site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34506 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 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.

13
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, none of the readings complained about are required, and teachers are free, as required by Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" to assign readings on all sides of the issues in question.

This seems a little bit of a change in approach from the normal strict literalism you've been bringing recently. Stop WOKE does not require teachers to "assign readings on all sides of the issues", under the increasingly-reasonably-looking theory that progressives would consider their own racially-discriminatory texts as a legitimate side and conservative-leaning views (or classically anti-discriminatory ones!) as not. The relevant prong of the law is:

"It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe any of the following concepts:

  • Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex
  • A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
  • A person's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.
  • Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.
  • A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.243
  • A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
  • A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
  • Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex."

((From a philosophical position I think this raises some serious free speech questions given that it is neither content- nor viewpoint-neutral, but from a legal one it'd just get smothered in the crib as government speech were it a progressive political program.))

Now, this statute does have one exception, but rather than a "all sides" one, it's :

Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a larger course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts.

Emphasis added. That is, it is neither sufficient nor necessary to cover "all sides", but instead a teacher must specifically avoid endorsement. There could be a fair argument that this syllabi could be customized in a way that matches this exception. Except, of course, you specifically admit:

"I have not looked closely at the course description for the AP class..."

Now, I'm not particularly interested in the question of whether this is political propaganda lacking rigor and requiring students to parrot a political viewpoint, because it's a school project on a politically valiant topic what do you expect the sort of question that immediately demands argument-by-definition whether this is happening and then, having admitted it, whether it's good. And there's a fair argument that this is not sufficiently precise enough to be a law, in that fun void-for-vagueness way (although, again, compare how government speech regs fair when used to further progressive political goals).

But it's a little hard to see that for this specific situation. A recommended text for "The Reparations Movement" is Coates' "The Case For Reparations". Even assuming that teachers could add a Sowellian counterargument, this remains an endorsement of racially discriminatory practices for the purpose of repairing the harms from actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or national origin (literally: "It is as though we have run up a credit-card bill and, having pledged to charge no more, remain befuddled that the balance does not disappear" and "Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole", in case you thought fiscal conservatives had a monopoly on bad debt metaphors), and one that's very likely to be on the not-adjustable test.

((And in practice, there's a complex auditing system that goes on, here; I think you're vastly overstating the degrees of freedom a state has to modify the syllabi.))

It's physically possible to discuss the material without endorsing it (although whether such discussion would prepare students for an AP exam...), but do you really expect the average classroom to manage it? We can barely manage to teach Brave New World without people missing the blatant racism and classism for the feelies and drugs and free love. And it's not exactly alone, here.

Yes, I suppose I misspoke slightly; Stop WOKE does not not technically require teachers to assign readings from both sides. Nevertheless, under the course description, teachers are free to do so, and are certainly free to teach the course in an objective manner. That is the main point: Florida seems to be claiming otherwise, which is incorrect.

A recommended text for "The Reparations Movement" is Coates' "The Case For Reparations".

The point is that it is a recommended text, not a required text, as Florida implies.

((And in practice, there's a complex auditing system that goes on, here; I think you're vastly overstating the degrees of freedom a state has to modify the syllabi.))

Yes, I have gone through the AP course audit. But, like many people here (as well as the Florida DOE), you are conflating the course description with the curriculum or the syllabus. Teachers are not free to modify** the course description** -- for example, they generally cannot teach units that are not included in the official description. But, they are free to develop their own syllabus: There is no official syllabus, and the course audit to which you refer is a review of each teacher's syllabus.

It's physically possible to discuss the material without endorsing it (although whether such discussion would prepare students for an AP exam...), but do you really expect the average classroom to manage it?

Yes! By assigning readings on both sides.

  • -12

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