site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27875 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If they see public schools as a problem, they’ll do whatever they have to do to route around the problem.

At a party last week, I was chatting with a liberal couple whose kid will be starting public high school in a couple years. The place I live uses a lottery system: you can end up with your kid assigned to any school in the city, many of which are bad. I asked, what if you end up with a bad (academically failing, unsafe) school? Their response (after some throat clearing that no school is bad) is that they are committed to public schooling, and no matter which one he gets sent to or if he'd prefer a different one, they'll send him there.

I can get this mindset as a cope, if you don't have resources. But they do have resources and could easily afford any of the well-regarded private schools. My unsaid thought was "that's child abuse."

My unsaid thought was "that's child abuse."

I am probably on the far end here in terms of thinking that adolescent experiences matter to long term outcomes(I really do believe that habits formed in late adolescence and early young adulthood dictate your habits for the rest of your life in ways that are frequently independent of genes, and that stereotypically adolescent/early young adult mistakes(eg substance experimentation, petty crime) are a pretty big deal for affecting future life trajectory). But that goes too far; your highschool education doesn't matter very much, he can make it up in a year or two of community college if he has to.

Now exposing your child to unnecessary danger may well count as abusive, but I doubt the public schools are that bad if you don't go out of your way to expose yourself to danger.

Their response (after some throat clearing that no school is bad) is that they are committed to public schooling, and no matter which one he gets sent to or if he'd prefer a different one, they'll send him there.

This is what they think now, their opinions might be a bit different a few years down the line when Jr. really is faced with the prospect of going to Toilet High.

Yeah, also much easier to say in kindergarten where everyone’s 5 than when everyone’s 15.

I went to one of the worst public schools in the state because my parents didn't want neighbors. It ran the whole gamut from rural white trash to rust belt ghetto, and honestly, I couldn't tell. I hung out with the smart kids or the popular kids and everyone was either middle class or at worst working class and it didn't seem any different than if I was a few miles away at one of the better schools in the state. At least until graduation, when I realized how much of a minority we all were.

I had a similar issue, except it was the small rust belt city my dad grew up in and always intended to start his family in. Dirt poor husk of a town that is currently at about 33% of its peak population in 1950. Everyone was just sort of the same. The kids "with money" had parents that were accountants or engineers. A few rich people are hiding in the country for the low CoL and light legal oversight of their estates, but they don't send their kids to the local schools at all. The first time I heard the term "Advanced Placement" was when my college advisor asked me which AP classed I'd taken in High School.

My unsaid thought was "that's child abuse."

If they can easily afford any of the well-regarded private schools, their kid will be fine wherever they go.

Well-being isn't just long term outcomes (and I'd agree with you that the actual long term trajectories would be similar). It's about their experience while there: there's being bored constantly and concerns around physical safety.

If the kid doesn't care about being academically challenged or physical safety, I agree that probably it doesn't qualify as child abuse.

Assuming they survive.

Here are some more

I don't know the specific district this kid is in. But getting thrown into a "bad" school carries more risk than just learning less.

And I am sure that I can dig up anecdotes of kids at private schools committing suicide because of various pressures. The kid is overwhelmingly likely to be fine.

Edit: Not to mention easier access to hard drugs in pvt schools.

But the kid would likely be better off were they to go to a well-regarded private school. We calculate child support based on what the parent can afford, not based merely on what is necessary for the kid to be "fine", because the child is entitled to parental support. Why shouldn't we similarly require parents with the necessary means to not skimp out on their child's education?

Yes, I am sure the kid would be better off in many respects. But the claim was that it was child abuse.

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