site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28905 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What if you're discussing geocentrism, and they're a smartass that compulsively reads internet contrarians, and ends up making a compelling case that all the laws of physics can be reformulated into a system where the Earth is at the (0,0,0) coordinate, he's good enough with Math that his presentation is compelling to the less advanced students, and since your background is law you're caught on the back foot, and the entire class ends up believing the Earth is the center of the universe?

I am not sure why I am teaching a science class if my background is in law, but if I were, then I would bring in a subject matter expert. And if that doesn't work, oh well. As I have said, there is no guarantee that students will learn a given lesson. All one can do is choose the best pedagogy, and as I said, the best pedagogy is to give students the evidence, not to tell them, "this is what scientist say is true." Finally, the problem of the smartass would be exactly the same in either case: Suppose I just give a lecture on "this is what scientists say," and the same smartass raises his hand and raises the same point?

Even if you have the integrity to keep your promise, I have zero trust that the education establishment does.

So, the better alternative is to tell the education establishment that it is OK to silence all opposing views? I do not understand why that would be the case. That is exactly what I pointed out previously: My former colleague, who argued that, because perfect objectivity is impossible, it is fine for him to simply give students his one-sided (and very left wing) views and ignore all opposing views.

He's saying you can't be neutral

Yet, he also says, "they are supposed to be neutral." So, which is it?

What is it that you don't understand about that,

  1. I am taking about library books, not curriculum. To repeat the previous Supreme Court quote: "Petitioners might well defend their claim of absolute discretion in matters of curriculum by reliance upon their duty to inculcate community values. But we think that petitioners' reliance upon that duty is misplaced where, as here, they attempt to extend their claim of absolute discretion beyond the compulsory environment of the classroom, into the school library and the regime of voluntary inquiry that there holds sway." (italics in original)
  2. As for " it should not include things whose inclusion is contentious," as I noted, that is impossible in the social sciences, because almost every interesting question is contentious: Why did England industrialize first? (some say it is because of profits from the slave trade; others say that is bullshit). What were the main causes of the American revolution? (some say the desire for individual liberty; others say the desire of local elites for greater economic opportunity, which was denied them under British mercantalist policies). Not to mention every important issue in economics. And the fact of the matter is that all states require students to analyze evidence related to contentious issues. Eg, Florida asks students to "Evaluate, take and defend objective, evidence-based positions on issues that cause the government to balance the interests of individuals with the public good" and repeatedly asks students to "evaluate" various issues, which means to "use information to make judgments."

I am not sure why I am teaching a science class if my background is in law

You were teaching the age of the Earth a second ago, so where's the problem? Anyway, I haven't noticed Math / Science teachers having that great understanding of Math / Science so that changes little.

Finally, the problem of the smartass would be exactly the same in either case: Suppose I just give a lecture on "this is what scientists say," and the same smartass raises his hand and raises the same point?

The difference is that I'm only exposed to the particular topics the smartass bothers to raise his hand about, and "shut up and eat your french fries" remains a valid response, while you've committed to going down every conceivable rabbit hole, even when no one is interested in it.

So, the better alternative is to tell the education establishment that it is OK to silence all opposing views? I do not understand why that would be the case.

Given that me, and FC have provided many arguments for how it would be the case, it would be a lot more productive if you explained which part you don't understand. Yes, it would be far superior for a local majority to be able to silence all opposing views. Generally, a direct, localized, transparent, democratic censorship process, in the hands of the parents is better than an indirect, opaque, non-democratic censorship process, that pretends to not even be a censorship process.

Yet, he also says, "they are supposed to be neutral." So, which is it?

I'm happy to rephrase it as many times as it takes, but it would probably be a good idea if you didn't ignore the part of the comment that directly addresses your questions. Again, according to FC there are 2 ways to understand neutrality:

  • The "objective" / "teach the controversy" one. This one is not possible.

  • The "subtractive" one, where you get rid of the things people disagree about, until only the ones everyone agrees on remain. There are some caveats to this that FC mentioned, but broadly speaking this one is possible.

I am taking about library books, not curriculum. To repeat the previous Supreme Court quote

It doesn't matter, and the Supreme Court is wrong. First, as already pointed out, there will always be curation, and it is better that the school library reflects community values than the librarian's values. Second, I don't even believe the person who wrote that. I'm sure they could come up with a post-hoc justification for not doing it, but they've made a fully-general case for stacking the school's book shelves full of porn.

As for " it should not include things whose inclusion is contentious," as I noted, that is impossible in the social sciences

It's perfectly possible to only teach theories everyone agrees are plausible, and if people can't agree on that, not teaching social science is a perfectly valid alternative. This is proven by the fact that even though the questions you mentioned are indeed interesting, many schools never come close to touching them.

You were teaching the age of the Earth a second ago, so where's the problem?

Dude, I was referring to a generic teacher, not me in general.

The difference is that I'm only exposed to the particular topics the smartass bothers to raise his hand about, and "shut up and eat your french fries" remains a valid response, while you've committed to going down every conceivable rabbit hole, even when no one is interested in it.

No, it is not a valid response to a serious question. As for non-serious questions, you obviously never taught. Everyone -- most importantly the other students -- know when a question is serious. And if it indeed serious but no one else is interested, then the obvious response is to tell the student that you will provide him with relevant resources outside class, and to then follow through. Just as one does when an advanced student asks a question that is beyond the ken or outside the interests of average students. There are certainly some difficult challenges when teaching, but dealing with this particular eventuality is not one of them.

The "subtractive" one, where you get rid of the things people disagree about, until only the ones everyone agrees on remain

I have addressed that. As I have noted, that doesn't work in economics nor in any of the social sciences. Many major topics do not have one correct answer.

First, as already pointed out, there will always be curation, and it is better that the school library reflects community values than the librarian's values.

That is irrelevant, since the question is not whose single viewpoint should be reflected, but whether the library should purge all but a single viewpoint.

Second, I don't even believe the person who wrote that. I'm sure they could come up with a post-hoc justification for not doing it, but they've made a fully-general case for stacking the school's book shelves full of porn.

And yet, despite that effectively being the law of the land for decades, school libraries are not full of porn. That is because:the issue is censorship of viewpoints, and porn is not a viewpoint. That is why one can make the sale of Hustler to minors illegal, but not the sale of Mein Kampf. Schools remove material with sexual content from libraries all the time. Prominent examples include The Bluest Eye, The Kite Runner, and Beloved.

not teaching social science is a perfectly valid alternative. This is proven by the fact that even though the questions you mentioned are indeed interesting, many schools never come close to touching them.

  1. If your solution to how best to teach a subject is not to teach it at all, you might want to rethink things.
  2. Really, many schools do not teach about why England industrialized first, nor what caused the American Revolution? Name them. Because unless you are referring to these schools, you are clearly just making that up.

No, it is not a valid response to a serious question. As for non-serious questions, you obviously never taught. Everyone -- most importantly the other students -- know when a question is serious.

"That's a great question! Sadly, we don't have time to cover it, come talk to me after class", or "I've got a great homework assignment for you!" would work perfectly fine.

But again, the important part is that with my approach I'd only have to deal with what comes up, by your description of your approach you'd have to teach every possible theory out there.

I have addressed that. As I have noted, that doesn't work in economics nor in any of the social sciences. Many major topics do not have one correct answer.

Whether or not you addressed it is irrelevant here. A moment ago you were acting like there was a contradiction in what he was saying, and then acting like your question wasn't answered.

That is irrelevant, since the question is not whose single viewpoint should be reflected, but whether the library should purge all but a single viewpoint.

It absolutely is relevant, and as far as I can tell, the only way to claim otherwise is to move the goal posts from "should the parents be allowed to purge all but a single viewpoint, if this is what they want to do" to "should libraries purge all but a single viewpoint". I have not claimed the latter, FC did not claim the latter, and the Supreme Court quote is not about the latter.

And yet, despite that effectively being the law of the land for decades, school libraries are not full of porn.

All that means is that the quote you gave is not the actual justification for the law as it is being enforced, so it was irrelevant to bring it up in the first place.

That is why one can make the sale of Hustler to minors illegal, but not the sale of Mein Kampf.

That brings up an interesting question: how many school libraries stock up on Mein Kampf?

If your solution to how best to teach a subject is not to teach it at all, you might want to rethink things.

Hardly. The amount of things not taught in school vastly exceeds that of things taught.

Really, many schools do not teach about why England industrialized first, nor what caused the American Revolution? Name them. Because unless you are referring to these schools, you are clearly just making that up.

I'm not about to dox the schools I went to, the way the industrialization of England is covered is that it happened, and the question of why is left for the curious, and you quickly move on to how it spread to the rest of Europe. And unless you live in a conquered nation like Germany, American history is hardly given any thought.

by your description of your approach you'd have to teach every possible theory out there.

No, as I said, the responsibility is merely to address the standard arguments on the issue. Again, perfection is impossible. But if the practical alternatives are 1) address the standard arguments on the issue; and 2) ignore all arguments and evidence other than that favored by the school, then option #1 is best.

It absolutely is relevant, and as far as I can tell, the only way to claim otherwise is to move the goal posts from "should the parents be allowed to purge all but a single viewpoint, if this is what they want to do" to "should libraries purge all but a single viewpoint". I have not claimed the latter, FC did not claim the latter, and the Supreme Court quote is not about the latter.

But that is precisely the issue that we are talking about, because that was my precise proposal: "How about a law to preserve the substance of the Pico plurality decision, which is probably no longer good law, to prevent red schools from removing ideas they don't like, and blue states from doing the same?" Those were the original goalposts. It is not relevant who the specific school-level decisionmaker is.

All that means is that the quote you gave is not the actual justification for the law as it is being enforced, so it was irrelevant to bring it up in the first place.

I have no idea what you mean. The quote distinguished between curriculum and libraries. They are different in various ways, and porn has nothing to do with the matter.

Hardly. The amount of things not taught in school vastly exceeds that of things taught.

Again, the point is that there are certain things that have to be taught, and in economics and the social sciences, there is no "correct" answer to any of them.

I'm not about to dox the schools I went to, the way the industrialization of England is covered is that it happened, and the question of why is left for the curious, and you quickly move on to how it spread to the rest of Europe. And unless you live in a conquered nation like Germany, American history is hardly given any thought.

Re industrialization, I think you are probably misremembering. It is a standard part of world history standards and textbooks. Re the American Revolution, we are talking about American law and American schools. I am sure there are similar topics covered in German schools (why did Weimar fail?).

No, as I said, the responsibility is merely to address the standard arguments on the issue.

This has "haggling over the price" written all over it. First, your central examples involved geocentrism, young earth creationism, and flat earth, if these theories meet your standard, then there's a tonne of others you'll have to let in as well, to the point it's not clear to me how any one argument or idea is kept out.

Again, perfection is impossible. But if the practical alternatives are 1) address the standard arguments on the issue; and 2) ignore all arguments and evidence other than that favored by the school, then option #1 is best.

This is your core value, or an axiomatic belief, or are there supporting arguments for it? Because I straight up disagree. There's not reason why 1) is necessarily better than 2). Faux-neutrality can be far worse that straight up removal of disfavored perspectives.

But that is precisely the issue that we are talking about, because that was my precise proposal: "How about a law to preserve the substance of the Pico plurality decision, which is probably no longer good law, to prevent red schools from removing ideas they don't like, and blue states from doing the same?" Those were the original goalposts.

Repealing Pico would not force schools to remove any ideas, so you have moved the goal posts.

It is not relevant who the specific school-level decisionmaker is.

Yes it is. Pico removes the ability of parents to curate books in the school libraries, while still allowing librarians to do it.

I have no idea what you mean. The quote distinguished between curriculum and libraries. They are different in various ways, and porn has nothing to do with the matter.

Sure it does. The quote is making the point that the school library is voluntary, so parents should not be allowed to curate it according to their values. The same logic would apply to porn, except like I predicted there's some post-hoc justification for one is ok to curate and the other not.

By the way, why skip my question about Mein Kampf? Do schools stock up on it or not? If not why has Pico failed to result in punishment schools for censoring it?

Again, the point is that there are certain things that have to be taught, and in economics and the social sciences, there is no "correct" answer to any of them.

I'm not the one arguing for the "objective" approach, I'm asking for coherence with the communities' values, so that's not an issue for me at all.

Re industrialization, I think you are probably misremembering. It is a standard part of world history standards and textbooks. Re the American Revolution, we are talking about American law and American schools. I am sure there are similar topics covered in German schools (why did Weimar fail?).

Sure, different parts of the world focus on different things, but that's sort of what I was driving at. You can still get a good education without learning every possible theory on everything (or even the main ones).

First, your central examples involved geocentrism, young earth creationism, and flat earth, if

Those are not my central examples. I mentioned them only in response to a query from someone else.

Repealing Pico would not force schools to remove any ideas

Yes,obviously. But it would permit it, so it would presumably happen more often. Repealing the Second Amendment would not force anyone to confiscate guns, either.

Pico removes the ability of parents to curate books in the school libraries, while still allowing librarians to do it.

This is factually incorrect. Pico applies to all removals based on viewpoint, by everyone.

The same logic would apply to porn,

A removal based on content is not the same as a removal based on viewpoint, and Pico explicitly stated that it does not apply to removals based on "pervasive vulgarity,"

why skip my question about Mein Kampf?

I apologize; I did not see it. No, Mein Kampf should not be removed from school libraries.

I'm the one arguing for the "objective" approach, I'm asking for coherence with the communities' values, so that's not an issue for me at all.

The point is that "just teach things that everyone agrees on" does not work.

You can still get a good education without learning every possible theory on everything (or even the main ones).

We are talking about topics, not theories.

Those are not my central examples. I mentioned them only in response to a query from someone else.

You bring them up every time anything adjacent to the topic comes up. They are your central examples.

Yes,obviously. But it would permit it, so it would presumably happen more often. Repealing the Second Amendment would not force anyone to confiscate guns, either.

Sure, we can go with this comparison. Theoretically the Second Amendment prevents localities from banning and confiscating guns. If we were debating whether or not we should amend the Constitution so that regulating guns is completely taken out of the federal and states' government jurisdiction, but explicitly allowed for localities I would be in favor of it. It would also be extremely dishonest to frame that debate as "should local governments confiscate guns".

This example also shows why it is incorrect to say that Pico equally protects all sides. The Second Amendment also applies to everyone, but one side of the political spectrum not only doesn't want it's protection, they find it detrimental. It would be ridiculous to claim it is not hostile to that side.

This is factually incorrect. Pico applies to all removals based on viewpoint, by everyone.

No it does not. Librarians and other school bureaucrats will be free to censor, because they cannot plausibly stock up on every book in existence, and you will never be able to prove the books they're not stocking up on are excluded based on viewpoint. Case in point:

I apologize; I did not see it. No, Mein Kampf should not be removed from school libraries.

As you well know this was not my question. My question was "How many school libraries stock up on Mein Kampf? (...) Do they stock up on it or not? If not why has Pico failed to result in punishment schools for censoring it?"

A removal based on content is not the same as a removal based on viewpoint, and Pico explicitly stated that it does not apply to removals based on "pervasive vulgarity,"

Great, another avenue for abuse. So when a school bans Huckleberry Finn because of the liberal use of the hard-r, is that viewpoint- or "pervasive vulgarity"-censorship?

The point is that "just teach things that everyone agrees on" does not work.

It does. No one said parents have to come to a consensus on one specific theory, they can just as well come to an agreement on which competing theories should be taught in school, while vetoing the ones they consider fringe.

We are talking about topics, not theories.

We're talking about any content available in, and provided by the school, be it specific theories, whole topics, or books in the library.

You bring them up every time anything adjacent to the topic comes up

No, I don’t. You are mistaken.

because they cannot plausibly stock up on every book in existence

  1. Once again, the specific issue that we are talking about is the decision to remove books, not the decision to acquire books. "
  2. The issue is not about stocking specific books, but about censoring specific ideas.

Great, another avenue for abuse.

Once again, there are no perfect rules. But now you seem to be saying that you oppose permitting schools to remove sexually explicit books because that is an avenue for abuse?

It does. No one said parents have to come to a consensus on one specific theory, they can just as well come to an agreement on which competing theories should be taught in school, while vetoing the ones they consider fringe

That was not the proposal that was suggested. The proposal was to teach only topics on which there are no competing theories.

We're talking about any content available in, and provided by the school, be it specific theories, whole topics, or books in the library.

Again, I was referring to the proposal that only noncontroversial topics be taught.

More comments

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