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 -
Woke is not "anything leftist". Unions are left-wing to the extent that they are old style economic leftism aimed at benefiting the working class, which is very far from modern woke. Nobody got cancelled for being opposed to unions (short of the lizardman constant).
aimed at benefitting union members, which constitute part of the working class, at the expense of the rest (including non-union working class)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Union_Membership_in_the_United_States,_1960-2020.svg
If union workers were exploiting non union ones, we would observe non union workers reaping great benefits during the decline of unions.
Do we observe it?
This is only true if the only two agents in the economy were union and non-union workers and the only economic activity were transfer of money from non-union to union workers. If that is not the case, then decline of the unions may result in any result with regard to non-union workers, because other economic agents and processes can intervene and have its influence at the same time.
As such, the terms "great benefits" and "non union workers" are too vague to give an answer. Some workers probably benefitted in some ways, but not in others - e.g. minority workers, traditionally excluded by unions, would have greater access to jobs but possibly lower wages and job security. Is it better to have less secure job than no job at all? For other workers, the effects may be different. Or, for example, if the union raised costs of production so much that the whole sector moved to another country and there's no possibility to compare the wages because there are no longer such jobs around, and the workers moved on (and/or physically moved) to other jobs - did they benefit or not? If the union membership then collapsed following this development, can we attribute this change to the absence of the union? I'm afraid without getting into the ton of the specifics it is impossible to answer such question in any satisfactory way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It wasn't exactly a long history of hugs and handshakes. I'm sure the fraction of victims was sub-lizardman on both sides, but that's surely true of the fraction of cancellations too. I'm no fan of modern cancel culture either, but strikers and strikebreakers weren't just risking their careers, they were risking high-velocity cancellations to the head.
First of all, the question was about cancellations of people opposed to unions, not people who support unions, so those examples are the wrong way around.
Second, this argument is about the woke, so I shouldn't have to spell out "cancellations by the woke". Aside from a single attack by Nazis in 1979, the last example there is 1959, and the last example before that is 1940. There weren't any woke around at the time. And in modern times, when we do have woke, the woke attack people for "racism", "sexism", being anti-trans, but not for opposing unions. Unions are not a big thing for the woke.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link