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 -
Question for academics.
FIRE and Heterodox Academy call for campus "viewpoint diversity" as sort of the implementation of Mill's marketplace of ideas. The president of FIRE says:
I'm not in academia and haven't spent much time on campus since I graduated 20 years ago. So everything I hear is secondhand. The message is always that there is a problem, but it's mostly isolated to the "usual suspect" departments: anthropology, sociology, literature, and The Studies.
Much of the "viewpoint diversity" discourse has dealt with which guest speakers and student protests are and aren't allowed. Those seem to me like sideshows. It seems the main problem is students in these usual suspect programs graduating without ever having been exposed to perspectives opposed to progressive orthodoxy. These students go out into the world not having any idea that the Overton window is much wider than they've been told. They don't realize there are sophisticated rejoinders to the claims they're hearing, and those rejoinders aren't all from right-wingers—many of them are from tenured experts on their own campus, most of whom stand politically left-of-center.
On many (most?) campuses do we need more Milo on campus to inject "viewpoint diversity" into the system? Or do universities just need to exploit the expertise that already exists on campus from faculty in other buildings? Implement a "dueling lecturer" class. So have your gender studies class, but bring in an evolutionary psychologist (and perhaps a biologist or an MD?) to lecture on the biological retorts to social constructionist claims. Have an economist to your sociology class to explain scarcity, and market forces driving meritocracy. Bring an analytic philosopher to Theory of Literature to show that words actually can mean things. And make the content of these "opposition lecturers" a real part of the coursework. To pass, you have to steel-man both sides of the argument to the satisfaction of both lecturers.
The point is to ensure students know that there are opposing viewpoints, and that they are mainstream and not "alt-right propaganda". And to do that, the university should break through its own departmental balkanization.
Again, I know little about university politics and the feasibility of this approach. But I've never heard it suggested, and I thought maybe someone here in the know could tell me why this would or wouldn't work/help.
I'm an academic (well part time) and my current experience is this: the kids are already "woker" and leftier than most of my colleagues even before we get our hands on them. They are mostly kids of Blue Tribe progressives, so they have already inherited a great deal of their world view.
They don't want viewpoint diversity and neither do their parents (generalizing of course).
What incentive does a university currently have to go against that in any concrete way?
Principles? Intellectual virtues? Fulfilling the ideals of a university rather than a 4-year vacation?
Okay, once you've stopped laughing- not running the risk of Trump (and possibly Vance) continuing to gut their funding and harass them with lawsuits for as long as they can?
Indeed. But that will have to be sustained for a while. If the next President just reverts all of that, then a few years is easy enough to get through for most institutions. That's my point. It has to be a sea change from parents on up. Academia is a symptom not a cause.
Where do you think the parents got their views from?
You must be anticipating I'd say... their parents? To be a little less glib, parents and family.
Blue Tribe people make Blue Tribe institutions. Which is the chicken and which the egg?
Are you familiar with the phrase "trust the science"? Where does "the science" come from?
blue tribe people make blue tribe institutions, which in turn generate a consensus reality wherein Blueness is obviously true and correct, with contrary facts elided or buried. Academia is a knowledge-generating apparatus, together with media. By the time a Blue Tribe kid arrives on campus, their reality has been defined by this apparatus their entire life. Then they spend four years being taught and graded and managed by high-status members of this apparatus, often in a close pseudo-paternal relationship, with discrimination against anyone contradicting the apparatus being policed by the full force of the institution backed by the power of the federal government, to say nothing of the informal status economy, before moving into a career where office life is similarly policed.
None of this seems mysterious to me. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's an interlocking system of control, wherein each of the components is purposely designed to bolster and reinforce the others. It's almost certainly true that solving it by aiming at Academia alone won't be sufficient, but that doesn't mean that it isn't necessary.
Peripherally, I think your point has a kernel of truth, but I worry that you're constructing a worldview in a direction that is prone to revanchism and decoupling from reality. Your complaints sound uncomfortably close to the logic behind that infamous Smithsonian poster, but complaining about blue, rather than white power structures.
At least, it makes me uncomfortable even though I think there are certainly elements of truth to it.
You're going to have to spell it out. The Smithsonian poster correctly noted some things about white culture (or rather, certain white cultures), but implied that their value were arbitrary. They got jeered at because the people jeering thought some ofthe things on the posters were good things for non-arbitrary reasons, and ascribing their value to "whiteness" was ridiculous.
FCfromSSCs complaint is simply about indoctrination. There doesn't seem to be much relationship.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link