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 -
Then how on earth would the example of 80% illiteracy for black students be relevant to anything? If you are suggesting that the current methodology is uniquely bad for blacks then I made the point in my post to point out that such examples are not necessarily relevant for all students. If you have a methodology that is better for all students then why not lead with that? Why squeal for sympathy by winding on the blacks?
You have no idea one way or another what the literacy rate for black students should be nor do you know what the reason for the comparatively low literacy rates for blacks is. I'm sure you could raise it. But I seriously doubt you could do so to any meaningful extent by telling the teacher to focus on 'phonics' instead of something else. On top of that you don't considering turning your example around. Is the high literacy rate among Asians not an example that the method works? This rubric you employ is obviously faulty.
Again, I'm not saying 'phonics' is worse, I'm inclined to believe you could teach kids to read using 'phonics' quite quickly. At least it seemed to work for me though I have little to compare against it. What I am saying, however, is that the implication of the examples you gave is that you can produce meaningful change in the literacy of blacks by changing the methodology. I don't see that belief being warranted. I do instead recognize it as part of an endless line of argumentation that proposes that we can meaningfully impact the gaps between blacks and whites using 'this one weird trick'. I see no reason to acknowledge that line of argumentation as anything other than what it is. And hopefully dismissing it so we can talk about something that actually matters.
More options
Context Copy link