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 -
deleted
This has nothing to do with the law.
It's not a direct result of that law - it's not like the law required this firing, or anything like that. But do you really doubt that's a significant part of what set the context for this incident?
it has nothing at all to do with the law
the law was a response to the context of school teachers using public institutions and their authority over other people's children to groom children and normalize behavior and gender ideologies they know full-well their parents find at the least objectionable for children and engaging in various acts to hide that from parents
the law didn't cause school teachers to do that, it was a response to them doing it
the context is the reason this happened, too, and it has nothing at all to do with the law
More options
Context Copy link
School parents upset with their kids seeing nudity? No, I don't think the law was part of it. It might have set the context for the coverage, at most, but that's a separate issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They even showed it in years past with a permission slip and just forgot to send out the slip this year. It's a paperwork mishap elevated to a firing offense because of the ongoing culture war over parental rights.
failing to get permission to show potentially sexual content to other people's children isn't merely a "paperwork mishap" and trying to downplay it to that characterization looks like agenda
What precisely do you mean by this term?
something which can be viewed as sexual content by a reasonable person
not interested in playing these games where you pretend you don't understand what that phrase means when the reality is you simply disagree a reasonable person would view showing penises on the statue of David to children is potentially sexual content
Why put it in terms of perception or the display to children? A penis is a sexual organ. Is there a context where you wouldn't regard a representation of a penis as sexual content?
Equivocation fallacies are a dirty trick.
"Sexual content" = "Pornographic content"
"Sexual organ" = "Reproductive organ"
One can't make a fallacy without making an inference. I am trying to clarify a vague position - arguing for or against it is for later in the dialectic.
Why would a reasonable person think that Michaelaneglo's David is pornographic?
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
Let us remember, the Greeks thought big, erect penises were the subject of humor, and small/un-erect dicks were more fitting of conquerors and victors.
More options
Context Copy link
it doesn't bother you; trying to claim it's not doing anything "untoward" is therefore built on top of the fact you see nothing to be concerned about in the first place
no matter how many times you retype that claim, it doesn't make it true
why would a teacher choose to show penises to other people's children? there are any number of other art works including cropped pictures of David which do not show penises to other people's children
If the penis is incidental, you could show some other Official Work of High Art or could manipulate the image of David to not show the penis and avoid the issue altogether. Instead, the teacher insisted the "incidental penis" was shown for a purpose making the incidental penis not incidental at all.
why does a teacher have a need to show other people's children penises and why do you need to defend such behavior?
I do not believe showing children Michelangelo is something to be "defended" as if it's a bad thing. Why do you feel the need to censor what has long been accepted as high art, as if children would be struck blind by a marble penis? Take some folk wisdom from Sarge Colon - if it has a vase, it's decent to look at.
More options
Context Copy link
I am making it weird because I think someone needs to answer all sorts of hard questions when it comes to The Tough Question of how to deal with children and believe parents are by-and-large the best choice to make that determination. This means wide leeway about topics in which there is disagreement. I don't care about nudity generally, but I can see why some parents would especially in the current context of rampant ideological grooming (at best) in schools and various tactics used to hide that from parents and undermine their authority vis-a-vis their children.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Puritans
shakes head
Avoid low effort comments like this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm just trying to say it's incompetence not malice, their policy was to send out a notice to parents, they had sent that out in the past when they showed the same images. They just didn't this year and the principal blames miscommunication. This wasn't a malicious conspiracy to sneak nudity into schools without parents permission, they had been showing this stuff and getting permission for a while they just messed up this year and didn't send out the notice.
You can say that's a really severe a form of incompetence and we can disagree about that, but it's not malice.
causing an accident and killing someone may not be malice, but the person is dead all the same
if this "paperwork mishap" was failing to send homework home, no one would care
you don't think there is even a reasonable argument for there to be harm (or even justifiable suspicion) in this scenario which sets the context for the strategy of downplaying anything you cannot look past through benefit of the doubt
Yes there are forms of incompetence that have severe consequences and which people need to be fired for. I don't think this is such a case, you may think it is, but it's still not a conspiracy to corrupt the youth.
What is the harm done to a 12 year old when they see Michelangelo's David? Are the 49/50 parents who said they're totally fine with their kids seeing this sculpture abusive parents authorizing the school to harm their child?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
looking backwards, it appears the purpose was to get a foot in the door with "creationism" and sex ed and then expand the beachhead
lots of people made predictions and slippery slope claims during that time; which groups turned out to be more accurate?
It shouldn't surprise anyone in a society which bans God from public institutions that the winning ideology would be a Godless religion. The ideologues got their victory and immediately started a new war.
a trend which preceded the fight
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link