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 -
It’s allowed under the good-fun exception. Would the victim really object to the crime? Most weddings would only be improved by a crash from some local notables.
If the victim did not object to such things, they would not have hired staff to prevent it and said staff would not be in danger of getting faired for failing to prevent it. If they wanted local notables, they would have invited some.
How does the good-fun principle generalise? People have fun jumping turnstiles and prank-calling and shoplifting and getting drunk & disorderly in a public park in the middle of the day. Not to mention all sorts of antisocial but not actually illegal stuff.
It seems to me that you can oppress the worst behaviour of the bottom 10% without too many complaints, but beyond that you either have to allow ‘good-fun’ exemptions for 90% of the population, resulting is an adversarial and low-trust society, or else say that the rules are different for gentlemen, which I regard as being immoral and long-term corrosive to society, or else be clear that ‘local notables’ are required to model good behaviour for everyone else.
More options
Context Copy link
It sounds as though the staff would object.
Their opinion is not the deciding factor. Or rather, their acquiescence was paid for. If their job was made more difficult by rov scam’s antics (hypothetically approved/forgiven by the gay billionaire), then the problem is merely that they did not realize what their job entailed and so were not paid enough.
Do you think employers and employees have any moral obligations to each other beyond those dictated by law and contract?
I was raised to believe that employers should be loyal to, and supportive of, their staff. It seems to me that this leads to a better world than a world where employers can be as fickle and unreasonable as they like as long as they pay enough, and happily fire their staff for failing to anticipate their whims.
I’m trying to avoid double-dipping of people’s unpleasantness veto, that’s all. If you agree to do something for pay, you’ve sold it. You can’t use the veto to avoid the unpleasant part of the job later.
This sounds like some HR bullshit on some corporate website. Just pay me. I'll judge how loyal and supportive you are, and I'll be, later. The kind of loyalty you're talking about has to be earned.
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