site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34937 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But if you start creating bullshit APs,

  1. That is a very strange response, since I said: "I would think, for example, that the effect of taking an AP course on future college success would depend on the course in question"

  2. You are assuming that the course will be bullshit, but as you note yourself, "AA history done right would be a fascinating subject too," so you are not claiming that there is anything inherently wrong with offering AP AA Studies, but rather that you think that this particular course will not be "do[ne] right." That might be true -- see my top post on the subject, where I express similar concerns -- but it isn't guaranteed.

Edit: Re this:

Is that the goal? Because if it is, it would be very easy to achieve - just award a college degree to every African American at birth

Maybe, but note that that is not something that the College Board has the power to do. Regardless, the fact of the matter is, if the College Board wanted to improve actual, real college-level skills of African American students, which they say they do; and if they believe that taking AP courses, even one, have that effect, which they say they do; then they would do exactly what they have done here: Take steps to get more African American students to take AP courses.

You are assuming that the course will be bullshit, but as you note yourself,

Yes I do. I mean, those are the same schools in the same system that struggle to teach people to read and write by graduation. This is the same system that graduates people who are unable to read their own diploma. What would be my confidence level that they would do such a complex and politicized subject as AA history right? Near zero. I think it's purely "the care hums and vibrates when moving, so if we get into a broken car and start humming and jumping around, it'd magically start moving again". Pure cargo cult education. Well, and of course fat paycheck to whatever graduates of AA studies that are going to be paid taxpayer money to develop such courses and even more money to perform such courses - after all, Advanced Level education can't come cheap!

Maybe, but note that that is not something that the College Board has the power to do.

You can get reasonably close. Admit every AA person and award them a degree and perfect GPA immediately. I am not sure why such a simple idea never occurred before. I blame racism.

and if they believe that taking AP courses, even one, have that effect,

That sounds to me like "why the government just won't print enough money for everyone and give it out for free?!" The obvious detachment of the correlation happens right here, where you tying to pull at the wrong side of the correlation and fake the result without providing the cause.

And in case you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this guy: https://www.foxnews.com/media/florida-democrat-agrees-desantis-ap-african-american-history-course-i-think-its-trash

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