site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

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.

15
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm honestly shocked Leibowitz had the bravery and integrity to do that. He must have been under tremendous pressure to join the pile-on and hand his authority to the gaslighters. Good on him, but I hope he won't be purged for it.

My model of Leibowitz, pending specific updates, is the same as for NYT editors I've explained here. Actual top managers do not want any «Cathedral» to grow underneath their feet. He doesn't necessarily care about the object level conflict. He may even be more sympathetic to the radical side. But he runs this thing. He's the boss, the alpha of the pack. You use the correct word – hand his authority. It was a direct challenge to him: hey boss, we wanna eat this dude, give us the greenlight OK? Just keep silent about this pesky lil detail we made up that compromises the reputation of your organization, we'll take care of everything. Just sit this one out... Had he agreed, he'd have recognized them as decision makers. And then it would have been as bad as any cancellation, for all his power and status would have become nominal, a shell at the mob's beck and call.

Before long they'd have started to casually refer to more unhinged opinions he did not endorse – what's the harm, the old man's a bit out of the loop (heh) but his heart's in the right place, he's gonna see our point when he gets to it, why bother him. His own assistants would have begun signing documents without his authorisation (realistically they already do, but only when believing he does intend them to do so) – assuming he'd find it too stressful to retract, and would instead escape to routine work, to conferences, to personal affairs... And then a younger alpha, an informal leader, having built a coalition of energetic strivers, would have gratefully received the reins.

Power balance in institutions is surprisingly dependent on such archaic chimp instincts. Do not give your boss the impression you want to make him your bitch unless you're ready to strike.