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 -
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.
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.
Censoring specific ideas by means of removal of specific books from school libraries...
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.
Here's how our dialogue went:
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.
I already answered that question.
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.
Where is your empirical evidence that books are removed for their views under the guise of concerns about vulgarity and the like.
Yes, that is exactly what I said: "We are talking about topics, not theories."
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".
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".
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.
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.
What do you call it when libraries ban Huckleberry Finn for the liberal use of the word "nigger"?
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.
That is part of the reason why I think it does nothing to prevent the censorship of ideas.
My point was that codifying Pico does not prevent censorship, not that it causes it.
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.
Then apparently we agree.
I'm sorry but that makes zero sense.
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.
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.
Nope. You are. His proposal was to drop from the curriculum all topics upon which there was any disagreement.
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.
If you are going to engage in infantile ad hominem arguments, I am not interested in continuing the discussion.
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.
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.
And as long as parents get to decide what that other book from the other side is, I consider your proposal toothless.
The argument wasn't even there to question the legitimacy of the rule, just to point out it does not prevent censorship.
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.
"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.
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.
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