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 -
Meta ends its DEI program (internal memo, Ars Technica verification). The company is disbanding its DEI team. It will no longer use "diverse slate hiring" (intentional seeking-out of candidates of particular underrepresented minorities). It is "sunsetting our supplier diversity efforts", which probably means that they will no longer privilege minority/women-owned suppliers.
It is ending the perception that it has representation goals. Yes that's convoluted, but how else does one interpret this statement:
The stated reason for the shift in policy:
That is, they expect to no longer be sued based on "disparate impacts", but possibly sued based on preferential treatments. This... makes sense for a company to do. McDonalds is doing it; Walmart did it more than a month ago.
I expect more companies to follow suit (quietly or loudly). My question is: are there any corporate for-profit true-believers who will stick with the DEI initiatives? Ben and Jerry's, maybe?
In related news, Mark Zuckerberg went on Joe Rogan where, among other things, he talked about the pressure the Biden Administration put on him / his employees.
I never expected to be this bitter at the turning of the tide, but I feel the need to bookmark this clip for future use. Oh well, I suppose that was the most likely way something approaching a win would pan out, so I can't complain too much, but boy, would I like to have a few words with some people.
Alternatively Zuck doesn't give a shit about either the left or the right or free speech or all that jazz, he's playing a different game: maximizing money. This isn't any less moral or worthy than serving the left/right, in fact I'd argue it's more moral than the self contradictory belief systems held by almost everyone on the left/right except for the most principled (probably a few percent of humans, definitely not more than 10%).
I think the opposite is true. Zuckerburg's stance shows some courage and indicates a genuine belief in free speech and equality.
Is he a hero? No. Heroic would have been taking the same stance in 2021 and having his company taken from him by government pressure and angry shareholders.
But if he was a coward he would just have kept the DEI going, albeit at a lower profile. No one forced him to make this announcement. There are real risks. Even though Trump barely won the election, California is still a one-party Democratic state. Furthermore, Facebook's employees could fairly be classified as far-left. A corporate goon like Sundar (Google) or Satya (Microsoft) would never have taken such a bold stance.
I think this Scott article is relevant:
Give Up Seventy Percent Of The Way Through The Hyperstitious Slur Cascade
Mark is fighting the fight that can be won, not heroically dying on the battlefield to inspire later generations. I give him credit for standing up for what's right, even if it's not maximally brave.
Unlike Musk or Bezos, who could conceivably have their company taken from them by investors, Zuck owns an ironclad majority of Facebook voting stock. He could be jailed, but he’d still control the company. Even if the SEC forced him to resign as CEO for some manufactured violation of securities law, he’s still be able to appoint his successor.
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