site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the relevant law is quite clear that such instruction may be offered in grades 9-12.

Is it? I read the law and didn’t see that anywhere.

Er...

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in prekindergarten through grade 8, except when required by ss. 1003.42(2)(n)3. and 1003.46. If such instruction is provided in grades 9 through 12, the instruction must be in a manner that is age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

So it's explicitly not forbidden in grades 9 through 12, and furthermore the law anticipates that if it is taught in grades 9 through 12, it just needs to be "age-appropriate." Forgive me for wondering how you can possibly have read the law, as you claim, and missed that.

They sent a letter to The College Board asking them to review their courses for compliance with state law. The clear implication is...

Why is that implication "clear?" You don't see points that are explicitly written in the law, but somehow you then turn around and think the implication of "please review" is "clear[ly]" "please modify?"

on the meta level, The College Board is correct

Maybe, but probably not. I have yet to see a document where the FDE even specifically calls out AP Psychology--the College Board appears to have done that all on their own. They could have therefore responded, "we did an audit, and we do not think AP Psychology can meet your standard for age-appropriate education, and we're not going to change it, so the ball is in your court on that one, but otherwise we're good." Instead, they decided to skip the part where they negotiate in good faith, and went straight to culture warring.

Ah, I was looking at HB 1557. Your quote seems to be from HB 1069.

The key phrase, “in a manner that is age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards,” still applies.

It seems that some schools are adding AP Psych back to the curriculum. I guess we’ll find out soon enough who misunderstood who (or who had a rogue staffer).