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 -
A follow-up to the Irish referenda. Both @Follamh3 and myself posted on this a few days back, and here's one reason why the Plain People Of Ireland voted (those who did turn out to vote) 70% "No" to both - nobody trusts the government because the reality on the ground is this.
The usual suspects try to pin the blame on anti-immigrant sentiment, the far-right, volatility, and just the yokels are too ignorant to know what's good for them. But the reality is, people see the disconnect between the fancy language about gender-neutral and inclusive, and what actually happens when support for carers and those in need of care is sought: you're not getting it, you're not going to get it. We think you're so special, we're going to have a referendum to put it in the Constitution! Also we can't even tell you if your kid will have a school place for the new term. Can you see why voters with that knowledge might just possibly vote "No" and still not be far-right gender-essentialist white supremacists?
Bad old sexist, misogynist, gendered language that asks the State to make sure that there won't be the necessity for choices such as the Lewis family say above about "It has left Greg and Celine in a situation where one of them will have to give up work to remain at home full-time with their son".
Shiny progressive new inclusive, non-gendered, non-marriage based language rejected by the backwards public:
I mean, c'mon! The Department of Education has been "engaging intensely with the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) in relation to the forward planning of new special classes and additional special school places". That's "striving", isn't it? Nobody said anything about actually paying out money so mothers (or fathers or non-binary babas) wouldn't have to engage in labour outside the home and wouldn't be at a loss by this, unlike the bad old 1937 Catholic bigots!
Everything else aside, it boggles the mind that it is considered appropriate for a non-verbal student to be mainstreamed.
There is the trend now to put kids in mainstream education if they are capable. If he's otherwise smart, he may be able to learn in mainstream setting with support. If he can't get a place in a special school and there's a mainstream place available, then it's wasting time to have him sitting at home doing nothing. The problem seems to be all the special schools are full and the mainstream schools can't accommodate his needs.
Non-verbal may be more akin to being spastic than to being intellectually disabled. The idea is to encourage and enable, by mingling with ordinary children, children with additional needs to achieve what they can, rather than using special schools as a dumping-ground. Some kids are going to be so severely impaired that mainstreaming is impossible, but for others, with adequate supports, they can get on.
In the past I've worked in vocational rehabilitation for developmentally disabled young adults, usually medium-functioning autistic young men. They came from a range of backgrounds, some of them being quite poor others firmly middle class. We provided an opportunity for them to do real work with non-disabled cooworkers but in a setting with professional support staff available for them when needed. There was an obvious gap in ability and self confidence between those who had been mainstreamed and those who had gone to "special schools as a dumping-ground". Their disability levels were otherwise very similar but those who had been largely schooled and housed together with the profoundly disabled were much harder to rehabilitate. Another interesting observation from that job: while most of our clients were between 18-25, their parents were still quite involved in their lives. Many of them had received extensive coaching by their parents to play-up or play-down their disability based on the audience. Around authority figures, anyone w' the gov't or in a medical setting they acted more disabled, when around family or especially their mother's friends it was the exact opposite. This was a problem as they tended to slot us into the "authority figure" role and calibrate their behavior accordingly which was very unhelpful in a vocational setting where we were trying to teach them skills and asses their competency levels.
Yeah, that's part of the problem I've mentioned before about gaming the system. Some do it in good faith as the only way they've found to get anyone to pay attention to the problem - if the kid is deemed capable, then any supports stop there even if needed. So the parents are nearly forced into exaggerating the problem in order to get anything done.
Some people do it deliberately and will coach/bully the kids into acting 'more disabled' so that the parent(s) can get more goodies (not that there are a lot of goodies going); for instance, from my social housing days, I heard the story of one parent who wanted a new house because her child was a wheelchair user and she claimed the doorways in her current house were too small for the wheelchair to pass through.
The problem there was that (1) the guys who went out and measured the doorways were sure they were plenty big enough and (2) even though the child legitimately had a prosthetic limb, she was mobile and not wheelchair dependent. In fact, the same parent who said her kid needed a wheelchair to get around the house, hence why Mommy wanted one of the nice newly-built social houses to move into from the older council house she was living in, used to send her kid to pay the weekly rent and said kid walked all the way to the council offices from where they lived and back home.
Preach, brother, preach! 😁
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