War over Being Nice

War over Being Nice
josephg.com

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

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.

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'.