like that, especially since it seems that there are superficially quite obvious counterexamples (type specimens of socialism are concerned with the socioeconomically disadvantaged, whereas US equity ideology fairly reliably favours the rich and urbane over the poor and boorish).
So does socialism, in many cases. It's hardly novel to note that much of the energy and leadership in socialist movements comes from upperclass failsons who reliably prioritize using the movement to claim status and resources for themselves over actually helping the truly disadvantaged. Writers like Orwell and Steinbeck were noting this dynamic a century ago.
More options
Context Copy link
I use the term socialism in the meaning that it is supposed to be administrative phase where the ideals are enforced onto the population by vanguard socialist forces. The idea is that once the population internalizes all the socialist values, the final phase will be for the socialist vanguard to abolish themselves and true communist utopia is achieved.
This is the same logic. You will have DEI experts and CSR positions imposing Social Justice values upon the people administratively, but this is supposed to only exist until the true Social Justice is achieved voluntarily and automatically, until everybody internalizes critical consciousness and the system can be maintained from within so to speak. This aim goes in line with the overall acceptance that reality is socially constructed, if you do enough activism to change the people to accept certain values, it will in turn make people build better and more Socially Just society and reality. For instance the old classical Marxists-Leninists believed that [social]reality is constructed by mode of production and abolishing private property by socialist forces will change the material conditions of proletariat which will in turn lead to communism if carefully guided by The Party of course. Different concept in some sense, but one which share certain logic.
Also I used the terms like commissars, censorship and socialism known for more than 100 years as an analogy for Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officers, Inclusion and Equity. As with all analogies it is not the same, but it shares some significant internal logic which I briefly explained. That is my assertion.
EDIT: I can also to use another example of Department of Anti-racism as proposed by Ibram X. Kendi. It should be "comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees" - which means no political control over "experts on racism" or in my parlance anti-racist commissars. This body should have no other authority, they just want to:
This would literally mean constitutionally enshrining leading position of unelected anti-racist commissars over all public and private policy and personal governmental decisions in USA. For me it is preposterous that anybody even considers Kendi as anything but utmost danger to democracy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Despite daily beatings, the morale has not improved yet! A mystery shrouded in enigma!
Yes, despite monthly reminders that some employees are different and might be treated badly and should be on the lookout for jerks that secretly don't like them, they don't feel the same as everyone else. Shocking. Perhaps they need to join more "you look different from the majority" employee groups.
And also be reminded more frequently that their co-workers may be secretly hating them - and likely are, since there's no possible way for them not to, even if they genuinely think they don't, they still unconsciously are, there's no way for them to stop, since the whole culture is making them do it. And thus everybody should be vigilantly watching everybody else for the signs of that and scrutinize any communication or action (or inaction) for the signs of that. And if it looks like any communication - including one you're not the party in - raises your suspicion, you should immediately intervene and emphasize how much harm such hateful conduct is doing and how intolerable are the conditions that led to this outbreak of bigotry. Only the eternal vigilance can ensure the feeling of belonging.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When your work tells you to feel like you "belong", or that you are part of a "family", watch your wallet and your asshole. They gettin ready to fuck y'all.
Work is a job. If they didn't pay you to show up, you wouldn't do it. They're trying to get you to identify with an opposing force. They aren't your family and no one "belongs" at work.
This is why I find the examples of companies like Amazon paying to fly women around the country for abortions so disgusting.
“Noo, nooo… we are your family! Don’t create a family outside of us! If you have children, we will help you kill them. Never leave us!”
It’s…dare I say satanic.
Of all the dumb things they do, I'm fine with this one. They provide healthcare to their employees. If a local government bans some subset of healthcare then it is sensible for Amazon to pay for transportation. I don't see how that's different from my employer paying for my dental care and doctor's visits.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm hardly a fan of the practice, but to my knowledge they're not encouraging women to have abortions, just facilitating the abortions of those women who want them. I'm quite sure they have maternity leave and generous benefits for adoption and IVF as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Naturally.
I'm not packing my bags just yet. This training was completely free of such platitudes; in the defense sector, we only get those around national holidays. Instead the emphasis was on ways one might exclude people even if diversity is achieved. "Belonging," in each example, meant something more like "not resenting your coworkers." I'll endorse that level of cohesion any day.
I really was astonished at how much the messaging talked down D&I training, even though it didn't take the next step.
I feel blessed that at my Silicon Valley tech startup the biggest taste of this I get is an ADP-produced video training, mandated by the state of California, and a handful of people that put pronouns in their Zoom handle.
Wild that the defense sector would be so into this. My naive expectation is that the kind of people that are really into DEI initiatives would self select out of that industry.
I thought the defense industry loves woke capitalism. Knife missiles for brown people, rainbow corporate logos and pride demonstrations for Americans.
More options
Context Copy link
being defense adjacent: The type of people that make it far in such fields have their eye on the prize.
They will watch the video, say yes boss, and secure the bag/contract/discretionary fun bucks.
They type of person that cares enough about a cheesy HR "Please please please don't being our name onto the front page" video to raise a big stink is either deeply unserious or too ideological.
More options
Context Copy link
I get the feeling that the CIA and military types think they can deflect criticism by going woke. I think they aren’t wrong, since whether or not you’re on board with social justice is primarily how the MSM attacks people
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it depends where. It seems like for certain tech jobs the divide between work and showing up is more blurred. Companies like Google are known for flexible hours and free time. A tech company that invests heavily in talent doesn't want said individuals to quit for a competitor, and will probably tolerate a lot more insubordination compared to a low-paying job. It's not like finding replacements for top talent is easy. Although the recent wave of massive layoffs at Facebook shows that no one's job is safe.
All companies tolerate insubordination from people they can't easily replace. My management will fire me the instant they don't have to do my job when I'm gone.
Particularly, companies usually tolerate more insubordination/backtalk as a trade off against offering higher pay.
Your theory checks out
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you're right that some places do manage to have a legitimate investment in their employees, but there are plenty of examples of companies claiming to be "like family" only to take advantage of the situation. My personal rule of thumb is that explicit statements to that effect are worthless or possibly even negative valued, but actions (flexible work hours, better pay, improved working conditions) are meaningful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This HBR article seems to be taking that number from the survey here. It's not clear which version of the UCLA Loneliness scale they're using, but see here for an example of V3 and considering a score over 43 to be "lonely", normal caveats about Likert Scale here. Survey was of "more than 20k" people ages 18 or older, and given that Cigna is an insurance company and the most likely way that they got that volunteer set together, it's prooobably not very representative of the average person, especially for lower-income individuals.
Some of this is being occluded because "more than 40%" is a garbage number: it's not used in the linked material, which generally focused on individual questions from the UCLA Loneliness scale (which... isn't really how that's supposed to work), and other summaries from Cigna that give exact numbers give different answers:
It's possible that Carr and Reece have a different paper on loneliness I'm not finding, but it's possible they either pulled from other summaries that broke out solely employed workers (who are less likely to score 43+), or got access to the raw data and pulled those numbers out.
In theory, this sort of "lonely" is tied to earlier mortality, though I expect there's some munging of what, exactly, they're measuring and who they're measuring for to make that comparison.
Thanks!
I'd ended up at that same article, and I think the 40% number comes from the Ey Belonging Barometer link, which is where I got the idea that it was 1000 adults. They claim their study "substantiated existing evidence" from the Multivu Cigna study. Unfortunately, the Barometer has vanished into the aether, since it just redirects to their generic press release page.
At least from diving the Wayback Machine (though not difference in live version), that's plausible as a source:
But it's even less clear what that actually means, given
From the tea leaves, I think they took a summary of multiple survey response and munged them together, such that being ignored is a type of being 'isolated', but at that point you're letting the social scientists play telephone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If this in reference to feeling isolation due to race and other typical DEI things, or just in general? If the latter, I'd say "only 40% of people feel a sense of isolation?". IME, everyone feels undervalued, alone, unfulfilled, misunderstood, and other things that easily lead to feelings of isolation at some point in their job. Who doesn't?
I don’t know. I couldn’t track down any numbers or methodology beyond that 40%.
It’s possible that the survey questions were selective enough to distinguish “undervalued-by-management” or “working-alone-too-much” from “last-kid-to-be-picked-for-dodgeball.” Somehow, I doubt it is so clean.
More options
Context Copy link
I quit the job I was at for 8 years this summer, but I didn't feel undervalued, alone, unfulfilled, misunderstood, or isolated. I liked the vast majority of my coworkers, people always took my ideas seriously and often turned them into our standards of practice, I got to do lots of cool problem solving, and I think I was probably paid a pretty reasonable amount (could make more in consulting, but pay probably made sense for company's internal rankings). I left over differences of policy with upper management, but there was none of the isolation stuff. I'm pretty sure my wife and most of my good friends are in the same boat.
You never once felt feelings of isolation in your entire 8 years at the job? Forget even on a macro-level, what about in specific incidents? I know every now and again there's some sort of heated argument about something, and if I'm one of the people who feels strongly about it, then I can easily feel isolated, like the other person or side doesn't really get it, and then I worry about whether I don't really get it. Same thing can happen in response to even just hanging out with coworkers and feeling like you've gone too far in a joke or something. I just feel like feelings of isolation are everywhere, because social dynamics are everywhere, and at the end of the day you just have to deal with them and talk yourself down, in order to hold down a job.
I have to tell you that:
IF you work at a company that is mostly not-assholes
AND you frequently find yourself alone on one side of an argument
THEN there is a significant chance that [You] really don't get it.
I'm responding because I think most people on here are capable of some sort of self-introspection and I am, at this second, dealing with one person in my org that represents 10% of my HR bullshit every month because they are mentally incapable of understanding where they fit in the organization and hearing the truth/feedback.
More options
Context Copy link
I surely wouldn't go as far as to say I never once felt isolated, but if asked, "do you feel isolated here?" in any setting where I'm engaging in introspection, my answer would have been that I did not. Even during the most unpleasant conflicts I had, I always felt like there were other colleagues that had my back, or would at least listen and commiserate. I fully realize how incredibly lucky I am to have had that situation - I definitely would have said that I often felt isolated, undervalued, unfulfilled, and misunderstood during my time as a postdoc and before that as a grad student. But in the only real, adult job I had, I lucked into a place that I felt at home.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link