site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28482 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.

You bring them up every time anything adjacent to the topic comes up

No, I don’t. You are mistaken.

because they cannot plausibly stock up on every book in existence

  1. Once again, the specific issue that we are talking about is the decision to remove books, not the decision to acquire books. "
  2. The issue is not about stocking specific books, but about censoring specific ideas.

Great, another avenue for abuse.

Once again, there are no perfect rules. But now you seem to be saying that you oppose permitting schools to remove sexually explicit books because that is an avenue for abuse?

It does. No one said parents have to come to a consensus on one specific theory, they can just as well come to an agreement on which competing theories should be taught in school, while vetoing the ones they consider fringe

That was not the proposal that was suggested. The proposal was to teach only topics on which there are no competing theories.

We're talking about any content available in, and provided by the school, be it specific theories, whole topics, or books in the library.

Again, I was referring to the proposal that only noncontroversial topics be taught.

No, I don’t. You are mistaken.

Alright... so do geocentrism, creationism, and flat Earth make the cut to be taught in schools or not?

  • If not, who makes the decision, and why is it better that they make it rather than the parents?

  • If yes, consider whatever point you're trying to make by insisting they're a central example conceded, and just answer the point how including them would imply having to include many very fringe theories.

Once again, the specific issue that we are talking about is the decision to remove books, not the decision to acquire books. "

Yes, and the latter is an argument for why your proposal about the former is bad. All this time I've been arguing that prohibiting the removal of books will do nothing to protect from the censorship of ideas the librarians do not like. They will simply not acquire the books containing those ideas they do not like.

The issue is not about stocking specific books, but about censoring specific ideas.

Censoring specific ideas by means of removal of specific books from school libraries...

Once again, there are no perfect rules. But now you seem to be saying that you oppose permitting schools to remove sexually explicit books because that is an avenue for abuse?

Not generally, only as it relates to your proposal. What I am saying is the same thing I've been saying from the start: Pico, and your proposal to codify it, does absolutely nothing to protect the censorship of ideas, because librarians will still have many tools at their disposal to censor. It is far better that censorship is explicit and decided on by parents, rather than implicit, decided on by librarians, and hidden behind "pervasive vulgarity" and other loopholes.

Also, I think you may have taken South Park's joke about Huckleberry Finn being the most homoerotic novel of all time a bit too seriously.

That was not the proposal that was suggested. The proposal was to teach only topics on which there are no competing theories.

Here's how our dialogue went:

The curriculum is for everyone, so it should include the things everyone agrees it should include, and it should not include things whose inclusion is contentious. If such things must be considered, putting it to a majority vote is an entirely reasonable solution, if an imperfect one.

As for " it should not include things whose inclusion is contentious," as I noted, that is impossible in the social sciences

not teaching social science is a perfectly valid alternative. This is proven by the fact that even though the questions you mentioned are indeed interesting, many schools never come close to touching them.

If your solution to how best to teach a subject is not to teach it at all, you might want to rethink things.

Hardly. The amount of things not taught in school vastly exceeds that of things taught.

Again, the point is that there are certain things that have to be taught, and in economics and the social sciences, there is no "correct" answer to any of them.

I'm (not) the one arguing for the "objective" approach, I'm asking for coherence with the communities' values, so that's not an issue for me at all.

The point is that "just teach things that everyone agrees on" does not work.

It does. No one said parents have to come to a consensus on one specific theory, they can just as well come to an agreement on which competing theories should be taught in school, while vetoing the ones they consider fringe.

That was not the proposal that was suggested. The proposal was to teach only topics on which there are no competing theories.

There's nothing about "competing theories" there, the proposal was about "things whose inclusion is contentious". Notice how we're specifically talking about the contentiousness of the inclusion rather than the theory itself. This means that according to the proposal parents could decide to teach multiple competing theories while vetoing the ones they consider fringe, exactly like I stated.

Just as a side note, as frustrating as I found your earlier portrayal of my point on "pervasive vulgarity", I think I'd rather you ask questions to make sure you got my position right before moving on, rather than confidently stating something is impossible, only for it to turn out, 9 comment levels down the line, that you completely misunderstood the proposal.

BTW: Can you answer my questions on Mein Kampf? You seem to have skipped over them again.

Alright... so do geocentrism, creationism, and flat Earth make the cut to be taught in schools or not?

I already answered that question.

who makes the decision, and why is it better that they make it rather than the parents?

I already said I don’t care who makes the decision, but presumably, like all similar decisions, it will ultimately be made by the school board.

All this time I've been arguing that prohibiting the removal of books will do nothing to protect the censorship of ideas the librarians do not like. They will simply not acquire the books containing those ideas they do not like.

  1. Really, it will do nothing? For the 10000th time, it will be better than the alternative, even if -- spoiler alert! -- it isn't perfect.
  2. I believe I have mentioned that I am perfectly fine with extending the current prohibition on viewpoint discrimination to cover book acquisitions.

It is far better that censorship is explicit and decided on by parents, rather than implicit, decided on by librarians, and hidden behind "pervasive vulgarity" and other loopholes.

Where is your empirical evidence that books are removed for their views under the guise of concerns about vulgarity and the like.

There's nothing about "competing theories" there, the proposal was about "things whose inclusion is contentious"

Yes, that is exactly what I said: "We are talking about topics, not theories."

Can you answer my questions on Mein Kampf?

  1. I have no idea how many school libraries stock Mein Kampf.
  2. As for "If not why has Pico failed to result in punishment schools for censoring it?", again, Pico prevents only removals, not failures to stock books in the first place. Where is your evidence of how many school libraries stocked Mein Kampf in 1982? And that fewer do now?

I already answered that question.

By my recollection, they'd make the cut. In that case the point you're not answering is: "if these theories meet your standard, then there's a tonne of others you'll have to let in as well".

I already said I don’t care who makes the decision, but presumably, like all similar decisions, it will ultimately be made by the school board.

Ok. The only thing I care about is who makes the decision. If it's the school board, then in theory I suppose the law is fine. In practice, I'd argue over it's every line to make sure you don't go "oops! you can't actually make that decision".

Really, it will do nothing? For the 10000th time, it will be better than the alternative, even if -- spoiler alert! -- it isn't perfect.

Yes, really. Nothing. You've not provided much of an argument for why it would be better then the alternative, and as I've stated multiple times, in my opinions it could very easily be worse (for example when the decisions are made by librarians rather than school boards). I never argued that the law has to be perfect, and I have no idea why you keep repeating it, but you can carry on if it's fun for you.

I believe I have mentioned that I am perfectly fine with extending the current prohibition on viewpoint discrimination to cover book acquisitions.

Again, barring a mandate on stocking all books that have ever existed, that rule is toothless. I suppose on one hand that makes me ok with it, but I'm getting the feeling these proposals are more about ensuring your employment as a lawyer, than they are about improving the quality of education.

Where is your empirical evidence that books are removed for their views under the guise of concerns about vulgarity and the like.

What do you call it when libraries ban Huckleberry Finn for the liberal use of the word "nigger"?

Yes, that is exactly what I said: "We are talking about topics, not theories."

It looks like you're having trouble following the conversation. The argument I was addressing wasn't "We are talking about topics, not theories." but "The proposal was to teach only topics on which there are no competing theories." You're clearly wrong about what FC's original proposal was.

Pico prevents only removals, not failures to stock books in the first place.

That is part of the reason why I think it does nothing to prevent the censorship of ideas.

Where is your evidence of how many school libraries stocked Mein Kampf in 1982? And that fewer do now?

My point was that codifying Pico does not prevent censorship, not that it causes it.

if these theories meet your standard, then there's a tonne of others you'll have to let in as well".

I have addressed this several times. Eg: If I am teaching a unit on religion, I have at least three options: 1) teach only about Christianity, the one true religion; 2) teach all the major religions, ie, those having more than X number of adherents; 3) teach every religion that has ever existed. You keep pretending that #2 does not exist. Once again, the mere fact that the perfect (#3) is impossible does not change the fact that #2 is better than #1.

  • If it's the school board, then in theory I suppose the law is fine

Then apparently we agree.

Yes, really. Nothing

I'm sorry but that makes zero sense.

barring a mandate on stocking all books that have ever existed, that rule is toothless

It isnt about specific books, it is about specific viewpoints. Eg if you add White Fragility, then add one book on the other side, not every book.

What do you call it when libraries ban Huckleberry Finn for the liberal use of the word "nigger"?

While Huck Finn has sometimes been removed from curriculum, it has rarely been removed from school libraries. And again, even if it has, the fact that a rule cannot be perfectly enforced does not render the rule illegitimate.

It looks like you're having trouble following the conversation ... He wasn't talking about topics, or theories. He was talking about any and all content, including books.

Nope. You are. His proposal was to drop from the curriculum all topics upon which there was any disagreement.

That is part of the reason why I think it does nothing to prevent the censorship of ideas.

I understand your view. It just makes no sense, unless you are using "does nothing" to mean "does not perfectly prevent." Which I suspect you are.

I'm getting the feeling these proposals are more about ensuring your employment as a lawyer, than they are about improving the quality of education.

If you are going to engage in infantile ad hominem arguments, I am not interested in continuing the discussion.

You keep pretending that #2 does not exist.

No, I'm pointing out that by the criteria you provided, which is included creationism, geocentrism, and flat Earth as "major", #2 would effectively mean teaching lots and lots of theories, not just a few.

Then apparently we agree.

I wouldn't get carried away. Your proposal went from "absolutely intolerable" to "acceptable under specific conditions". I still think it adds pointless complexity, but I'm not going to start a knife fight over pointless complexity.

Eg if you add White Fragility, then add one book on the other side, not every book.

And as long as parents get to decide what that other book from the other side is, I consider your proposal toothless.

And again, even if it has, the fact that a rule cannot be perfectly enforced does not render the rule illegitimate.

The argument wasn't even there to question the legitimacy of the rule, just to point out it does not prevent censorship.

Nope. You are. His proposal was to drop from the curriculum all topics upon which there was any disagreement.

Well, I notice I'm the one who provided quotes, and went through the entire conversation right up to his proposal, and you're the one just stubbornly repeating the same thing over and over, so I can't really take this seriously.

I understand your view. It just makes no sense, unless you are using "does nothing" to mean "does not perfectly prevent." Which I suspect you are.

"Does not make sense" is par for the course. That's usually what disagreement looks like. "I understand", on the other hand is clearly false. If you understood what I was saying, you wouldn't keep hammering the idea that I believe the rule has to be perfect. You should also be able to come up with something that moves the conversation forward.

If you are going to engage in infantile ad hominem arguments, I am not interested in continuing the discussion.

Apologies I shouldn't have made it personal. Allow me to rephrase: I believe lawyers will stand to benefit more from your proposal than the students.

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