site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34134 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 2024

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean, the actual reality here is it turns out, women are actually much better at the type of schooling initially dominated by boy's for decades - aka, sit at a desk and listen to a teacher for hours upon hours, which even with whatever changes to pedagogy there have been, still seems to be the prominent way education is done, except maybe now there's a few more computer screens.

It's interesting how there wasn't there criticism of this type of schooling when men were 70% of college students - no, the boys were just told to sit down and listen instead of being given excuses by conservatives.

It's interesting how there wasn't there criticism of this type of schooling when men were 70% of college students

Back when men were 70% of college students, the men who actually made it there were also the kinds of men who were actually high achievers and would benefit from that.

College was far from mandatory for any job- you could quit at Grade 10 (or earlier, in some cases) and still expect to make a reasonably decent living. Men (and women) for whom additional schooling would not help could just... leave, and be a full-fledged adult at 16 (which gives them far greater time to achieve their goals and become more mature). Now we have grade inflation and people now need a college degree to receive government-mandated UBI (i.e. workers employed in the education-managerial complex) because high school graduation rates became a target and thus ceased to be a good measure of graduate competence.

you could quit at Grade 10 (or earlier, in some cases) and still expect to make a reasonably decent living.

My dad did this (in the late 70s) and was able to support a family of five (in the 80s and 90s) on just his single income.

Start making evaluation of students at school track objective measures of learning instead of whether the teacher vibes with the kid, and maybe you'd have a point. As it stands, boys significantly outperform girls on standardized tests, particularly at the top end. It's likely the abandonment of objective standards that students can fairly compete over is a major part of why boys are disengaging (and also explains the collapse of the college wage premium). It's not surprising that when you turn school into a question of who can flatter a teacher and her their biases more that you end up favoring girls.

Boys still score higher than girls on standardized tests and other objective measures. They just do worse when you include subjective assessments of their abilities.

Is homework a subjective measure? IIRC girls, especially teenagers, do a lot better at getting their homework done and turning in assignments on time. Granted, a typical middle school homework assignment is not some tough test of intelligence- it's more like "read a chapter of the book, then write a paragraph of plot summary to prove that you did actually read it." But then, that's what a lot of real-life work assignments are like too- "do what i tell you, get it done, don't complain about being bored."

Except the systems and the goals are completely different. In the old days, yes, the boys were told to sit their asses down and listen, for the period of time that class was. But class was shorter, intermissions longer, and rough play was allowed during the intermissions. In addition, a GOAL of the old system was kicking kids out. A huge attrition rate is desirable because only a small % of people were expected to continue on with school. It would be a waste for Jimmy to keep going to school forever when he's going to work on the farm anyways.

In many ways, the failure of our current system is the lack of attrition, particularly among the girls. But I'd think halving the number of boys currently in university and cutting girls to about that number would be a huge improvement.

But if the system says attrition is bad, it should look at the causes of attrition.

There's lots of arguments you could make there as to the content and framework of education. Things didn't used to be this dominated by administrative minutiae and social games. Men thrive in straightforwardly competitive environments, which used to be provided for in schooling and was specifically de-emphasized through reform.

You can't really deny cultural changes so mainstream that they get Simpsons episodes made about them.

But who cares for this pointless score keeping anyhow. It used to work for men, and now it doesn't. Why and how do we fix it? Mocking them isn't helping answer that question.

This is exactly the sort of reflexive sneering that shows there's no argument to justify your position beyond "haha you have no power to stop us hurting your children, and we do it because it's funny to us".
Nor is there any concern for "fairness", which was just tactical rhetoric until you were in a position to jeer at the kids your policies hurt.
All those arguments about "implicit bias" go right out the window when studies show teachers are biased against a group you want to torture for fun, because your "concerns" about bias were only ever an excuse for power to hurt people.

The experience of interacting with leftists and learning about how they behave has been horrific. Like hearing a voice crying for help in the woods, only to come face to face with a giant spider mimicking human speech to ambush prey.
Is there even any motivation to the entire ideology beyond sheer pointless malice?

As I said last thread, he's doing you the service of taking the mask off. They know what they're going to do, they're going to do it, and if you won't accept their thinly-veiled justifications, they'll just use force; they are in no way scrupulous about that.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats