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 -
The Florida bill was absolutely meant to curb gay influence. Er, ("kids trying on different kinds of things they hear about and different kinds of identities and experimenting."](https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/08/dont-say-gay-bill-passed-florida-lawmakers-heads-gov-ron-desantis-lgbtq-youth-public-schools/9422420002/), to quote the sponsor.
Mandatory notification of changes in services or monitoring of students' mental, emotional or physical health. "The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children..." I assume this is directed at gender or possibly closeted kids.
Preventing districts from withholding mental, emotional, or physical health information from parents, or encouraging students to do the same. Presumably targeting gender counseling or transition.
Prohibiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in K-3 or if not developmentally appropriate. This is a central example of erasure.
Constraining student support services to those approved by the state Department of Education. Again, targets gender or sexuality support.
Requiring districts to notify parents of any available healthcare services.
Requiring districts to run any well-being questionnaires or health screening forms by parents.
Establishing procedures for parents to reconcile their concerns with principals or, if unresolved, escalate to legal action. In combination with 5 and 6, this sets up a heckler's veto, since any sufficiently motivated parent can threaten the district with declaratory judgment. Seeing as
Bill text here.
The only provisions which are limited to K-3 are the questionnaire and classroom instruction ones. I would also read the classroom instruction paragraph as setting up a ban on such discussion regardless of age, judging by the qualifier "not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
Some of the provisions are obviously reasonable. Some of them are overreaches likely to be abused, a heckler's veto given to the most litigious parents. Both categories are directly targeted at LGBT politics, which has been actively pushing for support services and classroom instruction.
If this means these provisions are anti-LGBT, that means decades of separation of church and state cases are anti-Christian. I disagree with both of these framings.
Maybe LGBTQUP+ people should start their own schools like the Catholics if they don't like the government keeping their propaganda out of public education.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link