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 -
Washington Post v. Karen Attiah
An arbitrator has asked and answered:
Mrs. Attiah is the Washington Post writer who rather famously and falsely claimed that Charlie Kirk had said "Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously" in the immediate aftermath of Kirk's murder. I was going to say ex-, but that's not the case anymore. It's now established rule that the Washington Post can not fire someone merely for dancing publicly in the blood of a recently murdered man to disparage people on the basis of race and gender, and making false claims while doing so.
In this case, at least.
There's a legal formalist perspective where this is defensible. The Post may have included all of Attiah's post-shooting posts in the strict text of the termination letter, but they only quoted a couple posts, so maybe the arbitrator felt that the rest weren't sufficiently plead. Though she does spend enough time to repeat, without noting as false, the false attribution of the quote to a dead man. The Post did argue 'security concerns' at length, and the extent that rhymes with a heckler's veto isn't a great policy matter to rest on. The comparisons to Dave "Ratfucker" Weigel and a random contractor not covered by the stated policies might be pretty nakedly different conduct given context, but perhaps if you squint hard enough and there's no other comparisons, you get stuck with the bad approximations. Attiah isn't a government employee, but she is a union one, so as tempting as the obvious Damore comparisons get, they do have limits.
But it's still the floor, now.
Since this was decision by arbitration over violation of a union CBA, the question of whether saying something stupid and offensive qualifies as "gross misconduct" seems to depend on how their contract was written, not whether the average person thinks dancing in the blood of a murdered man is gross and unprofessional.
While we can all fill in the obvious shoe-on-the-other-foot hypotheticals, I would like to know if there are any comparable cases where a Post writer was fired for "gross misconduct" for social media posts.
Probably not. Sonmez was fired, but it took a six-day tweetstorm (and, frankly, a psychotic break), presumably with a bunch of warnings, and she had past bad conduct and punishment (including a previous incident involving a tragic death). Horwitz got a short suspension for plagiarism (copying two paragraphs about a legal regime), not a firing. Achenbach's hard to tell since it's a MeToo era case, so no idea where to put it except to say he was only suspended. In other cases, people just duck out of the business in a 'you can't fire me I quit sense': Cooke was definitely worse, and 'Ratfucker' Weigel wasn't worse and resigned or got a suspension, depending on which time you want to go with.
If you include other major press, you can find examples, even union shops like McNeil from the NYT or government-adjacent groups like Williams at NPR. But they're a different CBA or legal regime.
Of course, that leaves us debating whether a major newspaper has its hands tied because the staff behaved, or the previous owners were nutjobs letting bad behavior go reign free, long enough.
I notice that the arbitrator did not point to a part of the contract defining or limiting the bounds of "gross misconduct". Instead, she made a comparison to someone not covered by the policy to begin with, and described his situation in the last favorable manner.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link