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 -
As I mentioned back in July, every month in our office canteen, a member of the HR team hangs up posters on the noticeboard of notable days or commemorations which fall within that calendar month. A lot of these are harmless days and observations that no one could take exception to (World Friendship Day, World Chocolate Day etc.), but a significant number this month were of a more... strident nature. In descending order from the top of the notice board:
Numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 are unobjectionable (curious if I'll hear the "ugh, every day is International Men's Day!" joke two weeks from today). With regard to #3, my immediate thought was "for God's sake, how many days do you people need?" But my primary reaction was a feeling that 3, 5 and 6 are all in tension with one another, and that anyone who thinks about this for long enough would realise how unstable the coalition is.
More than anything I'm reminded of Scott's evergreen post "Neutral vs. Conservative: The Eternal Struggle":
Were I to argue that male rapists with intact penises don't belong in women's prisons, I'd doubtless be accused of bringing politics into the workplace, but observing Trans Awareness Week is just being a decent person. Were I to point out the shockingly brutal acts of violence against women Hamas committed on October 7th, I'd doubtless be accused of bringing politics into the workplace*; but announcing that you "stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people" is just being a decent person.
I don't know. I'm frustrated. I'd have no problem with a "don't talk about politics in work" rule, provided it was applied consistently.
*Even if I prefaced it by saying that Israel's response was disproportionate, and acknowledging that Israel has also committed crimes against humanity.
I think this ties into the argument from that Helen Andrews essay about how American society is becoming more feminized. And the office/workplace culture is maybe the biggest shift. All of the political views that are allowed to be expressed are the feminist positions, all the ones banned are the anti-feminist ones.
To be fair, you'd have a very different experience in other places. If you put up those posters in, like, an army barracks, or a gaming discord, or uh... here... most people would make fun of them and maybe attack you personally. You'd have a lot more slack to put up the opposite views.
Bottom line: people are political animals, we're not neutral, everyone just favors their own side.
But this is my point: I don't think there's anything feminist about housing male rapists in women's prisons. I think gender ideology is a profoundly misogynistic worldview, in practice if not necessarily in theory. I likewise don't think there's anything feminist about the Palestinian resistance, and at best they have nothing to do with each other.
And in any case, our company's HR department is made up of two men and one woman, the latter of whom has been on sick leave for well over a month. I don't think this trend can be attributed to feminisation (or if it can, not in a fashion which is synonymous with "feminism").
Ah, you might think so, and I think so too. But in practice those are both positions split along gender linees, with women being far more likely to support Palestinian resistance, light prison sentences, and putting trans women into women's prisons even if they committed rape. The feminist position isn't "what's good for women," it's simply "what do feminists support," which cn sometimes be very different. One could even argue that it's good for feminist leaders when bad things happen to women, because that strengthens the political support for feminism. But it's not up to you and I to figure it out, all we can do is signal which team we're on, and you're trying to signal the anti-feminist team which they're obviously not going to like.
Yeah and what are the political opininons of those two men in HR? Are either of them even slightly conservative? Probably not.
Besides it's not just about the HR department. It's all of corporate culture, generally, becoming a feminist safe space. Eveny manager with any sort of political savvy will instinctively know this.
For feminists women in prisons aren't a relevant entity because women are wonderful so their being in prison is simultaneously a removal of the halo effect and expulsion from the category of women and thus are irrelevant to Womxn. Trannies on the other hand are a relevant entity outside of the prison for Womxn, so catering maximally to them is automatically a high payoff if you have rejected criminal women from the Womxn coalition. Pity about the second order effect of other women self selecting out of the Womxn but thats just false consciousness and internalized misogyny.
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