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 -
Well, if you find substance in the question, I'm happy for you. I don't.
Ok, thank you for elaborating, I wish you done it sooner.
I disagree. Not imposing a view is more legitimate than imposing a view, because if you don't impose a view you're still leaving people room to explore. Like we discussed, there are cases where I think imposing a view is legitimate, but generally this works as a pretty good rule of thumb.
It's a lot less interesting to continue this line of argument since you said this isn't what you meant, but the issue is that if prohibiting teaching religion, and teaching a religion is indistinguishable, then that would mean the very specific limit on public schools teaching religious doctrine would itself violate the Establishment Clause.
Because that was literally the topic of the conversation! In your own words: "Why should there be a special rule re "influencing the perception of children towards the LGBT movement?"
For one - why should I defend a position you just invented, and I never advocated for? LGBTQ+++ people can advocate as much as they want for what should not be taught. They should not be allowed to advocate for what should be taught any more than Christians or Muslims are.
The fact that you portrayed my views the way you did, puts into doubt your earlier statement that you only think these two things are indistinguishable only for the purposes of legitimacy.
To clarify, nothing prevents Christians or Muslims from advocating that things be taught. There are limits placed by the Establishment Clause on how successful they can be. But as I said, there is no right to be successful in their advocacy. And, the limits on their success is quite narrow. Schools can teach about Muslim doctrine, for example, as long as they do not proselytize. They can also teach tolerance, and that anti-Muslim bias is bad, and can teach about how Muslims have contributed to society. OP, however, says that LGBTQ people asking to teach similar things about them is illegitimate.
More importantly, you are indeed setting up a special rule for LGBTQ people, because you are taking a rule that applies only to religion and expanding it to cover a single nonreligious group. Your rule covers them, but not Nazis, not Communists, not free market advocates, and not people who want to teach hostility to homosexuality. So, again, you are evading the question: Why a special rule for them?
I'm not evading the question. Every time you formulated something coherent I answered it. This question, while coherent, is hard to answer, because it's entire premise is wrong. I'm not asking for a special rule for LGBT people, I believe Nazis, Communists, free market advocates, and people who want to teach hostility to homosexuality, etc., shouldn't be allowed to have their ideology taught as fact / the right way to do things in public schools.
The conversation would probably go a lot smoother if you just asked me what I believe instead of inventing beliefs, and attributing them to me.
No, the conversation would go smoother if you actually stated your beliefs. I asked about five times why you want a special rule for LGBTQ people, and not until now have you said you want the rule to apply to everyone. Instead, you employed evasions such as asking why I don't have objections to limits on religious views being taught.
And, btw, the issue is not whether people should be "be allowed to have their ideology taught as fact." It is whether they can be allowed to advocate for certain things being taught. It was mere advocacy that was what OP said was illegitimate, and it was mere advocacy that I said was a legitimate part of the political process in a democratic society.
But, of course, you know that, because you said in your very last post: "They should not be allowed to advocate for what should be taught any more than Christians or Muslims are." (emphasis added). Now, once again, when asked to defend that view, you try to change the subject to whether people should be allowed to "have their ideology taught as fact / the right way to do things."
Anyhow, it is obvious that you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. Have a nice day.
Again, the actual quote was "Why should there be a special rule re influencing the perception of children towards the LGBT movement?", the answer to that is that there's a certain type of beliefs that should not be taught in schools, like for example religion, hence my response "For the same reason there's a special rule re 'influencing the perception of children towards Jesus Christ being our lord and savior'". You could have asked me at any point what those reasons are, but instead you chose to argue about how that's different because that rule is in the Constitution, as if that answers the question.
That's false. The issue people are having with trans stuff is that it is being taught as fact right now, not that people are advocating for it.
You're splitting hairs. Sure, I guess Muslims, Christians, Jews, Nazis, Communists, free market advocates, people who want to teach hostility to homosexuality, and Queer Theory believers, should be allowed to advocate for their views to be taught as fact- in the sense they should not be arrested for marching in the streets and petitioning the government to do so, but I also believe that the answer should always be "no". That kind of hollows out the whole "advocacy" bit for me, which is why I boiled it down to "shouldn't be allowed to advocate for", but again, maybe you see some substance in the distinction, in which case, I am again happy for you.
I doubt you come off as actually trying to get to the truth of things either.
You too!
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