site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   38199 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In Hasidic Enclaves, Failing Private Schools Flush With Public Money: New York’s Hasidic Jewish religious schools have benefited from $1 billion in government funding in the last four years but are unaccountable to outside oversight.

The New York Times has an expose on how ultra-orthodox Jews in NYC are funneling billions in public money for use in their yeshivas. Students are barely taught how to read and write in English (as an example, one couldn't spell "America") and the state requirements are effectively optional or used as a study hall.

The schools appear to be operating in violation of state laws that guarantee children an adequate education. Even so, The Times found, the Hasidic boys’ schools have found ways of tapping into enormous sums of government money, collecting more than $1 billion in the past four years alone.

Only nine schools in the state had less than 1 percent of students testing at grade level in 2019, the last year for which full data was available. All of them were Hasidic boys’ schools.

The boys’ schools cram in secular studies only after a full day of religious lessons. Most offer reading and math just four days a week, often for 90 minutes a day, and only for children between the ages of 8 and 12. Some discourage further secular study at home. “No English books whatsoever,” one school’s rule book warns.

Their leaders, the grand rabbis, wield significant power, and breaking the rules they set can carry serious consequences. That point was underscored by the more than 50 current Hasidic community members who spoke to The Times only on condition of anonymity, for fear of being exiled and barred from seeing family and friends.

Another former teacher provided hundreds of pages of work sheets from the past five years that showed that 12-year-olds — in their last year of English instruction — could not spell words like “cold” and “America.”

Tax dollars are not supposed to go toward religious education. But public agencies pay private schools to comply with government mandates and manage social services. Hasidic boys’ yeshivas, like other private schools, access dozens of such programs, collecting money that subsidizes their theological curriculum. The Times identified dozens of federal, state and local programs and analyzed how much they have given to yeshivas, looking most closely at the last year before the pandemic. The analysis showed that New York’s Hasidic boys’ schools received more than $375 million from the government in that period [...] they appear to get more government funding on average than other private schools in the state, including other religious schools, the analysis found. The city voucher program that helps low-income families pay for child care now sends nearly a third of its total assistance to Hasidic neighborhoods

This might come as a shock to those who have no experience with Williamsburg, Monroe, Kiryas Joel, or Monsey in the NY tristate area. There is what can be described as a Hasidic Jewish mafia, that violates norms and laws to obtain hegemony, while siphoning resources from the surrounding communities. Towns are genuinely afraid of encroachment by the Hasids, because they move in en masse and quickly obtain town leadership positions and school board positions. They usually vote to reduce all extra funding, like extra-curricular funding for public schools, because their children only attend yeshivas. They label their homes as temples and don't legally marry their wives to reduce their taxes. Towns in subjected areas will purposely reduce sidewalks or veto funding for sidewalks in order to deter Hasids from moving in. Usually they will have a non-Hasidic lawyers go door to door asking to buy property with cash. They are involved in coordinated welfare schemes yet somehow get sweetheart plea deals of no jail time. Kiryas Joel was once the poorest place in all of America, and yet they have their own private security force that follows non-Hasids in SUVs if you drive through their estates, they have an enormous temple and their own state-funded maternity clinic on site and are able to obtain a unique 30 million dollar water aqueduct project.

I'm happy that the NYT is doing solid journalism on this. I kind of gripe with portraying the young as victims and bringing up the Holocaust, but it is what it is. In my mind, the Hasidic power structure is a legitimate problem that needs to be made sense of, because if there is all this corruption at just 200k members, well, in 60 years it will be 1,600,000. They will comprise a majority of America's Jewish community in a few decades.

In my mind, the Hasidic power structure is a legitimate problem that needs to be made sense of, because if there is all this corruption at just 200k members, well, in 60 years it will be 1,600,000. They will comprise a majority of America's Jewish community in a few decades.

Corruption? My mother once told me she could never make sense of antisemitism. Every time she asked someone, who expressed an anti-Jewish sentiment, what their beef was, they'd come back with a variation on "they're too in-groupy". To which she'd say "instead of dissing them, why don't you learn from them?"

You're telling me, that not only is there a community successfully resisting the influence of the modern techno-dystopia, but that they're well-disciplined, vibrant, and growing... and you're telling me I'm supposed to be upset???

Why don't you tell me if they have a Paypal, I want to send them money.

You're telling me, that not only is there a community successfully resisting the influence of the modern techno-dystopia, but that they're well-disciplined, vibrant, and growing... and you're telling me I'm supposed to be upset???

If ISIS were doing the same thing, would you or would you not be upset about it?

I hardly think it's a stretch of the imagination to say that most people do not believe you need to jump to the complete opposite end of the spectrum in terms of "adopting the modern secular techno lifestyle/culture" to avoid a bad outcome.

If ISIS were doing the same thing, would you or would you not be upset about it?

Not the OP, but that description could also apply to the Amish, and FWIW I don't think that many "English" have a big beef with them...

That's irrelevant. The point I'm making, as stated in my previous post, is that just because a group rejects what the OP thinks is a dystopia doesn't mean they are somehow a good group. There are different and important reasons for rejecting both the "techno-dystopia" and the Islamic State.

That is because the Amish are in Lancaster County (and a lot of other places, mostly rural), not New York City. The haredi in Lakewood, NJ and Kiryas Joel, NY do annoy the other locals (as do the Amish where they live, for that matter, though it's usually about buggy accidents rather than schooling). But while those may get (and have gotten) a mention in the New York Times, being in New York City helps with the in-depth hit pieces.

ISIS in particular are a bit extreme with their beheadings, suicide attacks, and all. I did, however, warm up to generic radical Muslims recently.

I have never heard of this. Honestly this deserves its own post or an email to the NYT. Very alarming.

Well, a race to be as ingroupy as possible would be seeking a destination of tribal-warfare all-against-all that I, at least, would prefer to avoid. There's an optimum to be sought somewhere between the two extremes of "pure, featureless, universalism" and "raw, violent, tribalism." Would be nice to have some obvious description of what exactly that point would be, but I don't have one at this moment.

I didn't quote the conversation verbatim, there was an implication there that it's "positive tribalism" we're talking about. Things like "looking out for your own" rather than screwing over the outgroup.

Under conditions of serious scarcity those overlap enough to be functionally indistinguishable.

Well, we're not quite there yet.

Experience in recent years leads me to believe we've got less cushion than I'd like.

But yes, cooperation between otherwise self-interested groups is still the dominant survival strategy.

I think if non-Hasids tried to copy their playbook, the government would crush them, using every trick in the book, including mass media propaganda campaigns. The Hasids are special because they are run like a fascist micro-nation, yet they have the appearance of the caricature victim of fascism, and play off of religious protections. It's a confluence of factors that allow the Hasids to occupy their uniquely powerful position. I cannot imagine Christians getting away with anything like this, for instance, and it's remarkable that for all the discussion on fascism and religious extremist, no one is overly concerned with a religiously extremist fascist micro-nation in the Big Apple. The Amish, which is the closest Christian equivalent I can think of, do not utilize as much social resources as the Hasids, and are also in the middle of nowhere.

There are fundamentalist LDS groups that seem to be pretty similar to the Hasidim, including not officially marrying to avoid taxes and collect additional benefits and using lots of welfare. They are generally located in the middle of nowhere, and there have been efforts to stop them, but as far as I can tell these are mostly limited to prosecution on the basis of serious crimes (like child rape) which I think the Hasidim avoid. Mainline mormons and the mainline LDS church seem to be at best ambivalent about these efforts, and sometimes oppose them. There are some other legal issues that might also apply to the Hasidic communities (like misuse of public funds and effectively having a privatized religious police force) but they might also be better at staying on the "maybe legal" side.

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints#Short_Creek_raid and the sections immediately below.

The FLDS practices statutory rape as a religious doctrine. They largely get away with this(although Texas has prosecuted a few of their leaders for not marrying their underaged baby mamas), and from a blue tribe perspective they’re fascist Christian microstate. From a red tribe perspective they’re an untrustworthy, heretical, and occasionally murderous cult.

The other major Mormon fundamentalist group, the apostolic United brethren, colours significantly more inside the lines and avoids underaged marriage.

it's remarkable that for all the discussion on fascism and religious extremist, no one is overly concerned with a religiously extremist fascist micro-nation in the Big Apple.

...what, apart from the New York Times, in this very article upon discussion?

A single article for an issue that has been blazing for much more than a decade, does not qualify as "overly concerned", when the article focuses on the victimhood of the defecting group. The actual instantiation of a religiously extremist fascist micro-nation does not command one one-thousandth of the attention in mass media as would be expected. The article is largely free from language implication religious extremism and fascism. This is a far cry from the dramatizations of "Christian nationalism" that Biden et al want you to be concerned about.

Simple Googling found more than a few mainstream media articles about problems in Hasidic schools from years past. Here's Newsweek writing about child abuse. NYT has also written about child abuse, as well. Here's CNN about a specific case. Another New York mag, generally about the yeshivas. The Guardian about the issue in UK. I found some other articles that were paywalled well enough that I'm not linking them, including loads by Jewish magazines.

Of course, if your specific concern is whether it's specifically labelled as fascism and religious extremism, I don't believe the word fascism is used, at least - but it's hardly like New York Times has been the first to discuss the issue of Hasidic schools.

Well, yes, but this "single article" is a hitpiece in the New York Times. This is Zeus throwing his thunderbolt. This is the new popular consensus written right in front of us. As single articles (that aren't breaking news) go, this is about as consequential as they get.

True, and I do hope the NYT continues this investigative path. All props to the NYT for this great piece.

I cannot imagine Christians getting away with anything like this

Yeah, neither can I, but I don't see how that's the fault of Hasids, nor do I see what good is supposed to come out crushing their community. Their culture isn't my cup of tea, and I also have more sympathy for the Amish, but the Hasids are at least Human which is more than I can say for what the regime has in store for us.

This is a low quality comment. Please do less of these.

Specifically it is very "boo outgroup" without supporting evidence. And you are not speaking very plainly.

Oh dear... Look, speaking plainly would result in going on a several paragraph long rant about the relationship of the common people to the people in power, it would be off-topic and didn't feel appropriate. And "boo outgroup" will be hard to avoid, when I essentially believe we are under hostile occupation.

Long effort comments are ok, and in fact encouraged. Next time go on the rant. Otherwise don't comment at all. We have rules of engagement here. Earnestly believing that you can break the rules of engagement is not an acceptable reason for breaking them.

the Hasids are at least Human which is more than I can say for what the regime has in store for us.

Fearing genocide or dehumanization from "the regime"? You mean Biden and Congressional Dems?

Partisan politics? You insult me.

Okay. Which regime does not consider which people human?

Well, first of all, you misunderstood me. I didn't say the regime does not consider us human, I meant that the plans they have in store for us are inhumane. This is contrasted with the Hasids, who I think are extremely weird, but I consider their lifestyle humane.

As to who has inhumane plans for us... I mean, the whole western world seems pretty set on sticking us into the metaverse, putting us under total surveillance, feeding us bugs, etc.

it's not 'crushing their community' to stop letting them live off a system that was never meant for their situation.

I don't believe that. This is clearly aimed at disrupting their community, and plenty of people are "living off the system" and they're not using it "how it was meant", can't say I often see the NYT complaining about that.

Yes, it's corruption. The Hassidic communities (or at least their relation to welfare and government) are basically the answer to the question "What happens if you take a welfare system designed for the utterly dysfunctional, helped along with slightly-above-average social workers, and set upon it a highly intelligent and organized group whose claim to fame is rules-lawyering God?"

If the laws are poorly written enough that they can be so easily gamed, I don't see how you can blame the minority of a minority of a minority that learned to exploit the system. It's not as if the ultra-orthodox wrote this stuff.

The laws are written with extremely unintelligent people in mind as the clients. Writing them in a way to exclude some of these communities would be the same as eliminating them.

the laws are written with a general assumption of people not being hyper ingroup focused. they figured out that if you outbreed everyone else, do your best to get everyone else to move out, and vote as a block in a democracy, you can live off their tax dollars. that's perfectly blameworthy.

the laws are written with a general assumption of people not being hyper ingroup focused.

1: Are they?

2: If they are, isn't that really stupid?

3: How is it a minority's fault that majority politicians are so naive to the world they would assume for the purposes of a law that people don't have ingroups?

Indeed. There's a reason we call some moves "unsportsmanlike", even if they are entirely allowed within the rules of a proverbial game.

And people tell me that Maurice Samuel is not 100% correct...

I'd watch that sitcom!

To call it corruption, I'd have to see the current regime as legitimate, and at this point, I can't. Maybe there's a more honorable way to escape Leviathan, I guess I do feel more sympathy for the Amish than the Hasids, but I don't feel like I'm in a position to lecture them.

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