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.
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.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link