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 -
It doesn't "seem" creepy. It is creepy. How would you feel if you walked into an office for an interview and your potential boss (male) said "Just be a sec, I gotta go jerk off"? There may possibly be some jobs where "oh hey here it's we're all guys together", but I think you might come away from that going "Hm, that was odd".
Fixed that for you.
This has happened to me, BTW, and it was totally unremarkable. A bro with whom I regularly discuss banging chicks referred me to a job. I visited him and he told me about how he's banging a cool rocker chick with big tits (or something like that, this was long back and I forget the details). The only difference here is that instead of being bros who bang hot chicks in a mainstream manner, it was weird nerds doing weird nerd stuff in a subculture that the establishment wants to attack.
But of course, I actually read the detailed statement and apology (linked in the OP) instead of just the hit piece: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QMee23Evryqzthcvn/a-statement-and-an-apology
He was not her potential boss or involved in the decisionmaking process.
The interaction did not happen in an office, and the implication that they only knew each other professionally is false. This was one interaction in a long personal relationship in which apparently many such interactions took place as part of a weird social experiment:
They do seem to be different cases. This is classic "he said, she said": he's saying "we were pals", she's saying "he's the guy interviewing me for a job".
And your bro was telling you about chicks he was hitting on/fucking. He wasn't going "Bro, you are so hot, hang on a mo, gotta go jerk off because that's the effect you have on me".
It isn't "he said, she said" because Time Magazine didn't say he was the interviewer or her prospective boss. Time Magazine did not say anything at all about the presence or absence of a preexisting relationship. They said:
"...an unsettling experience with an influential figure in EA whose role included picking out promising students and funneling them towards highly coveted jobs. After that leader arranged for her to be flown to the U.K. for a job interview, she recalls being surprised to discover that she was expected to stay in his home, not a hotel."
I can totally understand how you drew this (most likely false) conclusion, but technically Time Magazine did not lie.
They simply exploited the fact that you believe that they would have mentioned a preexisting weirdo rationalist relationship with odd social experiments if one existed, and that they would have mentioned the interview was with someone else entirely.
Also, I do not believe that the guy is lying about either a) being her interviewer or b) the preexisting relationship. These are both easy to prove one way or the other and if he were lying about such easily provable things, one would expect someone to call it out.
But I'm happy to be proven wrong: if the accuser claims he is lying and he doesn't dig up texts/FB messages/etc to prove they were friends before and after, I will consider her case to be proven. Similarly if the accuser claims he's lying and digs up an interview schedule listing him, I'll consider her case proven.
Yes, he was following a pattern for which there is a mainstream "script" so you can easily pattern match it. Other similar things he has said include "damn bro back that fine ass up let me get it on camera". Entirely work inappropriate and inappropriate for some friendships, but totally reasonable for him to say to me at the gym after filming my first successful 4 plate deadlift.
Weirdo rationalists are weirdos and making up their own script that you are unfamiliar with. Is anything non-mainstream fundamentally illegitimate and evil? One must not do it even with the full consent of all involved?
Are you sure you didn't miss out on a blossoming love to last the ages by thinking he was admiring your muscular prowess instead of delicately courting you? 😁
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