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 -
I keep thinking that in instances like this it would be very instructive to arbitrarily equalize something that affects the deciding party, give them a taste of equality.
In Birmingham, some judges decided it was unfair that some female-dominated council jobs got paid less, had fewer perks than binmen. The council, now short of cash decided to lower the binmen's salary and perks in part to pay compensation to the women. This caused the binmen to go on strike, no waste to be collected, a strike which continues to this day (though agency workers are collecting waste, and are likely more expensive to boot).
I think the judges in question should have had their salaries reduced to those of the binmen. If this were done, they'd quickly uncover new and interesting legal theories about why different jobs have different pay and perks and how this may indeed be equitable. Probably this is very illegal, judges would surely find that it's against the Rule of Law to reduce the privileges of judges. But I don't think they'd quickly do such things again if it were done and the judicial bitching and whining were ignored, they have the latitude to interpret retarded laws more or less reasonably.
Officials, judges and councillors would not be so high-handed if there were more direct consequences for their actions. I know this does go against separation of powers but they're not really separated, when a government really wants something they can just do it, to hell with the law or anything in the way. Government just needs to be more aligned.
Everyone in power needs to be more aligned; offering CEOs a golden parachute means that they don't need to do well by their company, judges let criminals loose who prey upon the middle class, and politicians spend tax money to put us into debt, knowing that they'll do well for themselves regardless of how poorly they govern.
Interestingly, I think both rightists and leftists tend to buy into this framing; the leftist version is the quote "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
My most fedposting opinion is that those in power should fear those who serve under them.
I am under the impression that golden parachutes are given to new CEOs of already failing companies, since even a good CEO is likely to fail at saving the company, and you won't get a good CEO to accept the job with such a high risk of not getting paid. And that the CEO still has an incentive to succeed because they get paid even more if they're successful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link