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 -
So, in the wake of Elon Musk's bid for Twitter being back on and him apparently suggesting layoffs of up to 75%, Twitter employees have released an open letter
beggingdemanding:I mean, obviously there's a lot of schadenfreude to be had by conservatives and anti-wokes over demands that political beliefs be respected.
Personally, as someone who has watched the Left begin to sound like libertarians on corporate power ("Facebook is a private company) when it comes to social media sites (which I view as a purely self-serving move) I find it hard to be sympathetic. Since nobody has any principled solution to billionaires owning the public square and they should deal with the consequences if things don't always swim left.
Even on the matters that aren't that "culture warrey" and align with my beliefs (e.g. good worker protections) I see no reason to care since their argument seems to be that they're important enough to have a right to an outsized say and protection (since Twitter is apparently being used in important places like the Ukraine war). You see similar things during the Chappelle Netflix or Peterson-publisher kerfuffle where relatively well-off employees think they have right to dictate the direction of the company, a right they don't seem to fight for for any other set of employees.
This is the game. I think these people are confused: you're the imperial functionaries, not the Emperor. Sometimes the tune changes and you have to dance.
My perspective is probably economically naive, but I think, if Elon actually wants to change the direction of Twitter, a purge is a good idea - perhaps in the vein of Basecamp: the culture is getting less partisan, we're not going to cater to your activism, accept it or take severance. A lot of the more "woke" employees are never going to reconcile themselves and will in fact attempt to be internal saboteurs who are waiting for their chance to cause a mess and potentially get a payday (like Netflix getting sued by the anti-Chappelle protestors).
Uproot it and start again, setting good expectations for the company culture.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences! If you don't like it, get your own platform!" Musk purchases Twitter. "...please don't punish us for our political speech."
Sorry, had to get my daily dose of schadenfreude.
For what it's worth, principled commitment to freedom of speech (of the thick, not thin, variety) has never really helped anyone. Those with power do as they will, and those without complain about violations of rights and freedoms. Those Twitter employees on the chopping block would be in no better a place even if they had advocated for a genuinely free platform.
This is not the trajectory of world history over recent centuries. You do in fact have more rights and freedoms as an average modern American than as an average citizen of almost any premodern civilisation. All of this apparently gritty cynicism about how it's all about power and rights don't real is just historical denialism.
I have a different interpretation. Various governments in history claimed to have absolute power over their territories, and the right of life and death their subjects. So the average joe had no rights. In fact, though, these governments barely controlled the outskirts of their capital city. Their grip over the empire amounted to negotiating with local magnates and associations. When I read about farmers and shepherds living in the Pyrenees, it seems like the king in Paris, the pope in Rome, and even the nobles in Bordeaux barely influenced their lives at all.
Obviously, their local nobles and clergy could tyrannize them. But tyrannizing a community that lives right next to you and knows where you sleep is a dangerous business. In practice, serfs worked the lord's strip one day per week and did a pretty lazy job of it. In theory, the church required that everyone attend mass; in practice, only a fraction did.
The early modern period, on the other hand, saw an explosion in state capacity. Monarchs gained standing armies, the right to permanent taxes, bureaucracies, and modern financial instruments. Local nobles and clergy became absentee nobles and clergy, leaving the collection of dues to deputies. This caused turmoil and revolt.
The formal rights we gained in the 19th century are not new things; they are a reaction to attempts by the state to enforce hypothetical claims as actual policy starting in the 16th century or so.
By analogy, do you remember all those states banning gay marriage in the 90s and 00s? Would you say gay rights were increasing or decreasing, then? The formal law was not a sign that gay rights were declining, but that they were growing. Things like "civil rights" are the reverse situation. In theory, we have more freedoms than ever. In practice, institutional control over people's lives is at an unprecedented high.
This is all a re-litigation of Uncle Ted's take, so I'll quote him directly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link