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 -
An Interview With the School Board Chair Who Forced Out a Principal After Michelangelo’s David Was Shown in Class
Reading the entire interview, the school board comes out looking only slightly more reasonable than was portrayed in the "mainstream media".
The chair of the school board, Barney Bishop III, insists that the David incident was only a small contributing factor, but when asked to elaborate why the board decided to pressure the principal to resign, he says:
To me, the overall tone of Bishop's statements suggests that the David incident was in fact a major reason, if not the sole reason, for the firing (sorry, "resignation under pressure"). Bishop says:
The interview doesn't say in what context the teacher told the students not to tell their parents or that the images were not pornographic. (Maybe the original article does? I haven't read it because it's paywalled.) Out of context, it does sound suspicious. I suppose the first could have been a joke. As for the second, I'm not sure why the teacher would need to tell the students in the classroom that the images were not pornographic. In any case, my priors are that it is extremely unlikely that the teacher was a "groomer" trying to sexualize the kids.
The year before, the school had notified the parents that their children, who are 11 and 12 years old, were going to be exposed to the horror of a statue depicting a human. This year, the teacher teaching the class told the principal (the one who was later fired) to send out a similar notice, but the principal apparently forgot. This is an "egregious mistake":
Michelangelo's sculpture of David is "controversial":
The interview ends with the reporter saying "I just don’t think this statue is controversial", to which Bishop responds:
An article in the BBC relates this to the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, AKA the "Don't Say Gay" Bill. Personally, I think it's just typical American prudishness. In other Western countries, it is perfectly normal and unremarkable for statues with exposed penises and breasts (non-pornographic, of course) to be displayed in public, where they are easily seen by children of all ages.
At one point, in describing the school, Bishop says:
Obviously the sentence is false if taken literally, as critics have pointed out. But does anyone know what he might have actually meant? They don't have pronoun badges? They don't put pronouns in their email signatures? They don't use trans people's preferred pronouns? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as to what leads people to say nonsensical things like this, what they understand the word "pronoun" to mean.
Refusing to comment on personnel matters is standard procedure, and in fact school boards always go into closed session when discussing personnel matters. And, removing a principal in the middle of a school year is a big deal, and is not usually done lightly. So, I find it quite credible that there were other underlying problems, and that this was simply the last straw.
I guess it is good to know that journalists in the UK are as stupid as journalists in the USA.
It's worse: a lot of journalists outside America but inside American cultural hegemony basically aspire to be as bad as America's journalists.
And they are often worse, because their audience is less informed, so the journalists can be more misleading.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not directly related to the law but I don't think this would have been a fireable offense if there wasn't an ongoing culture war about parental rights. I agree that like most cancellations there was probably underlying conflict and this was the last straw/politically acceptable pretext, but this incident couldn't serve that function if it weren't for the ongoing culture war. And the Board Chair leans into it, he could just stonewall the interviewer and put out a bunch of buzzword speech about doing what's in the best interest of students but he starts talking about how this is Florida and they're going to defend parental rights unlike Virginia. He also starts speculating about how they're definitely not going to show David to kindergartners when the incident in question was sixth graders which is weird. He comes across as a guy who has the education culture war on his mind.
It would depend on a lot f things.
First of all, what does the district policy on images actually say? If there’s a written policy of “must inform parents in writing X days before showing a nude image” then deviating from that policy, especially knowing and flagrant violation of that policy would be grounds of dismissal. This is why companies and government agencies tend to have very thick employee manuals— there are policies in place about all kinds of things including posting images of the workplace on social media.
Secondly, how much did he actually show? Showing David from the waist up would have definitely allowed students to appreciate the skill involved in creating the statue without the baggage of showing naughty bits. And going further, if he’d done something like show only the naughty bits, there’d be little doubt that he wasn’t really trying to show kids the art but was trying to use the art as an excuse to give kids an eyeful of dick and balls. (I’m pretty doubtful of this, though it might explain why he didn’t want kids telling their parents about the incident and why he insisted it wasn’t pornography)
Third, it would matter very much whether the principal had a history of similar behavior. An otherwise good teacher who simply missed the deadline to inform parents is probably not getting fired especially if he apologizes and doesn’t do it again. A teacher with a history of trying to sneak in sketchy materials (either sexually explicit or violent) for purposes other than education isn’t getting the benefit of the doubt here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Or as motivated/biased.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link