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 -
We accept marginal risk increases and marginal decreases in quantifiable outcomes for otherwise beneficial results or moral principles all the time. For children this is no different. To conclude otherwise about kids is emotional, not logical, reasoning.
These other beneficial results, which are not always easily quantifiable, are often still important. There are more values in play than simple material prosperity. For example, I'd trade a .1 decrease in GPA for my child any day of the week if it means they turn out to be a better-quality, more tolerant, open-minded person. Something I think your claim of "much better outcomes" fails to capture. While sending them to a school with significant minority presence isn't a perfect way of acquiring this mindset, there are some perspectives only lived experience can provide, no matter how good a parent or lecturer you are. That's partly why I illustrated the point about wealth and expected vacations -- she was living in a bubble that no amount of verbal expression could pop.
I also believe that some vague sense of diversity exposure (beyond simple racial categories too, as mentioned) is long-term beneficial. Researchers have found, for example, that increased corporate diversity probably leads to higher profits (this is debated) but much more certainly leads to better decision-making, job satisfaction, and higher quality work -- see here as an example from Harvard Business Review that talks about how diversity is no panacea but in the proper context definitely does help corporations.
Plus, though I don't buy into it to the extent some people do (the whole performative white guilt thing is bullshit), there IS certainly a moral evil in saying "oh my particular in-group is happy and prosperous" and thus let's not do anything to help other, suffering groups. Especially when, you know, broadly speaking your in-group was directly responsible for those poor outcomes of other groups. That's literally dystopian. When it comes to education, to some extent there's a zero-sum pot of resources available. To say "oh well it's working out for my group personally so it's fine" is not a holistic nor accurate way of viewing the situation. You want to talk evil? That's pretty close!
There are plenty of mechanisms for which Black kids can have better outcomes other than some vague notion of proximity or magic, you are correct. I haven't listed them explicitly, but I could if you doubt they exist. Put briefly, part of the problem with US primary and secondary education has to do with the funding and geographical schemes used.
Overall, though, it's still so bizarre to me that you outright accuse me of racism. You blocked out a quote of mine and I fail to see anything racist there.
There is no 'we' here. There are vile people bargaining with the lives of innocent children and there are parents trying to protect them. Most people do not accept marginal risk for their children for no benefit if they can help it. Yes, people make these choices all the time and they are telling you in this case: No. You do not respect their autonomy or value the wellbeing of their children so you refuse the answer.
And the point I'm making is that this isn't in your control. Every single example and assumption you make is not based on the factor parents are using to decide where to send their children: Risk. You don't get to decide if its .1 decrease in GPA or bullying that scars them for life.
You create hypotheticals and make generalized assumptions based on irrelevant research to draw up a concrete picture when the reality is that you don't know. You just hold to an ideological firmament like a zealous crusader. Parents do not have this luxury as they have to accurately assess real world risk to the best of their ability. Since their primary focus is not ideology but the welfare of their children.
More diverse schools have increased rates of bullying. Whatever benefit you think you are getting, you are not counting the negatives.
White people do more to help brown people than any people on the planet have ever done. They are drawing the line at sacrificing their own children for an effort that defies any logic and reason.
The assumption of your argument is that the problems browns face can be fixed by whites. You also hold to a moral and ideological imperative that white people owe brown people. Neither of these things are true. It's just a classic example of a rape and revenge narrative. Regardless of anything else, no white person should ever listen to a person like you on anything relating to the welfare of their children, given how racially charged your ahistorical ideological viewpoint is.
If the problem is money, which its not, you could just argue to give these schools more money without punishing white children. Yet that is not your argued course of action.
The assumption that white children turn out intolerant, ignorant or sheltered if not raised in proximity to browns is racist. I explained this to you in the reply to that paragraph of yours. As I said then, white people raised in their homogenous societies produce the best people the world knows who drive the best societies. The only reason you would assume that they are somehow turning out evil is if you were making a baseless racist assumption. Which is exactly what you were doing.
No, I agree, white people don't owe brown people that much. Personally I subscribe to a school of thought that injustices older than, say, 40-50 years belong to the past and not the present; we can do more good focusing on the present. For example the idea of reparations for slavery is absurd and also not practical. If an injustice is obvious and inflicted within, say, 20 years, I think there should always be some sort of reckoning. I bring up the longer-past to more criticize the general idea that if your group is happy, it's okay to ignore others who are suffering. And to mention that success of one group is rarely some sort of idealist world where they did it all by themselves. It's not uncommon, at least, for some exploitation to be going on as the cost. (I'm not saying this is always the case!)
What I do believe is that yes, successful people and successful groups and successful societies alike have a moral, religious, and human imperative to not just like in their own bubbles of prosperity, but to uplift others, be they less fortunate or even in some cases undeserving. I also think that to strive for the elusive goal of equality is admirable. Perhaps we do not share those values. But I think they are human values, not some luxury. Humankind as a species only got where it did due to networks of mutual trust rather than pure unadulterated selfishness, which allowed "greater than the sum of its parts" effects, so I would argue these values are actually fairly universal.
White childrenALL kids turn outintolerant, ignorant or shelteredignorant in practical terms, and sheltered in many termsif not raised in proximity to brownsif not deliberately exposed to other "cultures" (ill-defined I know), races, income levels, ability levels, religion, to name a few. Simply being told about how these things exist is not enough for true, meaningful, and ultimately helpful understanding (to the kid for their future and being a well-rounded, high-quality, moral human being) . I'll admit that careful parenting and good influences, etc. can get you probably 75% of the way there for some of these, but not all. That's an important point. Fish being unaware of water and all that. That's the context here. I'm not saying that you need to deliberately sacrifice your child's well-being for social justice as a broad concept. I'm advocating for parents to carefully consider the unseen costs of homogeneity, to think about their child's whole future, and to point out that if enough people think this way we can obtain greater "justice and equity" without doing anything particularly controversial.Success in school is an admixture of teacher quality, parental support, extracurricular support, teaching approaches, appropriate disciplinary schemes; the backgrounds of the attendees is a big factor but harder to directly control. Generally speaking, it's downstream of economic and geographical trends. Weighing these factors and coming up with a better way to achieve fairness is still a tricky question I don't yet have a full answer to. But objecting to the relatively banal original idea I proposed, which was simply that inequality might lessen if people valued diversity more in selection of where to live, and attacking it as the underpinnings of some sort of nefarious liberal plan to stuff apparently perfect, innocent, destined for success white kids into inner city schools where they are doomed to a life of bullying and misfortune is a complete mischaracterization of so many things it's hard to know where to start. I hope this clarifies some.
Then we do not agree as white people do not owe brown people anything. What they do give is an act of kindness that is comparatively very rarely reciprocated.
I agree humans should help one another. Which is why I find your position so distasteful. You don't want to help white children. You want to risk their wellbeing. We can all be equal in squalor. That doesn't mean its good.
As for human values, what white people are doing and have been doing are not human values. China isn't opening its borders. India doesn't care for equal rights. Africa doesn't care for LGBTQ+ or whatever. The places on earth that engage in what you call human values are white. Humankind as a species only got where it is today because white people pushed it there. Ending perpetual conquest, ending slavery, sharing technology, pushing for an end to unnecessary suffering. The rest of the world was dragged kicking and screaming away from their barbarism and is only kept from it, still kicking and screaming, through the implementation of neo-imperial financial coercion and threat of force.
Children in general do not turn out intolerant, ignorant or sheltered if raised in homogenous schools. It's in fact easier to be tolerant of the things that are so far away from you that they practically do not exist. Children raised in homogenous schools miss out on nothing that's worth the increase in risk.
What you offer parents is a coercive bargain. You promise them total equality and an end to racism in return for placing their children in worse environments. The problem with this bargain is that your end of it is a lie. The only thing that happens is that white children become worse off whilst brown children continue being who they are, good and bad. We know your end is a lie because it, like every progressive humanist effort, has been tried and subsequently failed.
You as a person, like so many others, can not functionally understand this, for whatever reason. So you continue chasing the promise of equality and eternal salvation through whatever means you can imagine. People like you have already cost billions if not trillions in your futile efforts. White people have paid for all of it, and here you come asking for more in the name of humanity, equality and all the rest. Listen, white people already did all of this. They are doing it even today. It doesn't work. None of it works. What do you think progressives have been doing for the past 60 years?
'Success in school' is meaningless. Every teacher could pass every student with no issue by just doing what is already being done and dropping the standards so the browns can pass. What actually matters is peoples ability to interact with modern societies. That means the ability to read and understand, having the capacity for low time preference behavior and the ability to implement mathematics into practice. School outside of these things is not meaningful in the modern context. So long as a majority of the children get a grasp on these things, society can continue to function properly. The problem is that no one knows how to get the children that don't grasp these things to grasp it. It doesn't matter if they're white or brown. No one knows how to meaningfully raise IQ scores or lower a persons time preference.
Taking children and placing them in environments where they are more likely to get bullied is not banal. Arguing in favor of this by abstracting away from reality is not honest. You should take some time to reflect on what you are proposing in practice. Because there are many more values people hold to than just the imperative to help those in need. And your particular emotional proclivities in no way trump those who differ.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link