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 -
direct link to the MTPS report. On one hand:
Mr A's claims might just be a 'the lady doth protest too much' and the board had to pretend to believe it. My gut check is that Mr A probably wanted to actually get a name and more conversation than is typically allowed in men's restrooms, rather than being entirely against screwing in toilets, and that's a kinda arbitrary dividing line, but the direct summary is a lot more candid than I'd expect from a group trying to paper over anonymous sex between professionals. The 'just bros washing hands' defense is hilariously threadbare, but someone being down for action and yet not wanting to have a fully-stripped man trying to get them into a stall with nothing more than a handwave, even if just because they would have rathered move to a supply closet or something.
If so, it's a weird rule, but honestly, I've seen weirder.
That said, I'd point to something else:
There's some discrepancies, here. I'd expect as much of them are Mr. A giving more palatable explanations for the sequence of events to his interlocutors or reinterpretations by the listeners (especially given the gender he was reporting to!), as are the more conventional hearsay problem where recollections change over translation and time. In particular, the bits where Mr. A can't seem to remember who opened the stall door... well, I'm gonna guess that Mr. A did, and he wasn't doing it to ask if anyone wanted to hear the good word.
But even the scenario that looks best for Dr. Stefan, he's coming across as... more than porn-level aggressive, even by the low standards of cottaging. I mean that quite literally; even in pornography (or drawn porn) where the pragmatic concerns can be left fully ignored, you're pretty likely to see people pretty deep in coitus with more clothes on than that. I'm sure there's people who sign up for it, don't get me wrong! But I don't think it's even necessarily what someone who gave a thumbs-up to "want sum fuk" grindr message would involve.
This seems common to one of the other allegations: Mr B's allegations seem to be reported as just 'groping', but the full summary has what started out as some consensual kisses and turning into:
That's not in a restroom, but in what looks to be some sort of examination or procedure room. So basically what we're proposing that the MTPS doesn't want to admit happens.
It's the action scene from a porn flick, but without the setup or reciprocity of Lemon-Stealing Whores. I can't tell from the report where the review board was using a very loose definition of consensual for the earlier kisses, if Dr. Stefan was just cranking his hog at random guys and only the gay ones were willing to testify or complain, or if there was more backstory behind the kiss, but optimistically it's a guy pushing a relationship as hard as he can.
Which is probably the bigger driver. I dunno exactly what the UK's exact rules are, but in the United States, the rules-as-written are usually some variants of prohibiting on-the-clock sex period and off-the-clock relationships within a chain of command, and the rules-as-practiced are "don't make me go over there" and "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". That's not necessarily an unreasonable thing for an organization to do: as annoying (and potentially gross) as employees shagging might get, the actual meat-and-potatoes of enforcing a ban on such things is just impractical if they aren't actually interfering with work or leaving suspicious stains.
But then there's a problem, and both the assailant and the victims are in violation of the rules-as-written, if you ask too hard or too loud. One answer is to let justice ride, and to hell with the consequences, and that's died with modern social media if it survived the 90s; another is to just bask in the inconsistency, and sometimes that works if it's convenient enough.
The easier answer is to not ask stupid questions, and not hear stupid answers, at least in any way that requires writing them down. Any question about how many times Mr A has used the mysterious XXX App while on the clock would be off-topic, and slut-shaming besides. The inquiry isn't about him, and had it not been necessary to support Mr A's written documentation I doubt we'd have seen even the few references here.
It's... not a good compromise, like anywhere else where the contradiction between the rules and the policies are in high tension, not least of all because no one, probably not even the MTPS board here, can really spell out what the actual rules-as-practiced are. But it's a compromise that beats most BATNA, and takes no real negotiation itself.
More options
Context Copy link