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 -
Where it's coming from is that I don't understand the difference between your 1 and 2 options here:
...There is no difference between these two actions that I can see. Whoever determines "the standard arguments" is in fact picking which arguments and evidence they favor, and ignoring all others. Either the teacher makes the call, or the school makes the call, but either way someone is unambiguously curating which information will or will not be presented to the students, are they not?
Only, you seem to think there is a difference between the school telling the teacher "the students will be presented with A, B, C, and not X, Y, Z," and the teacher saying "the students will be presented with A, B, C, and not X, Y, Z,". Or perhaps that's not the way it should be formulated, but I'm at a loss for what a more correct formulation would be.
Is the idea that there is some objective measure of good-faith presentation, such that "just do your best to be fair" is supposed to be a workable rule, and each community is supposed to arrive at a consensus on whether that standard is being met or not?
Okay, I get that. And your view is that how the books got into the library is an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with the question of suppressing ideas people disagree with, and that bringing it up is changing the subject, correct?
If I've understood the argument properly, you would hold that banned books week is a good idea, because it pushes back on people who are trying to censor ideas they disagree with, correct?
So, there's this, arguing that removing racist books from libraries is just following the standard procedure, because
My understanding is that if we suppose that the above were widespread or even standard behavior among librarians generally, you would still consider it beyond the scope of the conversation you're having. Likewise, similar logic being applied to the question of whether to add a new book would likewise be a non-sequitur, correct?
In short, you hold that the question of whether a library declines to stock books or removes those already stocked because they disapprove of the book's viewpoint has nothing to do with the public's ability to prohibit or remove books because they don't like a book's viewpoint, correct?
If I've got the above correct (not something I'm assuming!), then my guess would be that you likewise hold that the ALA's stocking/weeding guidelines are robust rules that we can generally trust to be fairly implemented and followed, correct?
I agree in the abstract, but what evidence leads you to believe that this is a distinction you can defend in an adversarial environment? The article I linked above is brazenly arguing that a viewpoint is actually a sort of content, which should be removed because it fits the objective criteria of "Misleading/factually incorrect material/poor content". I think you'd agree that their argument is pretextual, but if they insist it's actually objective, what's your plan?
And if their view succeeds generally, and in fact content is commonly censored based on viewpoint in their prefered way, why insist on a principle you can't defend in the general case? Do you believe that if left-wing censorship is endemic and essentially unchallenged, nevertheless preventing right-wing censorship is still virtuous, because all censorship is bad, and allowing less is always better than allowing more?
I guess I'd repeat the above question: if you can't stop one side's cancel culture, do you think it virtuous to stop the other side's cancel culture?
I've seen it. Do you think this policy provides robust protections against viewpoint censorship on the part the libraries?
You don't understand the difference between giving only the argument on one side of an issue, rather than arguments on multiple sides? For example, the difference between 1) teaching only that Keynesian economics says that to fight an recession the govt must do x; and 2) saying, "to fight a recession, Keynesians say to do X, but monetariists disagree and say to do Y."
No, I think there is a difference between the school telling the teacher "the students will be presented with A, and only A" and "the the students will be presented with A and at least one not-A"
No, that is going too far. But my original suggestion re codifying Pico was only about book removals, because that is all that Pico relates to, and because removing a book with viewpoint X is a clear attempt to silence viewpoint X. Would I favor a similar policy re book acquisition as well as book removals? Yes, but that would obviously be logistically more difficult, and if you are not going to agree with the former you are certainly not going to agree with the latter, so in that sense it is pointless to discuss it at this point.
Book Riot is not exactly a good faith actor, IMHO (or, to be more fair, they are not interested in freedom expression in principle). And, yes, some people will always argue that ignorance is truth, that freedom is slavery, and that viewpoint is content. Such is the human condition. Perfection is not possible. But, as I have noted several times, the actual choices are 1) a rule that explicitly permits silencing of unpopular views; and 2) a rule that does not. If one is concerned with preventing the silencing of unpopular view, then one must choose #2, even if it might not be perfectly effective. As my father would say, if you promulgate a rule that forbids viewpoint discrimination, you might not prevent viewpoint discrimination. But if you don't promulgate that rule, you definitely won't prevent viewpoint discrimination.
Edit: Moreover, a policy that advocates removing racist books is not a policy about content. It is a policy about viewpoint. See Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) [Lanham Act provision prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may "disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead" is viewpoint discrimination, and Trademark Office's refusal to register the name of the band "The Slants" is unconstitutional]
Once again, it provides more robust protection than the alternative would.
No, I don't. I do not believe that "arguments on multiple sides" is codifiable or enforceable at all in any practical sense. I see no value in attempting to doing so. Making this the rule gives bad actors plausible deniability by making the rules more ambiguous, for no actual benefit.
If I'm acting in good faith, this rule is unnecessary. If I'm acting in bad faith, this rule will not help. If this rule doesn't help in the only case where it's even theoretically useful, it is of no value, and should not be preserved.
It seems to me that this might be our fundamental disagreement. You seem to believe that rules determine or at least strongly affect outcomes, simply by existing; that if you say "present two sides of issue A", the outcome will be a greater likelihood of students leaving with the impression that issue A has two sides to it. Put another way, you don't seem to think that rules fragility is a relevant issue to this topic.
Would it be accurate to say that you think such rules are a good idea because you expect people to follow them? Expecting people to not follow them is definately why I think they're a bad idea.
Yeah, I don't like them either. Do you think you can stop them, or even slow them down?
Suppose you achieved complete certainty that Book Riot's style of censorship was completely normalized nationwide. In this hypothetical, you are certain that they are going to remove any book they disagree with from all the school libraries in the country, and will refuse to stock any books they disagree with in those same libraries. Also, they stock the libraries with books that the local parents find highly objectionable. The parents want to remove the books they object to.
Further, suppose you can think of no way to stop Book Riot's censorship campaign, but you can think of a way to prevent the parents from removing the books they object to. Do you think it is right to stop the parents' censorship, despite not being able to stop Book Riot's censorship?
Another way to phrase this might be, is censorship mathematical, or is it relational? Is censorship bad in and of itself, or is it bad because of how it shapes our relationships with each other? Is censorship bad because more speech is always better than less speech, or because it allows one group to exercise power over another? If the later is truly the concern, as some of your arguments might imply, why should balanced censorship not be preferable to imbalanced censorship?
As I have said 1000 times, such rules are a good idea because they are more likely to achieve their purpose than would the absence of rules.
Once again, there is a difference between removing a book because it contains unpopular ideas, and removing it because it contains salacious content. Parents successfully remove such books all the time; the two books referenced in the video, Gender Queer and All Boys Aren't Blue, were the most frequently removed books last year. And that is fine by me. I have read Gender Queer, and I thought it was quite good. But it also has one or two racy parts, and I certainly understand why some might feel that it is inappropriate for minors. That is a perfectly acceptable reason for removing it.
The latter is the only one that is not my concern. In a democracy, the majority is always going to exercise power over the majority in some way. Just ask members of NAMBLA. But certain things are not legitimate exercises of that power.
You've had to say it a thousand times, because the claim seems so counterintuitive to me. Even now, I certainly don't agree that this is true, though I think I'm starting to get the idea at least. I keep trying to reframe it or extend it in different words, but maybe it's better to keep it just the way you have it:
"Such rules are a good idea because they are more likely to achieve their purpose than would be the absence of rules."
So there's an orderly system we're looking at, with rules governing its operation. You point out that the system is large and complex, and there are flaws here and there, but the best outcomes are secured by following the rules to the letter. I point out that the flaws are numerous, and that in fact sections of the system seem to be outright failing. But even if this is true, those sections are not the system as a whole, and neither of us can predict the outcomes of making hacky changes. You think the system is good, and we should trust it, preserve it, maintain it even at significant cost because the overall system is overwhelmingly positive, and there's little evidence that the alternatives on-hand will deliver superior outcomes overall. If I want to make changes, those changes have to be within the rules of the system. Even if other people are blatantly breaking the rules, it is important that we do not follow their example, because less compromise of the system is better than more compromise. This might not be "fair" in some juvenile sense, but life is not fair. This is what is necessary, if we wish to maintain an environment of peace and plenty. It's what is Right.
...Is that at least an approximation of your thinking?
Thank you very much for your responses throughout this conversation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link