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 -
Caps on high skill immigrant workers might be worth the tradeoffs, but I think we as a society should acknowledge they are serious tradeoffs.
Let's say the US has X amount of specialized talent and thus they can only do Y amount of productivity with in a year. If companies in (or investing in) our country are so productive and there's enough market demand that they want to do creation over Y, then limiting access to talent over X puts a cap on growth.
Now I know, the general response is "because those jobs should go to the locals!" but the thing is, talented local people already have jobs. If they're hard working and capable, then they're mostly already doing their part in achieving Y (or doing something else in another industry) because companies want them.
As any hiring manager knows nowadays, the job pool is mostly incompetents, liars, lazies, addicts, or otherwise unwanted because of a serious flaw. It's the same way that dating apps like Tinder are mostly used by the unpleasant and unwanted, the good ones are already picked through. Of course just like the apps there's often some amount of pickings but they're limited and get scooped up quick of course and we're still overall limited to Y production. Even during periods of layoffs, companies don't tend to fire their best talent, they fire the weaker ones so even picking through those is still trying to find a diamond in the rough.
Now maybe that's what we as a society want, jobs programs for the lazy drug addicted idiots being put in roles above their worth, and we're willing to sacrifice efficiency in key industries for it. And maybe it's worth it if we put hard limits on economic growth and only allow Y production no matter how much market demand exists. Maybe it's worth it in the same way that some leftists felt promoting some minorities above their skill level was worth it.
But that's a discussion with some hard tradeoffs is it not?
As both a hiring manager and a grass-toucher, I really do not believe this. Yes, our recruiters, both internal and external, bring in a lot of garbage, but I don't think that's because there are no qualified applicants. It's because in the last ten years, then has been a sharp increase in the offensive capabilities of "bad actors" in the employment market (Indian tech consultancies gaming the visa system, Linkedin spammers) with an especially sharp increase in the last few years due to the adoption of LLMs. It's more difficult for me to judge the quality of an applicant before meeting them by checking their Linkedin, CV, cover letter, or email correspondence. Everyone has learned that all text-based communication can be polished by an LLM, and so typos, poor writing skills, and obvious bullshitting are all easier to avoid (although em-dashes and chatgpt-speak are still giveaways sometimes). I have a lot more screening interviews now that are a waste of time since it's more difficult to vet ahead of a video call.
However, this is probably a temporary state of affairs. Hiring managers and recruiters optimizing for quality will improve their defensive capabilities by inventing new, harder-to-fake vetting procedures. We just aren't there yet, the defense is still catching up.
I dunno, man. This just does not pass the smell test for me. In a country of nearly 350 million people, there aren't enough bright, talented people to fill jobs? I get that companies want to hire a top 1% intelligence/conscientiousness person for their very important software role, but will it doom American industry and creativity if we force them to use the top 5% of the American talent pool instead of the top 1% of the global talent pool? We may move forward slightly slower, but we will also avoid the negative effects of creating a new class of alien elites who see America as merely an economic zone. If we tied work visas to renunciation of other citizenships and the ability to pass civics test or something, I might change my mind a little.
... man, it would be nice if the US could just have some areas that are primarily there as economic zones, and some areas that were reserved for protectionism and preservation of American culture. SF / NY / Boston / Seattle could host the global megacorporations that want to bring in the world's best no matter the cost, while much of the rest of the country could be reserved for cultural preservation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link