site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33003 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 17, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Which another way of saying the past will look homogenous right? It was only some crazy doctors and so on. That's my point, the past will look more homogeneous than it actually was.

In this case it will, but your other examples are wrong. All the other movements are talked about as an epic battle between good and evil, that does not leave one with an impression of homogeneity.

Also, aren't you conflating broader society with what is taught in schools?

Depending on when you pick your points it looks homogeneous would be a more accurate statement yeah. It took 60 years between the first state to grant womens sufftrage and it happening federally.

What was being taught in those first states would be that women can vote. Do you think they taught that as a good or bad thing to the generations that were in school and then became adults while that was going on in those dirst more "progressive" states?

What was being taught in those first states would be that women can vote. Do you think they taught that as a good or bad thing to the generations that were in school and then became adults while that was going on in those dirst more "progressive" states?

It's very likely that it was not taught at all, or taught neutrally.

That seems unlikely, Utah under heavy Mormon control allowed women to vote in 1870 because they thought Mormon women would vote to uphold polygamy.

I.e. Because they thought it would be a positive change.

(They revoked that right later because as it turns out that did not happen).

You think Mormons weren't teaching their kids that polygamy was good and (for those 17 years) that therefore women voting was a positive thing?

Schools always have and always will take sides on things. American schools teach it's good the Allies won WW2 and it was good the Union won the Civil War and it was good the Colonies won the Revolutionary war. Politics and political bias has been in schools for nearly forever. And it should be! Kids should be taught a postion when it comes to the civics of their nation. And they should all roughly be taught the same position.

It can evolve over time of course but if you want a cohesive polity you have to trach them cohesively in my opinion.

You think Mormons weren't teaching their kids that polygamy was good and (for those 17 years) that therefore women voting was a positive thing?

In state schools? Yeah, I think there's a good chance they stuck to the basics, and left all the other stuff to the church.

Schools always have and always will take sides on things.

Except for the times when they don't. Spanish schools mysteriously always run into the summer break whenever it's time to cover the Spanish Civil War, Eastern European schools mysteriously run into the same problem whenever it's time to cover anything that happened after World War 2. There's plenty of cases where the powers that be decide to leave well enough alone, and stick to ABCs and 123s until things calm down.

Politics and political bias has been in schools for nearly forever.

But from this it doesn't follow that schools have always have indoctrinated children into the establishment's view of every single recent culture war controversy.

But from this it doesn't follow that schools have always have indoctrinated children into the establishment's view of every single recent culture war controversy.

No, it's just that now, you're on the opposite side of the Establishment.

The Establishment was indoctrinating people in 1955, as they forced every kid to do the Pledge of Allegiance and taught Communism were evil, and America was a good and righteous nation, etc. It's just, conservative/centrist/whatever you want to describe yourself as no longer on the woke left disagrees with what the new indoctrination is.

Which is nothing new - look up Massive Resistance.

Oh, so you're just going to ignore the examples I gave, and assume your examples prove you're right in all cases?

Also do you think this is even n analogous? Was half the country communist in the 50's, or was the establishment just reinforcing what the overwhelming majority already believed?

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