site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30068 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They were a little too successful and in so being present something of the two-fold problem to people like Freddie and Scott. First is the issue of "cream-skimming"/"brain drain" second, and I suspect the real sticking point, is that "School Choice" in many states means having the option to opt out of the progressive education industrial complex and I suspect that they are starting to recognize just how much of a threat this represents to their business plan.

Do you have any stats/articles on the success of charter schools? I don't know much about them and have usually heard the opposite of your take, but I'm not very well informed.

I recall the literature came out to “probably didn’t increase scores (or decrease them) but were materially cheaper”

This would be a pretty big success if the public school’s actual goal was education instead of ‘justify spending as much money as humanly possible, and then still complain about not having enough’.

"School Choice" in many states means having the option to opt out of the progressive education industrial complex and I suspect that they are starting to recognize just how much of a threat this represents to their business plan.

I guess the Libertarians constantly talking (about shuttering the whole public school system eventually, starting with the federal education bureau) didn’t clue them in.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you - Do you genuinely think Scott objects to people "having the option to opt out of the progressive education industrial complex", given he calls out Freddie's suggestion that we force public schools with

I am so, so tired of socialists who admit that the current system is a helltopian torturescape, then argue that we must prevent anyone from ever being able to escape it.

And even for Freddie, who is a longtime critic of the 'progressive education industrial-complex', how do charter schools threaten his 'business plan'?

Your claim seems more like six unexamined grievances thrown into a blender than something real.

Scott is exactly the kind of man to believe something like that and then balk at the perfectly reasonable conclusion it suggests. Scott, if he had his druthers, would want public schools to keep on chugging along with no great disruptions, just delivering better education. He would not dare to risk being seen as someone who wants to abolish public schools, and if he got even the whiff of that stink on him, he'd flinch back in horror and quickly try to disclaim his previous positions.

In short, he's soft.

It's actually reasonable to balk at abolishing public schools with no alternative in place. What do you think will happen to the poor black kids in gang neighborhoods where mandatory public schools are abolished, and parents are free to do whatever they want with their students? Or what about the 40th percentile white parent? Will they really have enough insight into the education-provision process to choose the 'good school' instead of the scam school? I'm actually not sure, and it's worth thinking about that before taking action.

Will they really have enough insight into the education-provision process to choose the 'good school' instead of the scam school?

How is this any worse than the existing public school system? How am I supposed to determine a "good school" from a "scam school?" I take it back, that's the easy part: find the school district with the highest home prices.

But I can't simply choose to send my child to one of those schools.

Kids will work, or go be delinquents, or do whatever it is they want to do. Why force them into school at all? I just don't see the problem.

I'm very sympathetic to that position, but:

Things like basic literacy, numeracy, being able to do addition, basic algebra, understanding the very basics of our economy and political system, are all very valuable for the economic productivity of 85, 90, 100 iq people. Higher-level math and humanities skills are very valuable for the economic productivity of 110 iq people. If you nuke schools - not just 'abolish public school and everyone attends private' but 'everyone stops attending school entirely' - I think a lot of people who aren't in the top 20% will be much less skilled, be less productive, make less money, and that'll also cause them social problems.

My understanding is that truancy problems usually start after all those things are taught in elementary school. I disagree that basic algebra is valuable when, in a few years, someone with an 85 IQ will be able to ask the Large Language Model on their phone to solve the problem for them, and it will get it right. You say teaching numeracy is important, I think by any reasonable measure we have tried and failed to do that. It would be easier to change societies expectations to be "people aren't expected to understand things with numbers", than it would be to rely on an assumption that call center employees can understand what it means when they push buttons on a calculator.

You're right that we shouldn't abolish school entirely, and I apologize for being unclear in my comment. I propose we keep schools but make them optional, at the parent's discretion. We are forcing too much education on people who are too stupid to benefit from it, and in the process we're torturing children who would actually benefit from more schooling.

I disagree that basic algebra is valuable when, in a few years, someone with an 85 IQ will be able to ask the Large Language Model on their phone to solve the problem for them, and it will get it right.

You need to understand the shape of algebra to even know what kind of question to ask the LLM though.

I think by any reasonable measure we have tried and failed to do that.

I think we've succeeded massively? If with school 50% fail that test, and without 80% do, that's great.

verizon doesn't know dollars from cents

I think this was a uniquely bad customer service experience, as opposed to the norm.

We are forcing too much education on people who are too stupid to benefit from it,

I think a lot of 100-90 iq people who currently benefit from schools would stop going, which would be unfortunate for them. Also, I think a lot of 110-130 iq people would spend all day playing video games or doing some shitty 'online learning'* where they make very slow progress.

*online learning isn't necessarily bad, but online significantly reduces the friction required to sell someone something bad

You genuinely think Scott objects to people "having the option to opt out of the progressive education industrial complex"

Yes I do because guys like Scott will claim they want people to have the option right up until someone actually takes it.

The moment parents start to pick George Washington Carver Elementary over George Floyd Elementary they change their tune. There is a culture war to win after all.

Scott made a big post about how the Summer of Floyd caused crime to increase, he's not a left-wing partisan of that kind. He, again, thinks school is a helltopian torturescape. Also, charter schools and private schools currently exist. There are 3.7 million students in charter schools, 5.7 million students in private schools, and another 3.7 million students homeschooled (at various points within the past few years). Yet at no instance did Scott act like his 'business plan' was 'threatened' or go back on his opinions. The option currently exists, people are taking it, and Scott is still endorsing it.

This is an entirely fictional grievance that you invented. You have these vague ideas about how everyone other than you are racist liberals who hate freedom and minorities, and impose them on whatever circumstances you happen to read about. Why?

And yet he picks sides. Characterizing those who go against the secular academic consensus as "dupes" and "hopelessly misguided"

Edit to add: The difference is I don't believe that there is a "rational" solution to be had here.

Edit to add: The difference is I don't believe that there is a "rational" solution to be had here.

It's possible for Scott to have severe partisan biases and loathsome cowardice that together make him your permanent enemy and also for the particular way you claim he's doing that to be false. Maybe the former is true, it's not entirely inconsistent with his behavior, but I'd like to see evidence for it that isn't just ... imagined.

It's possible for Scott to have severe partisan biases and loathsome cowardice that together make him your permanent enemy and also for the particular way you claim he's doing that to be false.

Fair point

Come on. I have no idea where scott said "dupes" and "hopelessly misguided", I searched it both in this thread and on ACX and SSC and didn't find Scott saying them. How does him insulting someone, somewhere mean you're justified in making up claims about Scott without backing them up at all? Presumably, scott called specific people in specific situations dupes and hopelessly misguided. That doesn't extend to everyone who opposes the 'secular academic consensus'. I think vaccine skeptics are dupes and hopelessly misguided. They go against the consensus. Yet I also despise public schooling and modern schools. No contradiction. It's pure 'waging the culture war' - from a distance, he looks like he's wearing the enemy team's colors! He must be evil!

"School Choice" in many states means having the option to opt out of the progressive education industrial complex

I'd be careful here. Charter / private schools are run by the same kind of people that run public schools, in the end you need to go through the same Critical Theory meat grinder to be able to teach. Further, the state can make demands on what is going to be taught and how it's going to be taught for the schools to be able to get that sweet "school choice" money. I've already heard reports of charter schools being more woke than public schools, except this time you have no recourse because it was your "choice".

So at worst the Charters have similar pressures?

A lot of charters use teach for America kids. I suspect they lean heavily woke.

Maybe. and maybe some charter/religious schools are run by the sort of person who got into education because they wanted to work with kids have since left the "mainstream" path precisely because there was their vibe.

I'm sure you get a bit of both kinds. Just wanted to point out it's not a cure-all and that it would be wise to remain vigilant.

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