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 -
..
No way! The Civil Rights movement was correct. It also doesn’t imply either 1. or 2. It is perfectly possible to move to the Midwest and dodge all those dirty minorities. Curiously, this isn’t enough to earn you a nice school and job. It does depress housing prices, because for some reason, Bumblefuck, Kansas isn’t actually that popular.
I don’t think it’s accurate to call Hispanic immigration a product of Boomer anti racism, either. More a corporate/laissez faire policy.
I'd like to see you try to pass an Intellectual Turing Test for arguing why the Civil Rights movement was bad.
Por que no los dos? Almost all policies have a Bootleggers and Baptists aspect to them -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
Not sure I can. I mean, you’ve already provided the standard argument: that minorities are responsible for (insert QoL decrease here). It could be a bit stronger, since I don’t believe you really demonstrated the link. If I had to pass the test, I’d start from your argument and try to explain how the Midwest is simultaneously cheap and very, very white.
As for Baptists and bootleggers, I have no trouble believing Boomer antiracists would be included in such a coalition. I just…don’t see much evidence of them. The Boomers I know are pretty conservative, and today that means skepticism on immigration. It’s the Gen-Xers who are more likely to take the neoliberal or progressive stance. And in both groups, old-school race blindness still holds more sway than antiracism.
Then again, I’m in a pretty conservative part of the country, surrounded by defense engineers and a family of rednecks. My finger isn’t exactly on the pulse of Boomer sentiment.
I grew up in South Carolina. Yes, yes I have. Around 60% black for my abysmal high school.
You proposed that black people are icky, so white people turned to the last refuge of legal discrimination: price. I think this is a flawed theory. If an all-white school was so valuable, the Midwest would look very different, as priced-out whites moved to the educational utopias of Ardmore and Lincoln.
What do the terrible schools of the Midwest and the Deep South and the rust belt have in common? They’re poor as hell. The unemployment and the addictions and the fucked-up families are not conducive to good schools or to successful citizens. They’re also not unique to black people.
I know the answer to all your questions. I also know you’re mistaking correlation for causation.
If black people caused poor schools, you would expect white-bread schools to do much better. As far as I know, that’s not true out in the boonies. The common factor is poverty, and I don’t think the Civil Rights Act is to blame for that.
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
I've not been above a bit of boomer-negging in my time, but I'd also add to this - what's the alternative? Sure, in previous times parents might strive to leave their children an inheritance. But this was really more a luxury of the landed and rich, the ones we pay disproportionate attention to, who leave the most records. I question how common inheritances of any size really were. And though I'm sure there are no surfeit of examples of boomers who sold their retirements for boats breast implants and booze, there also seems to be a prevailing norm of saving enough to at least scrape by on your own until you die.
Far more common was the burden of caring for ageing parents in their dotage, both financially and physically. It might just be my American individualism or whatever speaking, but, as much as I appreciate a culture that's invested enough in family and long-term bonds to respect and care for the elderly, there is something a bit perverse about landing whatever poor woman you arranged to marry your eldest son to serve you hand and foot during your last years. Fillial duty beats a lot of alternatives culturally speaking, but I don't think it beats what we strive for now.
Finally, though you note that the expectation of great returns on an expensive education were rather tragically misplaced, doesn't it make sense to give to your children when young rather than when they're old and past being able to use the resources for much of their most productive years? Inheritance is nice, but I think it's taken a backburner importance in people's priorities for a reason.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link