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 -
Professional life in America has a weird double reality happening.
One where sex exists, men are horny, and women are using their bodies to advance.
And one where we act like sexless automotons in the workplace and things are determined on merit and skill.
I call it a double reality because both are true, but they are also obviously contradictory to each other and reality at the same time. The sex realism reality is at odds with having a functional workplace. And the merit matters reality is at odds with human nature and behavior.
There are three groups that matter in most organizations (and their comparative name at a national level in parenthesis). Managers (politicians), Employees (staff), and Owners (voters).
Managers tend to like the sex reality, owners tend to hate it, and employees have mixed feelings depending on how much it benefits them.
Owners tend to like the merit reality, managers tend to hate it, and employees have mixed feelings depending on how much it benefits them.
This has served me well for understanding job shit that happens, big government, small government, big corporations, or mom and pop stores. Some things that result:
I wish I could say "if you want to fuck people at work, you are bad and shouldn't do that" but I'd be gigantic hypocrite. I dated a girl from work in high school. Met women at work parties for one night stands in college (I was working on capital hill at the time). Had a sexual relationship with someone in HR at a workplace. Later at that same workplace I met my wife, dated her secretly for a while, and then openly dated before getting married. Can happily say I stopped 'shitting where I eat' after that.
All of that to say I also have no idea what reality looks like in Washington. But "both of the realities are true" doesn't feel wrong to me. There are probably weird sex orgies, there are probably high level government employees cheating on their spouses, fucking hookers, and hitting on underage girls. At the same time it doesn't mean these sexual escapades are running Washington. I'd bet good money that all of the supreme court justices are faithful to their spouses and not getting sexually tricked into supreme court rulings one way or the other. There is probably a large amount of "meritocracy" within agencies. I put that in quotation marks, because it is merit that the agency cares about. But its not so bad to be merit in the sense of "how good is your blowjob technique".
This is what causes such debate. Everybody seems to be sure that there are "probably weird sex orgies". Powerful politicians cheating on their spouses or fucking hookers I have no doubt about, that happens everywhere in life. But is there a systemic culture of sex and blackmail? Is Swalwell representative of any greater order here? Does Washington have a culture of sex and blackmail, or merely a culture where sex and blackmail happen? It's a big difference and nobody really seems to know. If anything it seems to me like insiders treat hard proof that such things do happen as proof that a larger network exists which they as insiders know much more about than us. (My observation about Washington is that everybody uses proximity to secrets to acquire status, but the secrets are almost all basically mediocre.)
More options
Context Copy link
Now here's a man who likes to live life on the edge.
Regarding the double reality thing, do you think there might be a partisan element to it? Richard Hanania had an article last year discussing how conservative women who work in politics tend to be very overtly feminine (right up to Mar-a-Lago face) and conspicuously flaunting their assets, whereas progressive women tend to dress more in a more modest and androgynous style. Going through the AAQCs, Sizzle50 made a similar point comparing female newsreaders for Fox News vs. MSNBC.
Not that every woman who dresses provocatively is promiscuous and vice versa. In fact I'd hazard a guess that most Dem-voting women would be more receptive to the idea of open relationships than GOP women.
Eh, there are two kinds of GOP staffers- degenerate Nazis and tradcaths(usually not the true fundies that tend to be monarchists). Sometimes there is a revolving door between the two and we don’t like them very much. But the degenerate Nazis get up to quite a lot of lib-coded misbehavior.
More options
Context Copy link
It was a terrible idea, but had way more to do with the woman than her job at the company.
There is maybe different partisan expression of it, but it crosses political boundaries. Humans have some base urges and evolutionary desires. A couple dozen years of culture isn't enough to erase a billion years of evolution.
Its kind of funny in some ways. Two amoral optimization systems butting heads. Evolution vs Markets. Who will win? Not humans thats for sure.
We're alive and prosperous. We've been winning off of evolution and markets for a long time.
True, I more meant recent human culture would get crushed under the weight of those two things.
Oh, yes, absolutely. But so did less recent human culture, didn't it? I suspect culture has an expiration date.
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
More options
Context Copy link