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 -
I don't see where this gets him. People do get to define themselves, and, say, Britons or Americans have decided to expand who is included amongst 'themselves'.
Anyway this is similarly amusing to the debates between the 9 different factions of Trotskyites which get played out in the pages of magazines with a combined readership of 8. The grandiosity of it all is utterly bizarre for a movement which is - thankfully - so powerless and marginal.
Like hell they have. Integration in America was done without legislative authority, and at the barrel of a gun. It's not Americans who have decided anything, it's the royal court who have decreed it, and the country then gets dragged along behind.
If Americans got to choose, they would have chosen white. They did choose, and did choose white, and then weren't allowed to make that choice.
What is this even supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that the Civil Rights Act (and other related pieces of federal legislation) were unconstitutional?
If the country was being simply 'dragged along' in matters of race and immigration, why did Hart-Celler poll so well (70% approval)?
They did get to chose. It's called representative democracy. At any time they could - and can - elect a Congress with a white nationalist majority.
Hell yes, but you're late.
I mean Brown v Board was wrongly decided, that it was the royal court proclaiming that segregation must end, in direct opposition to the citizens, and their elected representatives. That Brown v Board was only enforced at the end of a gun, after a group of 9 took it upon themselves to read into the law what had not been written.
A pattern I have noticed since then, especially with Obergefell v Hodges and Bostock v Clayton County. Again the court reads into the law what was never written, and refuses to allow the legislature as elected by the citizenry to legistlate.
Lies and propaganda, mostly. They said it wouldn't change the character of the nation, and on that basis, it was unopposed. That was a lie, of course, and it's easy to tell that now, where at the time it was hard.
Why not?
It is not the Supreme Court's job to reflect the will of the 'citizens and their elected representatives'.
This is the more relevant criticism, however I don't think it's fair at all. That segregated education denied African-Americans the 'equal protection of the laws' would seem to me pretty obvious. After all, if there really was no difference in the education being received, then why was segregation necessary? Even the lower court whose decision Brown overturned conceded that segregation ipso facto entailed an unequal education.
Simply following the text of a law through to its logical conclusion and then applying it is not 'reading into the law what was never written' - or rather, it might be, but one must also read into a law what is logically implied by it.
If this is true, then why, when immigration did increase substantially in the following decades, was the backlash, all things considered, rather muted?
It wasn't necessary, it was chosen by the voters, as is their right to do in a constitutional republic. The court should have enforced the equal part of separate but equal, because there's no reason why segregation necessarily requires unequal treatment before the law.
We know now, decades after, that integration doesn't make the negro child equal to the white child. The ruling was based on logic that was disproved by reality. It is not the segregation which keeps the negro child behind today, and it was not segregation which kept him behind then, either.
That is irrelevant, whether or not it is true. Segregation need only to have adversely impacted the education of black children in any way, and to any non-zero extent, in order to be impermissible (and, also, one cannot criticise the Brown decision on the basis of putative information not available at the time). There was every reason, and still is now, to believe that segregation ipso facto prevented the provision of an equal education. For one thing our prior should be very high that segregated education impacted outcomes - would it not be quite astonishing if integrated and segregated systems merely happened to produce the same outcomes? In turn, the African-American was always going to come off worse in the latter system. Put it this way. Is there anywhere in the South you can point to that had established a reasonably equal segregated education system by the time of Brown? If none of them achieved it within well over half a century, it was quite plainly never going to happen.
The (pretty well unanimous) conclusions of research conducted prior to Brown into the issue of the impact of segregation and institutionalised discrimination on the development of black children is well summarised here, from p. 139 on.
https://archive.org/details/personalityinmak0000midc/page/138/mode/2up
Segregationists did not give a damn about rights in a constitutional republic, nor about the will of the people, hence their systematic attempts to disenfranchise black voters. The South has only itself to blame - segregated education was never going to be equal when managed by unrepentant racists. Segregation may have been chosen by the (white) voters of the relevant states, but its abolition was likewise chosen by the nation's voters at their federal elections, as is their right.
Is there evidence that education of African-Americans is any better today?
There's that one 'experiment' in Kansas City with a judge throwing millions of dollars at black education to improve it that apparently failed.
The problem I see with 'desegregation' is that at some point you run out of white children to 'integrate' with your children who desperately need an 'integrated' education for whatever reason.
Is there some kind of breeding program to address this?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link