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 -
https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1572949584837767173
The details aren't fully know yet but it's a bombshell of a news story for any sports fan, especially the NBA. It seems to be that the coach of the Boston Celtics had a completely consensual sexual relationship with a member of the Celtics staff and now the coach is getting suspended for the entire season. Not sure about discipline for the woman.
The Celtics went to the Finals last year (Heat fan gripe: the refs were the reason the Celts made it past the Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals - I've never been as heated {ha!} In my life over anything sports related in 30 years of watching as I have over this series) and this guy is considered THE up and coming coach.
He's married also.
What I'm seeing a lot of online is something along the lines of: you can't have a relationship with a subordinate, he deserves this, if not to be fired outright. Personally, I feel the statement of ' it's non of your damn business ' would have sufficed. This would apply to this guy on the Celtics or some head honcho at GNC or Walmart.
What does The Motte think?
This is adultery and therefore scandalous.
But no wait this is 2022, so nothing makes sense and the crime is having sex with people you work with.
The idea that the employer shouldn't meddle in private affairs, though the French (and therefore correct) way to handle it is completely inaudible.
American society and its bunch of puritans never worked like this. And it probably never will. Moral ignominy means you lose your job, all the more if it's some public thing like this.
If only we had a way to make sure that a (sexual/romantic) relationship is socially acceptable (according to whatever the local moral rules are) within your community. Maybe we'd gather a bunch of friends and family together and give everyone the opportunity to chat with both parties, see that they are willingly there etc. Maybe even let the government know that you're fucking. And if someone opposes the sex-having (based on laws or morality) they have to bring their arguments up there and then. But from that day on, the sex between those people will be normal, accepted and expected.
But wait, no, that would be marriage and that's conservative and patriarchal (except when it's same-sex marriage - then it's liberating). We're supposed to enjoy the fruits of the sexual revolution, have flexibility etc. Just enjoy sex without marriage, no worries at all, pleasure is king. Oh, except a bunch of people can still scrutinize your sex life and decide at any point that the kind of sex you are having does not get the stamp of approval, retroactively.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link