[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.

[Viliam1234]

> suddenly culture A breaks down because people in power get upset and then abuse their power.

This is a great point! In power relationship, "culture A" is often one-sided. The boss says whatever he wants, and he boasts about an environment of openness or whatever. But the employees know that if they tried the same, they would get fired. So this only adds an insult to injury, not only you have to endure the manners of your boss, you also have to pretend that everything is okay and symmetric, when it obviously is not.

(When your boss insists that there is no hierarchy and everyone can freely speak their mind, this is your last warning to shut up. Hint: In genuinely safe environments, you usually don't need to remind people regularly that the environment is safe; they already know, based on their previous experience and observations. So if the boss doth protest too much...)

On the other hand, I believe it is perfectly safe to talk back to Linus Torvalds. In this case, the "culture A" really is symmetric. Ironically, the reason he is attacked is because it is safe to attack him. (If you need to publicly provide an example of toxic behavior, it is safer to name Linus than someone who could actually punish you for doing so.)

In real, I suppose almost no one would be a "culture A" or "culture B" absolutist. When Bob says something to James and James starts crying... most people would ask what exactly Bob said, and decide accordingly.

I suspect people usually want context-less rules if they plan to abuse them. If you enjoy bullying people, you have an incentive to promote "culture A"; if you enjoy playing victim and blackmailing emotionallly, you have an incentive to promote "culture A". Otherwise, you will probably agree that some things are okay and some are not okay, even if we wouldn't agree on where exactly the line is.

[ipsocannibal]

While Culture A and B are contrived for the sake of discussion in my experience people advocating for Culture B do so out of being on the losing end of Culture A. However, these people don't seem to be interested in maintaining a shift to Culture B but rather in using aspects of B "shame,conformity,arguments from personal inner experiences" to attain a dominant role in an A type Culture. Cancel culture seems to be a mechanism to change the winners in Culture A not to create a Culture B.

[Supermancho]

> the author completely misses the point when it comes to the exchange of power between people.

Resistance to a power structure is a conflict.