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 -
I think this is a misdiagnosis of whats going on. On an individual level where someones work is individually threatened by the removal of some administrative or bureaucratic requirement they might oppose it's removal but at the same time there's at least ten people in the same organization that is burdened by said requirement and dreams of it being removed. Also, even if the requirement is removed they're unlikely to be fired, they'll be reassigned and hiring will be reduced.
It is not the administrative state that is driving this, it's the regulatory state, mostly because they don't actually have to deal with the consequences of the regulations they create. It is good to pass regulation because you're then seen as "doing something" and the costs are too diffuse to be tracked back to you by the electorate. There is noone that can say no so the regulatory complexity grows and with it cost disease. It's kind of like a spaghetti code base that is never refactored because people with power have no incentive to do so and the code will never actually fail to execute, only work worse and require more compute.
That said, opinions of a department wholly concerned with dealing with some bureaucratic hurdle is suspect when asked about the value of said regulation. But again, these are usually small parts of the overall organisation that are concerned with something else of concrete value.
It is possible that llms will help but I could see it being a wash because it also enables bad behaviour which necessitates further regulation and enforcement.
More options
Context Copy link