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 -
To paraphrase the attitudes of various teachers and administrators my mother had to deal with over the course of my public school education: because while any two fertile, horny morons of opposite sexes can have a kid — they don't even have to get a license or take a class first — educators are trained professionals with the credentials to prove they know what's good for kids better than the kids' non-credentialed parents.
In short: I (the teacher) have a degree in Education and you (the parent) don't, therefore I always automatically know better than you when it comes to your own kid.
Yes, the "we're trained experts thing" seems to be the main thrust. Nevermind the abysmal results we can see.
But I don't think they can ever override the fact that a parent is biologically inclined to want the best for their kid. No way to explain why the teachers are somehow willing to advocate nearly as strongly for the interests of a child that isn't theirs than the ones who birthed the child and will spend immense amount of resources raising it.
OBVIOUSLY this doesn't mean parents 'always know best.' I'm just saying that's a presumption that is difficult to rebut without specifically examining their behavior. The odds of the teachers, in aggregate, feeling as strong a loyalty to the kid as the parents do is very low.
Sure they can- just point guns at them. The self-preservation instinct in the parent can be successfully leveraged in this way, which is part of why there’s no effective resistance to the faction who believes themselves the True Parents.
Let's look at the moral math on that: "If the state kills/jails/bankrupts me and takes my kids, my courage has no protective effect. Only if I survive/am free/am financially capable can I continue to protect my kids. Therefore I will appear to acquiesce but plan to renew the fight."
Never underestimate the lengths a parent will go to. Thousands of years of evolution in societies has ensured that humans will fight every arm of the state in every way possible to ensure that their kids are safe.
Their track record over the last 40 years has been an uninterrupted string of defeats- parental rights are a vanishing shadow of what they were 60 years ago (to the point they're fighting, and losing, the battle over having their children seized for wrongthinking parents when it comes to trans ideology; they'll already be prosecuted for having their 12 year old walk half a block, and they fucking welcomed that outcome in the '80s).
I think an assumption that they're trying not to lose everything is even less complimentary than assuming they're just too busy. They're similar to traditional-type conservatives in that regard, just like how they're a dying breed (since some of the calculus is "well, is the risk the State will seize my children worth having them?").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link