
War over Being Nice - nphase
https://josephg.com/blog/war-over-being-nice/
======
throwaway12757
I get it, but the author completely misses the point when it comes to the
exchange of power between people.

Think man vs women Black person vs police Boss vs employee

suddenly culture A breaks down because people in power get upset and then
abuse their power. I guess you can say "they are only in charge of their
emotions" but when people can be fired or killed, it stops being a thing.

I've been in culture A (the military / still identifying as male): and there
is a good time for it, you don't care about someones feelings in the middle of
the mission

I've been in culture B (civilian life / out as a transwoman): Culture B is
nice because when done correctly (sure it's hard), it lets people show their
own emotional vulnerability and allows others to understand and take into
account that there are people out there that grew up with widely different
experiences other than yourself.

Also when the default norm is basically white male culture, once you see it
from the other side you realize how bad it actually is.

(I'm aware I will probably be down-voted)

~~~
dpc_pw
Both A and B are very easy to abuse and in practice they are often both "bad"
because in bigger groups there are always conflicts and personal interests,
and some people that will do whatever to have it their way, and most often
there is no "adult in the room" (someone with no personal stake in the
conflict with power to moderate the group behavior).

A turns into war, bulling and tyranny, B turns into toxic cesspool of blame
and playing a victim. Especially that there's a mechanism of self-selection,
and people fed up with the group tend to leave.

If you're a parent you see a micro-versions of both almost all the time in
kids interacting with each other.

Most people with reasonable life experience must have been involved repeatedly
in groups with both A and B cultures, some of which worked great, and some of
which were terrible. The difference is not in A/B but in particular group
dynamics, their morals etc.

IMO, A healthy, well-rounded adult should be able to encompass and integrate
both cultures and fluently switch them depending on the context and a need at
hand, and not fall into worst version of any.

------
lazyjones
It's a good analysis but misses the central issue with today's "culture war":
people in a B type society aren't actually overly concerned with their
emotions, they just pretend to be mentally fragile in order to exert power by
demanding compliance. It's a sanctioned form of violence. Sure, some fragile
nutcases exist too, but they're just exploited by the majority of SJW folks.

~~~
mpalmer
To be responsible for the feelings of others requires the assumption of good
faith on the part of the "feeler".

Personally, I _want_ to be able to make this assumption, to have this trust.
Because the A/B balance seems to be tipping.

But it's so easy to say "I feel Less Safe when you say X". It's only human to
notice that some words and phrases take on power. Only human to want to use
that power to protect yourself.

So instead of owning your own feelings, you own that of everyone in the group.
And online, that's _everyone_. Some people online will claim injury even when
there is none, or when they imagine they're speaking for others who are
staying silent.

The result is a discourse so sanded-down and smooth that it achieves only the
distinction of offending no one.

------
beardedetim
These differences between culture A and B are something me and the Wife have
been talking about for years. They are mostly in the B group and I in the A.
I'm glad that others are seeing the distinction and starting conversations
about it.

I found the language the author used to describe each interesting. The
"masculine"/"feminine" dichotomy seems to cause those in group B to take
offense, in my experience, due to the "cultural norm to think masculine is
strong/good and feminine is weak/bad". I like the "bro"/"inclusive" dichotomy
because the "bro culture" is now a short-hand for "toxic" so those in group B
feel "superior" (_such a bad word but not enough coffee yet_) and are then
able to have a discussion about the dichotomy itself.

Something the Wife and I have butted heads against and something I had wished
the author would have spent more time on was the dolling out of
"responsibility points" during a disagreement. I, in group A, think that as
long as I'm not saying "I will hurt you", I can _say_ whatever the fuck I want
and you just need to get over it. I think this is how _everyone_ feels, even
those in group B, but group A is just open about it. The Wife, however, feels
that I should be responsible for what I say that isn't a part of the "group
thing" (_once again, an emotional word to get my point across but a tad too
far, I know_).

Example: If I say "I dislike your shoes", the Wife has _every right_ to be
upset. However, I should not be held accountable/be given "responsibility
points" for that. It's on them for being hurt by me not liking their shoes.

Just because I said something that hurt someone's feelings doesn't mean I'm
_responsible_ for their feelings. If that is the case, what is stopping _any_
of us saying "You not giving me everything I want hurts me"? If _emotions_ are
the end-all, be-all of importance, isn't being emotional until you get your
way the ultimate strategy?

I am rambling now. Great article, timely reading for myself. Hope to see more
conversation about this and to learn how I can be a better ally to culture B
without having to give me my own desires/ideologies in culture A.

~~~
jdashg
While you have every right to _think_ someone's shoes are bad, you are not
always free to _express_ this thought carelessly with no regard for others. In
more common words, you're free to express your opinion, but you're absolutely
not free from the _consequences_ of expressing it, and it's unreasonable to
expect no consequences ever.

It's a balancing act of reasonability, and some people are indeed bad actors.
Like people walking past eachother on the sidewalk, some people are
(unreasonably) upset when not everyone gets out of their way. While we're
responsible for making reasonable (but not absolute) effort not to bump into
eachother, "reasonable" is socially determined. It can feel unsatisfactory
without a game-proof absolute rule, but it really does work.

------
tomohawk
Tolerance traditionally means tolerating people. This has been shifted (some
would say cynically) to mean tolerating ideas.

The traditional meaning allows you to have a society. You can live next to
someone who you disagree with.

The new meaning is a profoundly negative one. It means that if you are
tolerant, then there is something wrong with you, because you are tolerating
bad ideas. A society that embraces the second definition doesn't seem like it
will last very long.

The traditional definition allows conversations to take place. It gives people
space to grow and change their minds. It puts people as more important than
ideals.

The new definition makes ideals more important than people. It requires
cancelling people if they believe the "wrong" things, or at least
unfashionable things.

~~~
unFou
I'm curious how to be intolerant of an idea while being tolerant of people?

Because practically, aren't ideas tied to people? I don't think you can have
an idea survive without people keeping it alive. So how do you express
intolerance for "bad" ideas without letting that expression bleed into an
intolerance for the people propagating the "bad" idea?

~~~
veeberz
You can hold the idea that a certain religion or philosophy is vile and evil,
yet respect and even like certain individuals that are followers or adherents
of those beliefs, because individuals are often more than just the essentials
of those beliefs.

Take a certain popular religion, for instance. This religion can be judged as
evil if you are secular or pro-reason (as opposed to faith). But individuals
who practice this religion do so as individuals, and may place more emphasis
on certain parts of their religion over others according to their own personal
values. In fact it's impossible not to place emphasis on certain aspects of a
religion or philosophy when adopting it - even religious zealotry implies an
emphasis on perfect obedience and adherence. You can tolerate, accept, or even
like a person holding an idea that you can't tolerate due to your own beliefs,
for the personal values and virtues exhibited by the individual which are
reflected in their emphasis of certain parts of their beliefs.

------
sidibe
I think we always need to strike a balance between nice and direct, but one
thing I've noticed is many people who claim to be A culture people (are proud
of not sugarcoating things or "saying it how it is") are the people who
especially don't like it when others are like that to them, which I think is
just a lack of empathy.

------
text70
The extremes of A- are that when applied to the wrong group it can lead to
actual violence. The extreme of B- is that group cohesion stagnates because
the individual takes precedence. Group A is more cohesive than B, but is under
internal strain.

If you have a highly dynamic group, meaning it changes every year, then you
should consider culture B to reduce alienation. If you have a static group
consider culture A to improve cohesion and cooperation.

A smart and intelligent manager can accommodate both simultaneously and
realize that there is a happy medium between the two. As the culture matures,
ie people stay around for a long time, it will go from B+ to A+ naturally.

------
zozbot234
I'm generally comfortable with endorsing Culture A, but the whole "teasing and
jostling each other for _fun_ " is something that can definitely backfire. It
makes the most sense as a strategic signal of common values, but it should
definitely be avoided when interacting with those who are plausibly outsiders
to the culture. (People can nonetheless be gradually educated into it by
expressing praise when the inevitable social conflicts are resolved quickly
and easily, or even when they start dishing out some good-natured ribbing of
their own.)

------
grok22
This is a complicated issue with various shades of gray in between and no
black-and-white answer unfortunately. One can go wrong either way depending on
the expectations of all the involved parties.

------
skim_milk
Is this related to attachment theory? Culture A seems like Insecure-Avoidant
attachment and B seems like Anxious attachment. Could B's anxiety cause the
group to overanalyse every negative situation and do what they need to do to
avoid stress? Did A's people grow up in an emotionally distant household with
snobby parents that cause them to compare themselves against and constantly
one-up each other?

------
iammru
"Arguing under the banner of "fighting for diversity" that culture B is the
only acceptable culture is ironic and a little sad. We aren't all the same"...

So true..but even making these statements will get you cancelled or fired
these days.

------
avmich
I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with constantly asking consent. I guess
saying "no" could be roughly like responding on request for the Moon - no,
darling, you can't have the Moon on your palm or in your room. Is it a
contradiction - factually "revoking consent" while doing that (as much as
possible) in culture B style? Is it possible?

------
robert_foss
I think framing this A/B divide in terms of sex is needlessly conflating
different topics. Surely there's a statistical bias of some sort, but it
doesn't really add to this conversation.

~~~
frankish
I think the focus is more on a masculine (A) vs feminine (B) divide rather
than sex. It's just that the majority of men lean towards more masculinity
than femininity and vise versa for women. I find this aspect to be very
essential to the topic at hand, which I believe to be the societal pressures
to pick one of the sides and abandon individual thought.

------
jariel
Really great insight and framework for discussion.

However: "B in a healthy way requires huge skill" ... it requires more than
skill it requires magic.

When people are allowed to determine, arbitrarily, that they have been
'transgressed' by some other action, they will abuse that any which way. Or at
least some people will.

The 'threshold' for 'intolerance' will move consistently in a direction until
the offended party can claim power.

The workplace becomes a system of control based on who stepped in front of
who.

The best people usually are easy going people who have played team sports:
they are competitive but relaxed and confident, not afraid of the unknown or
competitive, not vindictive or aggressive. They've also had their teammates
take them down a notch when they get out of hand, but propped up as well. They
know the odd 'equal' dynamic of a team. They are impossible to offend: think
Rugby players who bite and punch each other in the privates - and then _out
out for beers_ with each other after the game.

For a professional domain, I think 'World A' is much more appropriate.
Basically 'World A without Jerks' is the objective, or more positively: "World
A Nice People".

Jostling and mocking is fine in it's place, so long as people know when not
to.

Any place that goes full 'World B' will lose track of their objectives and
collapse into a spiral of ridiculous introspection unless the organisation
itself is ultimately deeply 'B' oriented, like an NGO.

Two Canadian examples:

1) Not well known: Canadian PM Justin Trudeau is a Rugby Player. That guy gets
his 'Easy Going Alpha' charm from that kind of confidence.

2) The 'We Charity' (all about the power of 'We' to change the world for the
better!) is the most 'B type' of place imaginable. Even their charter is warm
and fuzzy.

They sponsored a tour by a young Black woman to talk around Canada, in order
to share her story about racism - literally a empathetic 'Type B' activity.
The story as written wasn't quite suitable for the initiative, they tried to
work with her to create a workable narrative (ie speech writing) and she
accused the charity of some devious stuff, and a ton of knives came out for
the founders of the charity.

So the most well-intentioned people on earth, back stabbing each other over
the bits and bytes of racism messaging because people's feelings were getting
stepped on. It's not an easy issue obviously, but it's still odd to see the
supposedly sensitive types ravage each other.

A final example - CNN literally yesterday published a piece indicating the
term 'Master Bedroom' among other things could be deemed offensive and of
course we are now arguing about 'light and dark terms' as being racist in the
context of anything i.e. 'white hat / dark hat'. While there are some decent
intellectual concerns, for the most part, this is not about 'offence' it's
about 'power'.

Nobody was ever offended by the term 'Master Bedroom'. But if we can show some
arbitrary linkage of the term to 'Slavery' \- then the 'theoretically
offended' can wield power by forcing others into a ridiculous conformity of
their own making. These issues will not stop at common words and the thread
will be pulled upon until the sweater unravels or the pulling stops.
Everything is a transgression if we want it to be.

Edit: I should add in all self awareness the danger of 'Type A' environments
is are the more traditional, bold-faced power grabs via communication:
acerbic, vindictive, abusive, belittling etc.. I don't mind people yelling,
and don't mind if someone gets yelled at occasionally if they really screwed
things up, however, it's too easy for that to be abused by the person with
more power and you can develop 'fear hierarchies'.

~~~
jariel
Edit: I should also add, that my examples are very personal and anecdotal and
only crudely illustrative. I don't mean to imply that 'Rugby Players' are
'great leaders' or that 'Leaders must have a team sports background' \- not in
the least. It's just something that I, a non-athlete who came to such things
later in life wherein I was way more introspective about it than your average
19 year old, picked up some perspective from being embedded with these groups.
It's highly personalised, but I would hope there's enough common ground among
us for people to grasp the connotation.

------
skywal_l
Nobody is going to mention that guy's last name? ;)

