site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29468 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’m not sure what to think about the inciting event.

There’s also a little context I’d missed. When Florida attacked AP African-American History,

  1. We never received written feedback from the Florida Department of Education specifying how the course violates Florida law, despite repeated requests…The first and only written feedback we have received was through a tweet from Commissioner Diaz posted on January 20, 2023.
  2. Your February 7, 2023 letter alludes to course topics that you characterize as “historically fictional,” but does not specify which topics or why.
  3. …Your letter claims that we removed 19 topics that were present in the pilot framework at the behest of FDOE. This is inaccurate.
  4. We did not provide FDOE a “preview” of the College Board’s official framework.
  5. Finally, we need to clarify that no topics were removed because they lacked educational value.

This suggests that Florida has a prior history of pushing curriculum changes—and running premature victory laps—without reaching an agreement. In that light, Florida’s May letter was probably viewed as the start of another six-month squabble. The College Board could just be skipping ahead in the script.

Of course, Florida denied that. More details here claim that the College Board was being dishonest, and that FBOE was acting on leaked information. Frustratingly, I can’t find the original February 7 letter.

I would tend to agree that CB would have been better served by insisting they were already compliant. It probably wouldn’t have placated Florida. So I haven’t ruled out the possibility that this saved them some time.

Edit: letter is here.

On 7/22/22, the College Board’s Brian Barnes responded (inaccurately) in writing how the course did not conflict with Florida law.

So…they tried it. Florida said they were full of shit, various reviews were triggered, and they still had no agreement by February.

Come June, and Florida sends a similar warning about a different course. College Board decides to skip the pleasantries. And here we are.

Frustratingly, I can’t find the original February 7 letter.

It's barely-noticeably linked at the bottom of your second link.

But the very first point in its "recap" of communications is:

From January 2022 to June 2022 the College Board exchanged emails with FDOE’s Office of Articulation seeking to add AP African American Studies to the Credit by Exam list and the Course Code Directory

So this is a discussion that had been happening, apparently, for quite some time, with many emails to go through, and which the College Board decided to "take public" as, apparently, a negotiating tactic.

I am, for a variety of personal and professional reasons, not a fan of detached administrative interference in classroom content. But I am certainly more open to the regulation of public education by politically accountable figures, than by unaccountable NGOs like the College Board. It is apparently a somewhat recurring theme with the DeSantis administration that Florida lawmakers are not going to be pushed around by corporate-sponsored social agendas. I can understand why the College Board would prefer to not have its nationwide content influenced by the vagaries of one state's lawmaking. I can understand why Florida lawmakers would prefer not to have 25% of its annual expenditures going to teaching content over which it has no control.

But all of that only applies to the African-American Studies dispute. The psychology dispute seems more like an own goal by the College Board. There was nothing stopping them from just saying "yeah this all looks age-appropriate to us, please speak up if you disagree."

The College Board could just be skipping ahead in the script.

Important to note that classes start in about 25 calendar days, so it is important to the Florida schools (the College Board's clients) to figure out whether to offer the class now, rather than in December.

Important to note that classes start in about 25 calendar days

This is a minor point, but a quick Google search suggests that Jacksonville and Miami schools start next week, and Tallahassee, Tampa, and Orlando schools actually start tomorrow.

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