site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34382 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Simpsons seems to be accusing anti-CRT parents of practicing a motte and bailey, where the motte is being anti-CRT and the bailey is being anti-teaching about slavery and Jim Crow. It actually looks like The Simpsons is practicing one themselves, where their motte is wanting to teach about history, and their bailey is wanting to teach CRT. Nobody watches The Simpsons anymore, but the existence of this is still boggling my mind. I'm not offended, just confused. In 20 years, will anyone understand what this was about? Will they think that there were literally people trying to whitewash history in this way?

I mean, this is what the mainstream progressive narrative tells you the anti-CRT push is about. Don’t know if most progressives actually believe it, but you can expect something like the Simpsons to push the mainstream progressive narrative.

Personally, I would rather not have slavery and Jim Crow taught in schools without mentioning the global racism of the time, or that Americans were actually way ahead of other peoples of the world in terms of inclusivity, or that African Barbary pirates enslaved many White Americans, or that European powers forced African kingdoms to stop enslaving Africans. I would also want to include passages about how European philosophy is what paved the way for our notions of equality, and that “what do we do with the former slaves” is not an easy question when one group is significantly less developed. Finally, I would like an approximate calculation of how much black Americans benefitted from being taught by white Americans and being allowed to live in their free, prosperous, and protected nation — versus how they fared in Haiti or just Africa proper.

I mean, we’re not trying to whitewash the facts, right?

That's just what mainstream democrats believe is happening. Search "Rosa Parks" on Reddit, where a story is making the rounds that textbooks in Florida are scrubbing all references to race in the Rosa Parks story. (Some side-by-side examples are included in this article.)

The real story is that the editors on the textbook publisher's staff went way overboard in interpreting the law (I suspect intentionally), which only forbids teaching that "any group is inherently racist, implies a person can be considered oppressed because of their race, or infers that one should feel guilty because of actions committed by members of their same race." This sort of nuance does not make the main articles, let alone the headlines, so most people will never see it.

Also, the newer version is more accurate in some ways. Segregation laws did apply to "some groups" (not only African Americans) in states with appreciable numbers of "some groups" - typically "Negroes, mulattos, Mongolians and Malays", but also including pacific islanders in Oregon.

I wonder which state had a significant number of pacific islanders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_state

The real story is that the editors on the textbook publisher's staff went way overboard in interpreting the law (I suspect intentionally)

Isn't this what is called malicious compliance? At the same time Disney are closing down their Splash Mountain rides because allegedly racist connections (real reason is probably because they're old and Disney want to revitalise them as their Princess and the Frog property, since they can't do anything with Song of the South).

The Rosa Parks story misses many essential components. Had it not been for white people they would be back in Ghana without a bus. The biggest beneficiaries of slavery are black people. African Americans have a 12+ year longer life expectancy than the people who stayed in Africa. They have the best infrastructure, education, health care and infrastructure of any black people. Rosa Parks was not oppressed, she got to coast off the achievements of white people. Black people should be grateful for being allowed to live in the south.

Second, when public transit was integrated, it collapsed due to high crime and anti-social behaviour. Integration has lead to decades of crime against every other group, making urban life infeasible in much of the US. The Rosa Parks story needs to include the realities of people who either have to pay a fortune to commute via car and the consequences of that or the consequences of using public transit in the US. There was a reason why segregation was popular and riding public transit through south side Chicago on a Friday night offers an explanation of why segregation existed.

The IRA wanted an Irish Ireland for the Irish. Catalan nationalists want an independent Catalan. Kurdish nationalists want a Kurdistan. If the IRA had been like African Americans, they would have moved to Canterbury and complained incessantly about everything English. African American nationalists are the only ethnic lobbying group that seems to want to be as close to other groups as possible while continuously complaining about them. Teaching their narratives as the only historic narrative is a misrepresentation of history.

There was a reason why segregation was popular and riding public transit through south side Chicago on a Friday night offers an explanation of why segregation existed.

Have you actually ever done so? I have many times. you are exaggerating to a huge degree.

The IRA wanted an Irish Ireland for the Irish. Catalan nationalists want an independent Catalan. Kurdish nationalists want a Kurdistan.

I think these are all rather false analogies, because not many Catalans were forcibly removed from Catalonia and shipped intercontinentally to a new destination and then whipped until they'd forgotten where they came from and intergenerationally raped by their plantation owners until they're 28% non-Catalan.

The African American has no choice but to advocate for his interests in-place, because he is (and I say this to illustrate the existential problems of his self-identification, not to insult) a Frankenstein of genetic and cultural hodgepodge, for whom it would be absurd to claim an "African homeland" any more because all the purebloods back there would just laugh at him (in a language he can't understand). He is an artificial creature, unmoored from any kind of real ethno-geography. If he was a cosmopolitan, he'd be a rootless one. He is without legitimate claim to being the native of any homeland. But he's gotta live somewhere. And America (a) has the convenience factor of being where he is already, and (b) bears some moral responsibility for being the perpetrator of the ghoulish amoral genetic experiments which produced him.

As the African American race is different in kind to the Catalan or Irish or Kurdish races, it is no surprise that it's nationalism contains novel aspects.

He is without legitimate claim to being the native of any homeland.

I mean, the native homeland of American blacks is the American South. African Americans as an ethnicity literally came into existence there in the 18th century.

If the IRA had been like African Americans, they would have moved to Canterbury and complained incessantly about everything English.

I think we can agree this is a bit facetious?

Dude, the buses in Montgomery were integrated. But there were rules about, for example, who could sit while others stood.

And, although once upon a time there were segregated railway cars, there were not segregated subway cars, in Chicago or elsewhere.

The law does not even forbid teaching about those ideas. It explicitly says, "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."

The Florida Education Code also says that schools "shall teach":

The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the history and contributions of Americans of the African diaspora to society. Students shall develop an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping on individual freedoms, and examine what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purpose of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions. Instruction shall include the roles and contributions of individuals from all walks of life and their endeavors to learn and thrive throughout history as artists, scientists, educators, businesspeople, influential thinkers, members of the faith community, and political and governmental leaders and the courageous steps they took to fulfill the promise of democracy and unite the nation. Instructional materials shall include the vital contributions of African Americans to build and strengthen American society and celebrate the inspirational stories of African Americans who prospered, even in the most difficult circumstances. Instructional personnel may facilitate discussions and use curricula to address, in an age-appropriate manner, how the individual freedoms of persons have been infringed by slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination, as well as topics relating to the enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination and how recognition of these freedoms has overturned these unjust laws. However, classroom instruction and curriculum may not be used to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles enumerated in subsection (3) or the state academic standards. The department shall prepare and offer standards and curriculum for the instruction required by this paragraph and may seek input from the Commissioner of Education’s African American History Task Force.

teaching stuff in the school that reflects negatively on certain groups is always going to be tricky. it seems like it is an instance of the [Cardiologists and Chinese Robbers problem] (https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/). you can imagine kids being subjected to an avalanche of facts that reflect negatively on a particular group and then when challenged the people who set the curriculum claim these are just facts and you are anti-history. Then there is also the duality that if someone doesn't like some facts being taught they can claim its a 'Cardiologists and Chinese Robbers' problem.

I hadn't seen that Scott post. Thank you for sharing it.

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