site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28479 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 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.

it seems the only question here is whether parents should be allowed to overrule librarians, and I don't see why the answer to that should be "no" whether we're talking about blue, or red parents.

No, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether a majority of parents can silence all views with which they disagree, and whether schools should only provide information on one side of political issues. That certainly is not the norm. Most school districts, be they red or be they blue, have "controversial issues" policies which require teachers to teach such issues objectively, and to provide views on all sides. Even the supposed "anti-CRT" laws generally do not ban those ideas from class but instead provide that discussion thereof is perfectly fine if "instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement.".

And, you would be OK if your kid's school only taught Das Kapital, and only had Marxist works in their libraries, and blocked all websites other than those that gave Marxist interpretations of history, economics, politics, etc?

Whether or not both sides will benefit from lack of this kind of "censorship" will also depend on whether librarians tend to have a bias towards one side or the other

School boards, not librarians, are ultimately responsible for deciding what books can be in libraries, and school boards often are asked to remove books which are not politically correct.

No, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether a majority of parents can silence all views with which they disagree, and whether schools should only provide information on one side of political issues.

If that's not the issue, then please explain how this law would prevent librarians from curating away books they don't like, and if it wouldn't, please explain how that state of affairs would be superior to having it done by the majority of parents.

And, you would be OK if your kid's school only taught Das Kapital, and only had Marxist works in their libraries, and blocked all websites other than those that gave Marxist interpretations of history, economics, politics, etc?

Presumably that would mean I'm living in a school district that is majority Marxist. Aside from the fact that at that point I'd have far bigger problems than the school library, yes I would be a lot more ok with that than having these decision made by a single librarian., actually forget about "a lot more than" I'd be ok with it without qualification. Communities have a right to maintain their culture. If Marxville wants a library full of Marx, it's their right.

It also looks like you were trying to address the other part of my comment but didn't get around to it?

then please explain how this law would prevent librarians from curating away books they don't like,

The point is that, in the absence of the law, libraries will not simply be able to remove books with views they don't like; they will have the right to do so. In contrast, if the law is passed, they risk losing funding or worse if they do so. Will it absolutely prevent them from doing so? No, just as laws against murder do not absolutely prevent murders.

yes I would be a lot more ok with that than having these decision made by a single librarian.

You are avoiding the issue. The issue is not by whom it should be done, but rather whether it is ok with it being done at all.

It also looks like you were trying to address the other part of my comment but didn't get around to it?

No, there was just a formatting problem. I have edited it for clarity.

The point is that, in the absence of the law, libraries will not simply be able to remove books with views they don't like; they will have the right to do so. In contrast, if the law is passed, they risk losing funding or worse if they do so. Will it absolutely prevent them from doing so? No, just as laws against murder do not absolutely prevent murders.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to give away the option to prevent flooding the library with propaganda on the vague promise that it will be "risky" to do so. Yes, a situation where parents have the right to control the libraries, rather than just librarians, is far superior.

You are avoiding the issue. The issue is not by whom it should be done, but rather whether it is ok with it being done at all.

I addressed it in the edit.

I'm not willing to give away the option to prevent flooding the library with propaganda

Well, we will have to agree to disagree, because I see that as deeply improper. And, as Justice Alito has correctly noted, 'The public schools are invaluable and beneficent institutions, but they are, after all, organs of the State." Morse v. Frederick, 551 US 393, 424 (2007). That is true regardless of whether decisions are made by librarians or parents.

The public schools are invaluable and beneficent institutions, but they are, after all, organs of the State.

Which is precisely why parents should have the right to veto propaganda taught in schools - it amounts to the state indoctrinating their children.

Sorry, I misread your previous reply. It seems that you agree that indoctrination is bad; if that is the case, then I do not understand why you oppose a law that prevents indoctrination. Because, to clarify, once the plurality opinion in Pico is overruled, which is inevitable given the Court's subsequent government speech jurisprudence, schools will be free to engage in indoctrination by removing all books that conflict with the majority view.

You got a lot more wrong about my opinion in this reply than the other.

  • I'm not against indoctrination.

  • The law does not prevent it. In fact it is either impossible to do so, or would result in a nonfunctional society.

  • I'm completely fine with the majority of parents in a community deciding what values are taught and what is prevented from being taught.

FC beat me to the punch, and I agree with everything he said, so feel free to check his comment for justifications.

Then see my previous response re having to agree to disagree.

More comments

It seems that you agree that indoctrination is bad; if that is the case, then I do not understand why you oppose a law that prevents indoctrination.

Indoctrinating children with their parents' values is good, and the public schools were created to facilitate this process, via government systems that likewise exist to serve the parents.

Indoctrinating children with values their parents consider alien and evil is bad, and is directly counter to the purpose of both the schools in particular and government systems generally.

Neither the government nor the schools have a valid interest in what children are taught. The valid interest begins and ends with that of the parents, who institute the schools and the government to pursue that interest. To the extent that we do not like what some subset of the parents want to teach, that is not a problem either the schools or the government are capable of handling. Attempting to set up either the schools or the government to correct such a problem is an entirely doomed effort, leading to inevitable failure and numerous harmful effects.

You cannot write a law that "prevents indoctrination" in a system that exists to indoctrinate. There is no neutral viewpoint. What you can do is constrain the actions of a common-benefit system to the areas where broad consensus on common benefit exists, and that is what you should in fact do.

None of this should need to be explained. You do not own my kids. I do own my kids, modulo a few extremely limited caveats that I and most other parents will be more than happy to vociferously un-concede if you try to use them as a beachhead for the undermining of our parental duties and rights.

Do you have kids?

Neither the government nor the schools have a valid interest in what children are taught. The valid interest begins and ends with that of the parents,

  1. Note that we are talking about what ideas are available in libraries, which is not quite the same issue as what is taught in class.
  2. More importantly, the fact that the valid interest begins and ends with that of the parents is exactly why schools need to refrain from censoring views and to avoid indoctrination. The interest is an interest of *individual *parents, not "the parents" as a group. If I think BLM is bullshit, it is a violation of that interest if the only books my child finds in the library are White Fragility and The New Jim Crow. You seem to be blind to the fact that "the parents" of a school district ultimately constitute "the government" -- they elect the school board, and if they elect a PC slate that promises to indoctrinate students on gender issues, then "the government" is violating my interest in what is taught.

You cannot write a law that "prevents indoctrination" in a system that exists to indoctrinate. There is no neutral viewpoint.

Yeah, this is the same nonsense that I heard from some colleagues when I was teaching: "It is impossible to be completely neutral; therefore, it is fine to indoctrinate my students in my personal political views." No, it isn't: A teacher, and a school, are perfectly capable of exposing students to varying views on issues, including those with which they disagree. I did it all the time: "Here is a very common argument on one side of this issue. Here is a common argument on the other side."

More comments

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