site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   30967 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

WNBA Coach Becky Hammon Suspended.

The WNBA is rescinding the Las Vegas Aces' 2025 draft pick and suspending head coach Becky Hammon for two games without pay, the league announced Tuesday. [...] In one probe, the league found the Aces promised "impermissible benefits" during negotiations for [Dearica] Hamby’s player contract. The other investigation found Hammon violated the league's Respect in the Workplace policies with comments about Hamby's pregnancy.

The WNBA? Do I care? Does anyone care? Well no, but the twist here is that Becky Hammon is (supposedly) actually good. She was a top assistant in the NBA for years under legendary coach Gregg Popovich, and she has gotten numerous head-coaching interviews with NBA teams, some as recently as this month. Every year when the coaching carousel starts, we are treated to at least one thinkpiece asking why Becky Hammon hasn't gotten an NBA head-coaching job yet. So what exactly happened to tarnish her sterling reputation?

Hamby claimed the Aces were dishonest with her during contract negotiations this summer, adding that they falsely accused her of signing an extension while knowingly pregnant. The two-time Sixth Player of the Year announced her second pregnancy after the Aces won their first-ever WNBA title last September, prompting Aces management to question her commitment to the team because, according to Hamby, they didn't "expect" her to get pregnant within the following two years.

"I was asked if I planned my pregnancy," Hamby wrote. "When I responded, 'no,' I was then told that I 'was not taking precautions to not get pregnant.' I was being traded because 'I wouldn't be ready and we need bodies.' I planned to play this season, and I have expressed my desire to play this season. I have pushed myself throughout my entire pregnancy and have continued to work out (basketball included) on my own and with the team staff -- even on days where it was uncomfortable to walk, only to be inaccurately told that 'I was not taking my workouts seriously.'"

"Season-ending pregnancy" strikes again.

It appears Miss Hammon's mistake was taking the WNBA seriously. She has experience in the NBA, a real league, where players are expected to do whatever it takes to win. She thought the same would be true in the women's league. In reality, the WNBA is a loss-leader. It's PR. It's advertising. It's sole purpose is to produce good media coverage and to get little girls interested in basketball. WNBA players aren't paid enough to ignore labor violations (Jordan Poole got a $140 million contract extension shortly after this). The audience of the WNBA doesn't care about women's sports or winning, they care about "women's sports"™. It should be obvious that the core idea of "women's sports"™ is "respect women"™, and you can't "respect women"™ by telling them when they can or can't become pregnant.

It appears Miss Hammon's mistake was taking the WNBA seriously.

Indeed. This is a league, after all, who's star players go to Russia to actually make money and then get caught with weed at the airport.

Congratulations, she found the one WNBA player who is heterosexual.

I’m half joking of course, but only half. You cannot play professional basketball around pregnancy and this is a major limiting factor on women’s professional athletics, even in a counterfactual world where people wanted to watch it. And that probably goes a way towards explaining why the WNBA is so disproportionately lesbian.

And that probably goes a way towards explaining why the WNBA is so disproportionately lesbian.

I doubt this last part. One of the WNBA's consistent problems is finding traditionally photogenic stars. Another problem (at least according to the few heterosexual women) is rampant discrimination against them by fellow players (one tale I read was basically Jackie Robinson for hetero white women). And lastly, sports is a male thing, no matter how many girls get roped into it. The more male-like you are the more you will eventually excel.

one tale I read was basically Jackie Robinson for hetero white women

Can you link me that tale?

No it was quite a long time ago. It was about one of the colleges though.

The contradictions around pregnancy/abortion in the Liberal mind are interesting for this.

I'd wager a plurality of Liberals would be against Hammon being asked to terminate her pregnancy for the sake of her contract/consider her right to get pregnant to be superior to her professional commitment. Yet if a random 'girlboss' was to abort a pregnancy due to prioritizing career it'd likely be seen as empowering.

Uh, of course.

The “girlboss” has the right to keep the pregnancy, too. If her boss was demanding that she yeet that fetus to get promoted, it would be offensive. (As well as a central example of a Title IX violation!)

There is no contradiction - the stance is that women should make all decisions regarding their own pregnancy and should never suffer any consequences for doing so. If this means on-demand, government-subsidized abortion, that is good. If this means getting pregnant at a time that isn't going to work out for an employer and then forcing to pay the salary of a pregnant woman person that isn't working, that is also good. If that means terminating a pregnancy against the wishes of the father, that is fine. If that means keeping a pregnancy against the wishes of the father and compelling him to pay for the child, that is also fine. As near as I can tell, these positions are sincere and consistently applied.

It's the same as wanting sex work to be a valid legal career, but not wanting sex work to be treated as any other work, like being included in public works programs.

It's the same as wanting sex work to be a valid legal career, but not wanting sex work to be treated as any other work, like being included in public works programs.

Consider something like work as a mercenary for, say, Blackwater; although the parallels aren't exact, it's an interesting thought. As far as I know, it's legal to be a Blackwater mercenary.

I think most liberals likely wouldn't see a contradiction, since their guiding principle in both of these cases would be that the pregnant woman's agency is paramount. If Hamby's confident she can play basketball around her pregnancy, then by all means, let her. By that same vein, if hypothetical girlboss terminates her pregnancy for her career ambitions, well again that's up to her. Hence the whole "my body, my choice".

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats