site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   26257 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can you imagine a US Constitutional amendment that, if proposed, would actually get passed these days?

The relevant part of the US Constitution is:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So, either 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, or 2/3 of the states must propose it, and then 3/4 of the state legislatures or conventions in those states must support it, for it to become part of the Constitution... as I understand it at least.

What sort of possible amendments could you imagine would actually pass and become part of the US Constitution in today's political climate, if they were proposed?

I find this to be an interesting question because it is a barometer of what the various factions of US politics actually agree on, despite their various differences, and also a barometer of how much polarization there is in today's US political situation.

Line item veto.

It was briefly introduced in the 90s, but ultimately declared unconstitutional. It would be a method of breaking the "giant omnibus bill" system of government, by allowing the president to remove pork-belly spending at will. ((One proposal I've seen would restrict the veto to bills passed by a simple majority, bills passed by a two-thirds majority that would allow congress to overturn a veto would be immune from a line item veto, so if we really put together a compromise bill that has near unanimous congressional support it would be immune))

How about instead introducing a rule that renders legislation that includes riders automatically unconstitutional? I'm not sure how you'd enforce it in the American system, but lots of other countries have such provisions that actually prevent the degenerate case of those giant omnibus bills.

I would actually love that, but I also don't know how you could write the rules in such a way that bad actors (i.e. the same bad actors who pervert legislation into omnibus bills today) wouldn't just find a loophole.

Then you get stuff like this where the executive completely reverses the meaning of the legislation.

This is both hilarious and worrying at the same time. If I were a principled governor, I would remove everything from the next bill except the letters that said "send nudes", "dick butt", and "The governor is no longer allowed to veto specific provisions in bills"

And...that newspaper article is actually in favor of this? Is this parody? Satire?

Utter domination of the media by the Governor's party.

Seems fixable by better defining it as a "line item", not "arbitrary subset of words" veto ... until the legislature gets the bright idea of making the entire bill one long line item.

Or fixable by the next GOP governor of Wisconsin taking it to even further extremes by selectively crossing out letters to rewrite a bill to say "All civilians are legally mandated to own tanks and BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST INFOWARS.COM"

The courts (whether left or right) would slap that one down faster than you could say "Gay frogs". The right is held to the intersection of the left and right's standards; the left to no standards at all. By both sides.

If each bill was only one item that would be a huge improvement. Want to pass a 6000 page bill? Break it up into 6000 items and vote on each one individually.

I was imagining the legislature would work around the limit by doing something akin to minification to make the bill technically one "line item" that does 6000 things.

The Law as JavaScript? That's horrible.

Education is like a religion for Democrats sometimes. Even though almost everyone in the West now has a machine capable of streaming much of the world's knowledge to them in an instant, they act as if it is the 19th century and public schooling is necessary to save masses of illiterate farm kids who live tens of miles away from the nearest library from ignorance.

Probably the biggest actual effect that public education has on society these days is not that it educates. It is that it emancipates the work force from child raising, keeps kids off the street when they are at a rambunctious age, and teaches kids how to sit still and take orders from boring authority figures. It also occasionally helps some kids to escape abusive relatives. Public education also helps Democrats because it gives them a way to funnel kids through a system where they have disproportionate influence.

However, I think that for the most part Democrats' attitude to education does not primarily have to do with any of these factors. They seem to, for the most part, actually believe in the rosy views of public education and its didactic benefits that they espouse.

Of course. Education as a public good is…like, part of our national mythos. Didn’t you watch Schoolhouse Rock as a kid?

Some of this is a legacy of our early years, which were unusually literate, usually for Puritan reasons. That was propagated through the Laura Ingalls Wilder tradition and on to modern children’s literature. There’s also the influence of Prussian and British schooling. And all this is before the modern Civil Rights movement, which was defined by educational policy.

What I’m getting at is that it ain’t just Democrats. No Child Left Behind was passed in 2002. Before that, students were the first line in the War on Drugs. The GI bill has shaped American families since WWII. Prior to 2020, antivaxxers were best known for bringing back measles in the public school system. A significant fraction of the middle class will choose their home to get a better-rated school district.

Education is one of the legs of the stereotypical American Dream. Is it any surprise that the major political parties act accordingly?

It's the same in most of the west though. In fact, if anything the US is more laissez-faire than many other western countries in respect to education - homeschooling is literally illegal in mine, for example.

Public education also helps Democrats because it gives them a way to funnel kids through a system where they have disproportionate influence.

I don’t think this is the main benefit to democrats from the public school system. Notably democrats don’t seem to think they’re very good at indoctrinating the youths through it even if they were trying.

Instead I think it’s that it’s a form of employment- and typically one of the bigger employers in any given area- which influences its employees to vote democrat. The other option for most teachers is probably ‘be a housewife’ after all, and housewives vote pretty Republican. Likewise I have a hard time believing that school janitors, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, etc don’t vote much more democrat than their private sector counterparts. I think it also goes beyond just voting; teachers unions and small dollar campaign contributions from teachers are key sources of contributions for democrats.

Instead I think it’s that it’s a form of employment- and typically one of the bigger employers in any given area- which influences its employees to vote democrat.

There's another form of employment that has basically no accountability for results. It's called "welfare".

People on welfare tend to vote for parties that promise more welfare (expanding the education system and increasing administrative burden on companies being the two most common ways), and their interests follow naturally downstream from there (even though a good chunk of people- welfare recipients or not- don't realize that).

I don't think there's anything more complex than that going on, but it's also why you can't meaningfully reform these systems- if you went back to 1950s standards in these areas, you'd both cut welfare benefits off from a massive number of women and incinerate the 4-8 years of their lives they spent getting a useless degree certified to receive that welfare. The sociopolitical ramifications of this would be interesting, to say the least; the last time the economy contracted that hard it forced the New Deal.

Notably democrats don’t seem to think they’re very good at indoctrinating the youths through it even if they were trying.

D+30 for young women, and an even split for young men? It's only the men the teachers need to worry about indoctrinating into the "you're trash and deserve this" philosophy (and they're clearly doing that quite well, aided by parents who grew up in a milieu of "the sexes are co-operating" and try to enforce it blindly)- for the women, cashing the checks is good enough.

What are you on about?

If you’re determined to be a cynic, welfare is the bread and circuses required to stave off revolt. How does that describe education?

A more sympathetic description might be that welfare adds slack to the economy, allowing employees to take more risks without getting relegated to the debtors’ gaol (or revolting). It’s a hedge. This is also not a good description of public education.

Are you trying to argue that welfare recipients are drawing money from “ expanding the education system and increasing administrative burden on companies”? What does that mean?

welfare is the bread and circuses required to stave off revolt

My assertion is that "bread and circuses" comes in the form of government creating [the need for] bullshit jobs for people who won't tolerate not having a job. We could make education vastly more efficient, and we could take away the degree pipeline for people whose jobs won't require them, and we could demolish most of the regulations that mean companies have to retain certain kinds of employees, and we could dismantle a good chunk of the administrative state.

But we won't do that. And the reason we won't do that is because the people in these positions are a significant (and politically powerful) fraction of the population who won't accept having "no place" in the economy, and they won't accept being consigned to a basic income that pays the underclass the same as them (or dependent on homemaking for an [indirect] income)- they're capable of doing more damage in a revolt, so governments obviously have to pay them more to make them not do that (which, come to think of it, is a major problem with UBI that I've never heard anyone discuss before).

Are you trying to argue that welfare recipients are drawing money from “ expanding the education system and increasing administrative burden on companies”?

I'm arguing that the people who work in those fields are, to a significant degree, themselves welfare recipients, and thus "the people who work in the education-managerial complex and support increasing the size of the education system and mandating companies increase the number of management jobs" is equivalent to "welfare recipient voting for more welfare", even though said welfare recipient might not fully recognize it as such (because the system is laundered through the guise of employment).

Even though almost everyone in the West now has a machine capable of streaming much of the world's knowledge to them in an instant, they act as if it is the 19th century and public schooling is necessary to save masses of illiterate farm kids who live tens of miles away from the nearest library from ignorance.

How many kids do you think would teach themselves math via the internet? Or how to read?

If you want to argue that there's a more efficient and/or effective method of delivering universal education than the status quo, I'm quite willing to believe that. I do not find it plausible that internet-based autodidacticism is one of them.

After 12 years of public school what percentage of adults remember how to do anything but basic arithmetic? PIAAC puts 10% of adults in the US at numeracy level 4 or above. The sample question they had for level 4 gave you table of expenditures for three months and asked you compute the mean.

Chicago spends about $30k per pupil per year which would put them at around $360k total for 12 years of schooling. I just can't imagine there isn't a better way to spend that money given the absolutely abysmal results we're getting. The usual answer is that we need to keep doing what we're doing but more and better. The problem is we've been trying that for half a century now with no meaningful improvements.

IIRC the usual result of "unschooling" (where no curriculum is imposed) is being about two years behind through most of primary/secondary school; kids actually are pretty curious. Not 100% sure about how reading fits in, though.

Unless my memory fails me, unschooling is, despite the name, a form of homeschooling; the children have more control over subject matter, but it still assumes there's someone taking responsibility for teaching them (including necessarily ancillary skills).

Unless my memory fails me, unschooling is, despite the name, a form of homeschooling; the children have more control over subject matter, but it still assumes there's someone taking responsibility for teaching them (including necessarily ancillary skills).

It's variable per household, naturally. I've met 'unschoolers' who range from what looks to me like pretty normal homeschooling (though very sensitive to ROI on time spent) to parents who literally just let their kids do whatever they want and don't pressure them into anything they're not 'ready' for. I've met kids who are reading at college level by age 10 and I've met kids who aren't functionally literate at age 15.

Arguments for and against homeschooling resolve, I think, into fully general arguments about to what degree parents should be able to raise their own children as they see fit.

Arguments for and against homeschooling resolve, I think, into fully general arguments about to what degree parents should be able to raise their own children as they see fit.

I don't really think that's true except in the vaguest sense. An argument about the effectiveness of homeschooling could theoretically be deflected by saying "it's my prerogative to not educated my children*", but very few homeschooling advocates are making that argument as opposed to arguing that homeschooling leads to superior outcomes. Arguments about outcomes in turn focus on the validity and interpretation of data.

*FWIW, existing laws on homeschooling suggest the existing consensus is "no, it isn't". Arguments about parental rights vs child's interests tend to turn on conclusions about outcomes rather than vice versa.

(I will also note that my point about unschooling was not whether or not it was good or bad relative to public schooling but that it was certainly not equivalent to handing a child a tablet with internet access and telling them to figure it out themselves; homeschooled children are usually more closely instructed than their traditional classroom peers)

Arguments for and against homeschooling resolve, I think, into fully general arguments about to what degree parents should be able to raise their own children as they see fit.

Once the delusional or factually incorrect claims about the practice are excluded from conversation they do, but plenty of arguments against homeschooling are based on ‘it delivers worse results’ or ‘it somehow takes money from public schools’.

Robin Hanson on healthcare:

"What we want is health, i.e., a long healthy life, but when we sit down and draw up a contract, what we buy is health care, i.e., a certain degree of attention from health care specialists."

Education is the same way. The more human time and attention is dedicated to education (i.e. how much it costs), the more you signal that you care about educating children. The thing has been replaced by the symbolic representation of the thing. We would be in much less of a student debt crisis if middle-class women didn't have to get (subsidized) 4-year degrees in order to get childcare jobs at the government-run daycare.

Many don't stop at 4 years. They'll go back to get a masters or something terminal.

This is a policy choice. There is no law of the universe that says you have to pay childcare technicians teachers more if they have a master's degree.

It's their culture. They're indoctrinated early.

We would be in much less of a student debt crisis if middle-class women didn't have to get (subsidized) 4-year degrees in order to get childcare jobs at the government-run daycare.

First off, I am in no way arguing that being a kindergarten teacher requires a masters degree. I can think of a half dozen 16 year olds off the top of my head who could shadow an elementary school teacher for a week and do fine taking over.

But expanding that system to the general population would be a disaster because of lots of reasons(mostly that there is no bureaucracy-legible way to find those people), and I somehow doubt women who want to become teachers would stop going to college to save money if that was an option.

In the first place, teachers are mostly teachers- or should I say they become teachers- because they believe in the education system and the benefits of formal education. But furthermore, the option to get a four year teaching degree for significantly cheaper than a traditional four year degree already exists. Everyone who wants to can go to community college and save like $20k a year for at least two years; in my state it’s three years in practice because community college credits universally transfer to state schools. Actually, speaking of Texas, there’s a program to do remote learning from a low-performing state school while enrolled in community college and get your teaching certificate entirely through community college for much cheaper. You know who uses it? Women that want to be housewives but need to kill time until their boyfriends get more established. Career teachers choose to go straight to university in the presence of cheaper alternatives that don’t hurt your career because government hiring isn’t allowed to care about the institution granting a diploma.

And realistically, what’s the alternative to a degree requirement for teachers specifically? It’s a good proxy for ‘values education enough to plausibly care about the job’ ‘smart and functional enough to do the job’ and ‘cooperative with the giant all-consuming bureaucracy that governs every aspect of the job’. No other proxy seems legible enough to the bureaucracies that run the public school system.

And realistically, what’s the alternative to a degree requirement for teachers specifically?

What if they did an apprenticeship, like a blacksmith in the old days? Watch a good teacher teaching, talk with them about how they do things (maybe do this with a few people to even things out), hands on learning, then be supervised for teaching easy classes, then go and teach with supervision... then you're a teacher! Add some basic maths, logic, English and science tests to make sure they're not stupid and you're good to go.

I say this because education degrees don't necessarily teach people how to teach. In Australia education degrees often get below-average students and they don't teach classroom management as opposed to progressive ideology.

The bureaucracies aren't doing a good job, they're part of the problem. All this useless admin that eats up time and money. It's a problem in healthcare and a problem in education, spending and admin multiplies while results are stagnant. Privatize, charterize, get rid of the bureaucracy.

See figure 3 and figure 4: https://www.cato.org/publications/k-12-education

They do this, it's called student teaching.

Some states do let people start teaching before earning their degree, and some do allow the degree to be from a much cheaper community college. My daughter's pre-K teacher just sent a letter home about this, asking to include activities with the kids in her (regional college) coursework. I am unworried, it is pre-K, I can teach her to read and count myself if it comes to that.

Anyway, it's true, but not any more true than for at least half of jobs currently requiring a college degree. An admin assistant doesn't really need to study... whatever it is that the median low level administrator studied in college, yet here we are.

Anyway, it's true, but not any more true than for at least half of jobs currently requiring a college degree.

yeschad.png A system of apprenticeships is a great way to cut down on degree inflation and to ensure that the skills people learn are actually applicable.

More comments

No one's ever going to convince me that anyone believes this is actually legal. The Wisconsin Amendment reads:

Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law, and the part objected to shall be returned in the same manner as provided for other bills.

Striking out single letters is the kind of thing that only an extremely dishonest legal genius could love. Any normal person would read this as allowing a governor to reject parts of appropriations bill, not provide an opportunity to completely flip the meaning of sentences.

Agreed. 43 states have some extent of line item veto and you don't often hear about really flagrant abuse of it, so I assume it works well enough in practice.

More importantly it kills the ability to trade. You want X; I want Y. I prefer X to not Y and you prefer Y to not X.

So we agree to X and Y. But now the governor can strike X and keep Y. Outside of comity, why would you support X to override the veto?

Given that I can’t count on you to override the veto, I’m never going to give you Y in the first place.

The worst part is that it doesn't necessarily flip the meaning, but everyone is going along with it as if it does. Each of the spending increases could easily be interpreted as a one-time thing. "For 2023-2425 increase spending by $150" is interpreted by everyone as meaning, "increase spending by $150 each year 2023-2425", but the more straightforward interpretation is to increase spending once over that timeframe.

It would be nice to be a nation of laws, rather than of raw power.

And yet every mainstream media story on it was congratulatory in tone towards the governor, and no lawsuit appears to have resulted. It's almost as if the words don't matter, only who and whom.

Maybe because everyone, including the GOP, liked the modification?

The article says the GOP have used the tactic before too, so presumably they don’t want to challenge it too much, it’s likely they’ll win back the governor’s office at some point.

It's ridiculous, but it's also like 40 years old and has been litigated in the state supreme court already.

They haven't used it nearly so blatantly AFAIK. I expect the actual reason it hasn't been challenged is because the modification is not all that extreme. The article itself mentions that the budget increase doesn't even keep pace with inflation. Why expend political effort to fight something they probably would have done anyways?

The governor broke the law in a terrible way, claiming vast powers for himself, but used them only to achieve a fairly small, very popular, and somewhat bipartisan goal. It was pretty smart tbh and something I hope Republicans know to copy if/when they get office.

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