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 -
Just because the "Jews will not replace us" chant was meant to be provocative, and even playful on some level, does not mean it wasn't saying something meaningful- it was. The ingroup doesn't interpret it the exact same way as the outgroup, but it was still a slogan that spoke to the relationship between demographic change and Jewish cultural influence as interpreted by the people who were saying the chant. Likewise, "We're coming for your children" is saying something very real... no, the people that said that aren't all trying to physically abuse children, but the statement means they intend to influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement in defiance of their opposition.
Imagine you go to the library, pick a book that is ostensibly about the adventures of the cute pig on the cover, only to get home, start reading it to your children, and realize that the message the story is... Jews will not replace us. I can say it has now happened 3 times our nanny has brought home a book from the public library that seemed completely innocuous on the cover, only to turn out to be LGBT propaganda geared towards toddlers.
They are coming at my children with their propaganda, there's no denying it, all you can do is hope they won't be influenced by it despite the mounting social pressure. As of two days ago, Obergefell v. Hodges was only eight years ago when the country was very much still divided on the question of gay marriage. The present state of the culture proves that all those decades of conservative tropes were correct, and yes, they are coming for your children in order to influence them positively towards that culture.
Which, unlike child molestation, is a perfectly legitimate goal in a democratic society. Just as those who lobby for or against teaching all sorts of things do all the time.
Also, if your nanny is not familiar with the saying, "you can't judge a book by its cover," or is too lazy to leaf through a book for toddlers, you need a new nanny. And some people want their kids to read those books. That is why the library carries a variety of books, some of which appeal to some people and some of which appeal to others.
Arguing against teaching something at school still allows for things to be taught at home, or other contexts that parents have control over. Setting out to influence someone else's children against the parents' wishes is qualitatively different from that. It might still be legitimate, but there's no way to claim these things are similar.
I don’t understand the difference. Isn't that true of everything that is taught at school? If I argue against the teaching of creationism, I am "setting out to influence someone else's children against [some] parents' wishes," am I not? Ditto re arguing against teaching "CRT." Ditto re "influencing the perception of children towards the Civil Rights movement" and "influencing the perception of children towards the BLM movement" (in either direction), and "influencing the perception of children towards free market economics." Why should there be a special rule re "influencing the perception of children towards the LGBT movement"?
More importantly, as I said, trying to "influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement" is not secual assault.
No, you're not. If you were arguing for teaching creationism you'd be doing that. Arguably you'd be doing that if you argued for teaching evolution as well, which is were the drama around the topic came from, and which is why I said depending on the situation it could be legitimate.
In any case forbidding something, in a context where attendance is mandatory, is clearly not the same thing as demanding something be mandatory.
How is that a meaningful distinction? Schools teach for things all the time. Some teach that Christopher Columbus was a great hero, even though some parents think he was a genocidaire. Most teach that Jim Crow was wrong and that the Civil Rights Movement was a moment of great progress, even though some parents disagree. Economics classes often extol the virtues of the free market, even though some parents disagree. Some schools teach patriotism and "family values," even though some parents disagree. When teaching sex ed, some schools teach "abstinence only," even though some parents disagree. What to teach is always subject to disagreement, and all sorts of groups try to influence what is taught. So, again, why should there be a special rule re "influencing the perception of children towards the LGBT movement"?
Have you missed the part where I said "Arguably you'd be doing that if you argued for teaching evolution as well, which is were the drama around the topic came from, and which is why I said depending on the situation it could be legitimate"?
How do you not see the distinction between mandating something be taught, and demanding something not be taught in mandatory schools?
For the same reason there's a special rule re "influencing the perception of children towards Jesus Christ being our lord and savior".
As I just said, that is a meaningless distinction.
That would be a violation of a very specific prohibition regarding freedom of religion. Which is why, although schools cannot teach that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible prohibits it, they are free to teach that it is wrong because it undermines the family, or for 1000 other reasons. And if your school district is teaching that, you are free to lobby it to teach instead that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or that people should be tolerant of homosexuality.
If it was a meaningless distinction, then mandating that religion not be taught in schools would be indistinguishable from mandating that it be taught in schools.
Yeah, that's what I just said. Why are you not questioning why this prohibition is in place?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link