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 -
Steelman: Others have brought up the tactile pleasures of physical books. A library isn't just a storehouse for books; it's a hub for curated information. Yes, so much information is available online, but 90% of my searches are garbage and a good chunk of the rest is unsourced or does not attribute its sources, and often badly needed a proofreader. Not to mention all the wingnut conspiracy nonsense that a discerning searcher has to be able to distinguish from a valuable and competent piece of writing. Most of the high quality stuff is locked down under paywalls. You can argue over whether it should be the case, but for now the current state of affairs throws up a lot of obstacles to a seeker of knowledge. "Free and open" internet is the wilderness without a map or guide.
So libraries curate. They manage books that have been through an editing and review process - not that there's not low quality junk but your ratio of low to high quality tends to be better. Because the books are physical, they can't be tampered with after they've been printed like epublishers do - it's a fixed text. Regarding online writing, libraries get subscriptions to get you behind those paywalls and help provide access to high quality online sources. If you're lucky, your library will have a friendly specialist to help you do your research, point you to the right sources, and even give classes on internet literacy and basic computer skills. Many libraries host author talks, social events, STEM programming, ESL classes and support, and I've even seen workshops on things like doing your taxes and preparing a will, financial literacy kind of stuff. And this is all free.
Generally, librarians have an important job as curators of a repository of humanity's knowledge. Now because it's curated, that can have drawbacks because you have to ask who is doing the curating and with what ideological bias. That's a fair question to consider but I do have two rebuttals. Number one, there are practical considerations. Libraries have to make decisions all the time about which books to buy and which books to keep simply because there is a finite space in which to keep them. Sometimes these decisions may be ideologically driven but more often I think it's just a matter of logistics. I believe they also have certain understandings with publishers which influence what new books are even offered or made available to them. Number two, thank god for the internet because when there is a book the local library doesn't carry, for whatever reason, Amazon is only a click away. There are very few books that are truly banned as in, impossible to get anywhere. If they're out of print it might take some searching, but my point is that libraries aren't the only source for books, as you point out, so the amount of handwringing over them not carrying this or that book does seem a bit overblown.
None of this is specific to school libraries, by the way. I just think this is getting a bit long but obviously there are further considerations when presenting material to minors and who decides what's appropriate. That's a very thorny issue IMO but it doesn't seem to be a factor in this case.
More options
Context Copy link