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?
Bryan Caplan wrote on this subject a while ago. He thinks banning workplace relationships is one of the most repressive anti freedom things we’ve ever done. Most people spend a lot of time at work. I’ll just link to him because he’s smarter than me but I share his opinion.
https://betonit.substack.com/p/love-is-love-workplace-edition
Him being married is bad from a religious/puritanical perspective. But consensual relationships should not be punished.
Also real power is still real power today. Deshaun Watson isn’t replaceable or Elon Musks. Both got paid. But for all us little people don’t put your dick where you work and have good bumble game.
"Boss marries secretary" was a romance novel trope for a reason for a long time. And co-workers who fall in love and get married isn't the problem.
The problem is affairs where one or both parties are married; affairs that break up and then there is bad blood between the parties; as mentioned in another comment, where the romantic partner gets preferential treatment, etc. Look at Willie Brown and Kamala Harris, and the rumours there that she got her start only because she was his girlfriend.
Or cases like the one I heard about from a former job: the guy was married, had an affair with a subordinate, then left the job for a better one elsewhere. He also left the subordinate pregnant with twins, broke up with his wife, but didn't take his mistress with him to his new job and new town. That's a case where if the woman had listened to advice about not shitting where you eat, she would have come out of it better all round - but of course, it's all "but I love him and he loves me", until it ends badly.
(There's also another case, tangentially related to that job, where a person associated with the organisation had an affair and dumped his wife for the new younger squeeze; his ex-wife went ballistic and went to the cops about alleged dodgy financial dealings of his, which eventually saw him serving a jail sentence. Do not fuck around unless you are very, very sure that finding out won't send you to the slammer!)
We don't know the details of this particular case, and they seem to be suspending him for a season, which indicates he can come back to his job after the suspension. But in general, I think workplace romances are way too risky, for both parties - the woman, if the guy is just using her, and the man, if the woman decides after the breakup that she was harassed and coerced into the affair.
I honestly can't agree with Caplan that "don't fuck your subordinates unless you're gonna put a ring on it" is 'one of the most repressive anti-freedom thing we've ever done'. Right now, I do genuinely think that for men in a position of authority, it's protective - and if they still can't keep their trousers buttoned, what happens after that is on their own heads.
But the reason why it's so dangerous is because of the social/political pressure we've put on it. You've pointed out some egregious examples of work relationships but then you also have the McDonald's CEO. Is meeting someone on Bumble really preferable to seeing someone in their element for 40 hours a week?
Don't get me wrong - I think that treading carefully is super important with work relationships. But it's insane to me that we're forced dating through a phone-app pinhole and think that this was some sort of upgrade. I got out of the game before the App "revolution" and I'm overall very glad I did.
It generally makes it difficult lines to tread. I'm in a management position, and feel like I can be a lot more hands-on and mentoring with my male graduates/juniors than I can with females. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, but even a small % chance of it being a career/financial/reputational landmine means I've gotta be cautious.
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