site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   34389 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022

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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The government instituted a 'volume management strategy' to comply with the government's policy on 'employment equity', and that strategy was to just ignore people with the wrong skin colour or genitals because the government says they (the government) can't do anything else and you see no mention of quotas or hiring equity?

I work in the public service and agree that equity was probably not the (main) motivation for the strategy they picked. Most of what you hear about equity is signalling buzz. Most managers I've asked told me they face no pressure to hire for diversity. Seems like this team just found a hack (which I doubt is common) to shorten their screening process. Mostly likely they don't care who will be hired anyway. People here seem doubtful, but the public service and hiring processes are so heavily decentralized. It's totally plausible for a team to do this without being motivated by equity.

Of course, there is obvious bias because they could never get away doing the opposite strategy (e.g, filtering out equity groups). That said, there are policies which increase the proportion of white workers, like requiring citizenship and the ability to speak french.

Most managers I've asked told me they face no pressure to hire for diversity.

There's enough examples now of a) hiring managers being explicitly told not to hire white men, and b) hiring managers' bonuses relying on meeting diversity hiring requirements that I have a very hard time believing this.

Is the pressure bimodal: extreme in some extremely converged companies and totally absent in others? Or are people just reluctant to admit they're under pressure?

In a world of 750 million people (Europe + US + Canada) that's supposedly dominated by wokeness, there are going to be enough businesses for the 'man bites dog' story of 'we're not hiring white dudes' story to pop up as much as people interested in that story wants, even if 95% of businesses are hiring relatively meritocratically, putting aside diversity initiatives that even the vast majority of right-leaning people would shrug at.

I also think, that most people at a high level in corporations legitimately believe they've missed out on talent due to structural issues, and since they're greedy capitalists, that's costing them money, which is why they're investing in diversity initiatives. Why not find the gay Latinx trans woman who will find a better way to increase production targets by 3% and earn me a bonus?

I haven't spoken to many senior managers, mostly mid-level managers. My impression is that senior elites and execs in companies pay more attention to diversity so it would make sense for the public service to match that as well.

I'm very interested in cases where managers in the canadian public service had bonuses tied to diversity requirements. Do you have any examples you can link to?

Ahh yes, performance agreements. My experience with these is that people don't commit to targets they can't already meet. After all, these objectives are mostly self-imposed, and the exercise is more of a formality. That said, I'm sure it's sometimes the case some execs have to work hard to meet their diversity targets. Thanks for sharing.

That said, there are policies which increase the proportion of white workers, like requiring citizenship and the ability to speak french.

Neither of these things are in any way comparable - the former seems like an obvious prerequisite for a public service job, and the latter actively impacts on the quality of your employee in a country where a significant proportion of the population speaks French as a first language (approx 20% in Canada). The fact that they happen to select for white workers because whites are more likely to possess these desired characteristics is just an unintended consequence of having these policies.

Just because a policy happens to result in an increase in the proportion of a certain demographic does not mean it is analogous to explicitly demographically based policies.

The point is, there are other policies which will impact demographics. I don't want to change the subject too much, but I actually think the french level requirements in the canadian public service lead to worse outcomes than white-male exclusion, even if it were scaled up 100x. It's currently impossible to manage employees or be in a sufficiently senior role unless you speak french, even when the vast majority of francophones opt to read,write and speak in english when working. When my team is hiring, I'd rather work with a "non white male" constraint than a "must speak french" constraint. The french requirements are often unnecessary and make it very difficult to hire talent. As a french speaker, I've leapfrogged colleagues of similar productivity because they were anglophones who couldn't even be considered for a number of promotions.

Still, though, I agree that on the surface one policy sounds a lot better than the other and that they're not analogous with respect to why they impact demographics.

I would say it’s more than just “on the surface”. One policy is based on immutable characteristics, the other is based on the possession of a skill which they would like employees to have. “Any policy that affects racial composition is tantamount to racism” is an extremely tenuous position at best.

You claim that a “non white male” constraint isn’t as bad to you as a “must speak French” constraint, but in spite of your explanation it’s hard to see why this is so. You can make the argument that the French requirement is extreme and should be relaxed since it isn’t integral to job performance, but employees can learn French if they want to get a promotion, and it actually represents a specific skill that can be of use in employment. White men can’t simply assume a different demographic if they want to, and their exclusion isn’t for lacking a certain skill but instead for ideological/diversity reasons. It’s easy to see which condition is far more restrictive and far more difficult to justify.

I didn't say the french policy was racist, just that it led to worse outcomes. I probably won't convince you. You're not a canadian public servant and don't see what it's like. I'm not defending the no-white-male policy or anything. Apologies for the what-about-ism, I made an off-topic comment and now I'm just elaborating.

but employees can learn French if they want to get a promotion, and it actually represents a specific skill that can be of use in employment

Here's a situation I've seen a ton: An employee wants to become a manager, so they go on paid french training, putting their job on pause for weeks or months. When they come back, they inevitably don't use their french because francophones don't care and don't want to slow down important conversations by speaking to a french novice. Once their newly acquired french abilities atrophy, the training cycle repeats. I've seen this happen to a ton of really talented people with passion for their domain.

Also, learning french as an adult is pretty difficult, especially when the public service is not at all immersive. Even francophones usually prefer english because they'd prefer not to learn twice the terminology, check weird grammar rules or slow down communication.

This argument does not seem well considered at all

I see where you're coming from. However the outcomes I've experienced suggest the french-requirements are a worse policy.

That’s interesting. In Texas(which has a similar percentage of Spanish first language speakers to Canada’s French first language speakers), Spanish speakers are generally willing to put up with novices by slowing their conversations down.

Okay, I’m outside right now, so it’s hard for me to draft anything. A few things, though:

learning French as an adult is pretty difficult

Difficult =/= impossible. It might be hard, but this does not mean it’s equal to something you literally cannot change. You’ve made a case for why the French barrier is bad, but not for your comparison.

However the outcomes I’ve experienced suggest the French requirements are a worse policy.

Your comments seem to imply that you have no real experience with the “non white male” policies, so making a comparison between whether language barriers or diversity-based demographic barriers are worse based on your experience is premature at best. This could be taken as evidence of a lack of diversity initiatives in the Canadian public service, but I’m not too inclined to rely on anecdata as a source because of 1: potential issues with unrepresentativeness and 2: distortions relating to perception.

The studies I’ve seen relating to hiring biases in the Australian public service (the country where I live), while not exactly extrapolable to the Canadian situation, suggest that "diversity hiring" is de facto being practiced and that it is endorsed. These biases favouring women and minorities in the Australian public service were found in a study conducted by the behavioural economics team of the Australian government, and in light of this finding they discourage blind hiring because it might prevent public servants from discriminating in the Appropriate Direction.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170702213823/https://pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-services-shortlisting-processes

Except that strategy wouldn't even be a consideration if they weren't trying to increase equity in the first place. It is absolutely not "just a side effect of a tool that they're wielding to reduce the number of applicants they have to deal with", the tool you are seeing in use is the one that gives the government justification to do what they please by blaming the bureaucracy they fucking created. "Oh so sorry we had to throw out your resume, we didn't have a choice because policy! If we spent all that time going through resumes for the best possible candidates we wouldn't have time to make all these policies about employment equity (which is different to hiring equity)!"

Agree, it's a completely ridiculous justification and there are clearly ideological considerations at play here. As you already noted, if the government mandates ideological woke policies that uniquely protect certain groups and allow for their preferential treatment over others, it can't then utilise that self-created loophole and state that it has nothing to do with ideology.

You could make the argument that the specific people making the hiring decision might not be thinking about equity, but I'm inclined to doubt that, since employers aren't necessarily backed into a corner here either. You can whittle down your candidate list without randomly throwing applications out or excluding people from consideration based on arbitrary demographic criteria. Those applying to business and computer science roles often have to take psychometric and aptitude tests, and the government could do the same and exclude any candidates whose performance isn't up to scratch. As a bonus, if this is implemented properly the quality of their employees would be better. But that's not going to happen, because the demographic imbalance that's going to result in is probably anathema either to them or some higher-up they're accountable to.

EDIT: clarity

They're not looking to increase "equity"

The people who decide to chop every white guy out of laziness are 100% looking to increase equity. That decision only makes sense through the lens of equity. Why would you cut your best pool of employees? Would you accept laziness as an excuse if I chopped out all the black people? They're less likely to be good hires anyway.

deleted

Wokes are more correct than the mainstream. They know that their favoured groups are of lower quality, otherwise IQ testing for jobs would not be illegal. You might also expect they would push for something like blind resumes. They don't do this because their desired effect (equity) only happens when you explicitly hire by race/gender and drop standards.

Alternatively, they found a loophole to cut applicants and if it increases equity they don’t give a shit.

Sure, but they would never use a loophole that decreased equity.

I don't know- upthread there's a poster who works for the Canadian civil service, and he says that citizenship and french proficiency requirements routinely get used even though they decrease equity.

French is an unusual edge case because French Canada was one of the original groups claiming... not exactly oppression but that their culture was being overwhelmed by Anglos. Quebec has strong French language laws and the Federal government appeases them in many cases with bilingual requirements. Our constitution has written in it that French and English have equal status and rights.

Because of that, it's more difficult for leftists to directly attack French culture. There's laws, and they also have their own claim to being a minority. That being said, Montreal has a ton of foreigners in there and I expect this to change eventually.

I think the contention was that they would be unable to, because every group except white men is protected by equalities laws.

I would make the claim that HR as an industry is captured enough (especially in government) that you could remove all affirmative action laws and not see much difference.

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