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 -
My example pertained more to America. If you sign up for or log in to a website you are functionally trackable, as far as I understood things. So yeah, being hidden is possible, but being hidden and being someone that matters in discourse? I think the barrier to entry on that is a bit too high to be considered relevant.
This feels like a very clear motte and bailey.
No one employing the 'freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences' line is defending peoples rights to disassociate over someone being an asshole in private dealings. Instead they are defending exactly the things described here:
Yes, calling the bosses wife fat to his face might get your fired. Voicing support for party X whilst your boss hates party X might also get you fired, but these are clearly not the same thing. You have to see the distinction between them. At risk of sounding like a complete cardboard box: we live in a democracy! Making political statements in a democracy has to be protected. People can play their cards close to their hands in private, but limiting discourse on the public square via fear of reprisals is not a way for a democracy to function. There has to be a way to navigate that.
You see how you just went "No one is doing that, anyway I'm going to do that" right? I don't see why your boss shouldn't be able to fire you for that. At will employment is the default in the US after all. He can fire you because he doesn't like the color of your shirt, because he doesn't like that your voice sounds annoying, that he saw a picture of your lawn and thought it wasn't taken care of well.
And yet, restricting citizen's freedom of association (which in the US is an implied right under freedom of speech) via fear of reprisals is? If you don't like a company firing John for his speech then you can boycott the company for that, as is your right.
When someone is making a 'this is how I think things should be' argument, it's very annoying to receive a 'well this is how things actually are' response. We're not really playing from the same sheet of music here.
I don't see how I did that unless you are arguing that there is not a difference between hurling personal insults at your boss and publicly voicing a political opinion he disagrees with. I see that distinction clearly, and I also think that expressing political opinions and handling political disagreements is a basic and necessary function of living in a democracy. If you don't see the inherent conflict of serving your democratic duty as an active participant in the political process and being liable to lose your job because of that then I feel we are at an impasse.
Outside of that I feel like we are roaming back to my original point. And I would just directly challenge your conception of 'having rights' in America as you present them here. For example, you can't fire a person because they are black. The Civil Rights Act just doesn't allow that. So you don't really have at will employment by default so we don't even need to act like 'At will Employment' is a point here to begin with.
And that highlights my problem with this predicament. Boycotting a company because they fired an honest and good man for bad reasons is what losers with no rights do. People with actual rights just point the upholder of their rights to the person that violated them and the upholder deals with it.
If you have to uphold your own rights in the immediate sense then you just don't have rights. Like, insofar as rights are real, you have to have an external mechanism that enforces them. Otherwise you are just kind of doing what you want and calling it 'having rights'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link