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 -
On a case by case basis. Like is done all over the world. I'm sure your entertainingly convoluted examples would make it all the way to the highest court of any land. That being said, I don't think they are very realistic. And you can make a mockery of any law with unrealistic examples. But those examples could still be dealt with, even if they are far from being representative.
I would personally make a distinction between political views and assertions made about private individuals in public. Similarly, political views directed against private individuals could easily be deemed to not be in line with the political process. As in, making politically unrealistic wishes of ill towards private persons is a clear enough step over the line. Similar to how saying 'In minecraft' is not actually a legal defense against the preceding threats of violence, saying 'politically' is also not a defense.
If boss' wife was not private, but a public political figure, then assertions against her would be political. But not in the context of her being your boss' wife, since that fact is not politically relevant. If it were politically relevant, and both the boss and wife are politically involved then an employee would have the right to make political statements about both.
All that being said, I'd generally side with employees over employers in any case where the working relationship between the two is not personal. The idea that an employer gets to dictate the public expressions of tens, hundreds or thousands of people goes against fundamental aspects of democracy as I see them.
The point being illustrated by me was that people with actual employment protection rights, like blacks in America, don't have to boycott things, since their rights are upheld by third parties. If your rights are not upheld by third parties then you don't really have rights. Unless you want to contextualize any ability you have to do anything in the world as a 'right', in which case our understanding of the word is not 1:1.
Is it common to have anti discrimination laws based around something as vague and unclear as "political beliefs"? I wouldn't have said it was.
"John's gay son should be hanged" vs "Gays should be hanged by the government" doesn't seem that meaningful of a difference to me.
The employer is not some sort of dictator who is unable to be left. There's tons of jobs that someone can go do, both in their field and out of it. You have the same right of association and can leave your job for the reasons you want, like "my boss has an annoying voice" or "the company had a trans pride picnic and I don't like that".
Civil right laws are largely meaningless, they only get passed when a society (and thus almost always the market of a society) are already in agreement with the general principles. Enshrining them has some effect don't get me wrong, but it's not as potent as it seems.
Market rationality happens a lot without such anti discrimination laws, like how many companies will hire illegal immigrants or with otherwise obviously fake ID under the table simply because it's more economical for them. Despite the exact opposite and almost all the laws on book encouraging hiring the expensive citizens. The Republican voting farmer might not really like illegal immigration as a concept, but he does enjoy doing better in his farm business. There will be plenty of bigots who might not like blacks or Whites or Asians or whatever, who recognize the same thing with race. Or gender. Or whatever. Bigotry has to be overwhelming in the market (and society) to overturn this. And the more cutthroat the market is, the more overwhelming the bigotry has to get.
Firing people unreasonably for their race/religion/sex/political beliefs/citizen status whatever will always be suboptimal compared to "hiring the most economical choice". Some companies might be willing to take the hit and be suboptimal, but plenty of others won't.
If I'm understanding you correctly, Yes. Laws around vague and unclear things such political, religious and even deeply held philosophical beliefs are legislated around all over the world across a wide range of different models. Along with a host of other vague things.
Then we disagree. I think it's inarguable that there is not just meaningful but a clear logical distinction between the two. The most obvious one being direct personal animus.
You are equating the rights of the employer and the employees. I don't agree with that equivocation due to the difference in power and circumstance. Quitting your only job is not the same as firing employee number 85. Why an employer needs the ability to fire an otherwise good employee because they don't like their stated political opinions is just bonkers to me. As if the psychological angst over political differences can be equated to a person now being out of a job.
Civil Rights Laws were very contentious when introduced. They are also very potent and have completely revolutionized the American Constitution. But I think we are getting a little far afield here. I'm not sure what the relevance of markets and discrimination laws is to this discussion.
To that extent, an optimized market is just as well a market that provides job security and stability that reinforces segregation and whatever else. Depends on where you are coming from!
You're right, there is a major difference. "Gays should be hanged" calls for violence against even more people than just wishing death on John's son. If we take the logic that a mass shooting is worse than a single shooting, even if both are bad then the call for mass death is even worse!
Yeah they aren't the exact same but why does that mean government should limit an employer's right to free association?
Doesn't matter if I agree with their business policies, they should be able to do what they want! If I dislike it, I can shop somewhere else. If enough people dislike it, they might feel an economic effect. Of course many real life boycotts show the stated vs revealed preferences of consumers, but that's really just a sign that they don't actually care as much as they say.
Yes, markets are just a form of emergent phenomena. They are simply the actions and choices of what people do (work) and what they exchange (trade). The market is just a subset of human behavior, and the same basic principles are everywhere such as with evolution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link