Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled
- Thread starter Johnny Novgorod
- Start date
The funniest compliment to me is "you've got great taste", because you only say that to someone who shares your taste, so it's really saying "I've got great taste."
You agreeing with someone for disagreeing with me is much the same. It doesn't actually do anything to support them, you're really just praising yourself for disagreeing with me.
Sure, I get that there might be good reasons for wanting to see the working out. Though, 3 of those only apply if the student is wrong. If I'm being told that being wrong the correct way is more important than being right, I'm also being told that I'm not here to learn maths, I'm here to learn how to pass exams.
That was very frustrating when I understood the maths, but later on it didn't stop me from using it when I didn't. I don't think I ever understood calculus properly, but as long as I could put some correct seeming working out in, maybe the answer I'd worked out some other way, I'd get marks. Knowing what I was supposed to be doing wasn't all that important.
No, I think it's just we were talking slightly at cross purposes, and when in the course of later discussion it became clear to you what I was talking about, instead of being constructive and applying that meaning back to what I was talking about before, you decided here to play a pissy game of points scoring instead.
Oh well.
1) Try not thinking in such black and white terms. A criticism of a flawed target is not good just because the target is flawed. A bad criticism of a flawed target does not make that target any more or less flawed. Flaws in a target do not invalidate the parts of it that are justifiable.
2) Make your criticism count. Criticise the flaws for what they are, and accept the reasonable bits for what they are. If you don't, accept you leave yourself open to criticism in turn.
I dismissed it as specious waffle because it was couched in terms of specious waffle about CRT.
It sounds to me somewhat unconvincing just because it's not particularly plausible - not least because non-capitalist countries had/have money too. An obvious counter-argument is that everyone needs to deal with money, and setting mathematics problems with money is a way of helping people contextualise mathematics with practical real world application. One might argue that a subject which had an excessive reliance on money to frame its subject might induce children towards a preoccupation with money. One might also consider using money as a framework for problems could disincentivise students who have money concerns and find it at some level stressful. So, there's a lot that can be going on that could be considered.
I refer you to what I said above to Tstorm.
Attack something accurately for what is wrong about it, rather than attempting to blow up the whole thing with improper selectivity and misrepresentation. If you want to make errors in how you attack something, don't act like you shouldn't have any pushback just because there really is a problem with what you attacked.
No.
The full quotation from the document is '"show their work" in standardised, prescribed ways'. In excluding a key part of the sentence construction he has fundamentally changed its meaning. And this is the sort of reason I call McWhorter dishonest and creating straw men.
Flaws do not invalidate the parts that are justifiable, but they do invalidate the reasoning that reached the flaws. You're describing a fallacy. Fallacies reach justifiable conclusions regularly, but you don't use them because they also reach unjustifiable conclusions regularly. You may as well be saying "sometimes there really is a slippery slope, so rejecting slippery slope arguments is really to throw out the baby with the bathwater".
Think of it this way: you say parts of this are justifiable, and I'm inclined to agree, but to reach that conclusion you are obligated to approach all of their suggestions from a different perspective then they are. You see bits and pieces and say "well sure, that's sort of reasonable and somewhat in line with normal teaching methods", but never once do you approach it as "because doing otherwise would be perpetuating white supremacy". You can justify all sorts of things, but you're not justifying them on the same basis as the authors. Why? Because their basis is bunk, and you know it is, because it leads to dumb conclusions at least some of the time.
Fallacies are only fallacies if they end up being wrong. Just saying "that's a fallacy so it's wrong just because it's on a list of fallacies and that makes it wrong" is a fallacy in and of itself. It's literally called The Fallacy Fallacy. Because, yes, sometimes there really is a slippery slope.
If you look at their suggestions and find them to be good suggestions based on your own reasoning, what's it matter as to how they got there? I mean, don't get me wrong: if you end up with the same suggestion as, like, a neo-nazi, maybe think extra hard about how you reached that conclusion, but merely a different way of teaching math? They could claim they got the idea from sentient moon crystals for all I care. If I can apply my own reasoning to it and it still seems like a good idea, why not roll with it? Given our apparently bad comparative math ability, worth a shot.
Fallacies aren't only fallacies if they end up being wrong. Fallacies are fallacies because the logic is invalid, which means you do not know if the conclusion is true or false. An argument that reaches exclusively incorrect conclusions would be almost as useful as one that reaches exclusively correct conclusions, the issue with a fallacy is that it doesn't tell you if the conclusion is valid or not. The reasoning is invalid, therefore the truth value of the conclusion is neither true nor false, it's unknown. Which is what the fallacy fallacy describes, the fallacy fallacy is believing that recognizing a fallacy tells you whether the conclusion is true or false.
And that's ultimately the problem of pointing out the places where they make agreeable recommendations as though it counterbalances the bad recommendations. If we know their methodology leads to some reasonable suggestions and some unreasonable suggestions, it doesn't mean that we should nothing of what they suggest. It means we should do nothing based on their suggestions, because them suggesting it should give you no confidence one way or the other whether the idea is good.
Edit:
Imagine a person who tells you things you should do, and it's like:
-Wake up
-Shower
-Piss out the window
-Get dressed
-Eat breakfast
-Kidnap your neighbors dog
-Go to work
-Put in your time card
-Throw the dog at a customer while yelling racial slurs
And when people said "maybe let's not listen to this person" the response was "yeah, but brushing your teeth is a good thing, maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions here".
Last edited:
Well, sure, but it just seemed a little bit like those exceptionally beautiful or handsome people who say looks don't matter.
I don't believe IQ is of much worth as a metric either, by the way, it was just an off-the-cuff jokey comment.
Might be. Might not be. Worthy of the response she got? (From the few responses I saw) Well, I would be asking follow up questions, sure. But, already seems to be way out of proportion. Also, doesn't this say it from 2011...
Let me remind the court that we are in a thread about cancelling. Because this seems like an over reaction to a perceived slight. The truth isnt verified but then, as you've pointed out many times, that even if it IS hateful language, you cant cancel them. They can say whatever they want. I would personally say this is too vague to make a decision.
And its a DECADE old. Anyway...
Sarkesian made a bunch of videos stating that stereotypes hurt women but dont hurt men. I said, back in 2013, that this is nonsense. You can go check my response out on the earlier version of this forum.
Power stereotypes can hurt men because when they dont succeed, it can be crippling for them. Which is especially galling when most media power stereotypes are super exaggerated and unobtainable. See Incels for an example of this failing crippling some men.
I say all this becuase it indicates that Sarkesian is a sexist, dismissing one gender's problems over another. I feel relatively comfortable saying this as she's done multiple videos making the same mistake. Im not going to call her that only becuase I no longer follow her work and dont know if she has improved. And I just dont like calling people name.
You had so much stuff to work with.
But thanks for wasting my week 'defending' a semi-innocuous tweet from a person I don't like
His ideal?
You stated that people today were speaking hyper racialised. And then, using a part of one speech, pretended the MLK wasnt using any hyper racialised language
What you did was
1. Decide what you wanted MLK to be to you (absolutely fine).
2. Pretended he did nothing else
3. Maybe up a myth about the Civil Rights struggle centred on this reading of MLK (mostly still all fine)
4. Made up a rule that the Civil Rights struggle cant use 'hyper racialised language' based on this myth of MLK. A rule that MLK could never meet
5. Stated that everyone today needed to follow that rule becuase of MLK. Which, again, MLK would have failed. Because you just made the rule up.
I would say that ONE of MLK ideals would be to speak freely about things. Race and class being one of them. Not to be censored like you have been doing just becuase you dont like thier language. And its pretty galling that you're misrepresenting MLK to do it.
Have you ideals of MLK all you want. Wanting a world without seeing race is great. Pretending that he would be for censor people just because they used the term African American is ridiculous
IQ doesn't matter in and off itself. It's when Sam Harris then says stuff like 'that why they have trouble being successful' is where I take issue. IQ does not lead to success. In fact, it's generally a hinderance. But it's a really good excuse for minorities being poor.
And then Murray makes up data about how 'only rich and smart peole know how to use properly' which can be seen acted out most recently in the Trump tax cuts and the CARES act... giving most the money to the rich because we cant take care of ourselves.
Dunno why you're bothering.
I said a woke talking head.
It wasn't me who got upset about influence or was trying to say she didn't count due to lack of influence.
It doesn't take a very high requirements to be a woke talking head person.
I will remind the court that the constant position being presented here is criticism isn't cancelling thus I am allowed to be critical of Anita for what she said or are only certain people allowed the privilege of being allowed to criticise?
Do I need to point out MLK was speaking in the past when there was very much segregation happening in the USA and while there are issues in the present things have changed.
The present isn't perfect but the way people talk you'd think the Gestapo were walking down the streets dragging POCs from their homes. When you focus on race and create race based inequalities by doing so then how is that solving the problem when you could focus on other factors that people keep saying most greatly impact POC and you'd get the same result only it would also help some poor white folks too?
You want to tell me how as an example trying to imply anyone who didn't by the $50 a month "Ally box" or whatever it was called, is a white supremacist helps anything? At some stage people have to realise attacking and trying to shame people for refusing to go along with whatever will fail and it will cost people those who could well be on their side because "Oh if I don't agree with you 100% and do 100% of what you want 100% of the time then you'll just throw the same shaming tactics and insults anyway so what is the god damned point when there is never a point where it's enough"
Also I never said he'd censor people for using the term African American. He'd probably be far more concerned and unhappy with the "soft racism" of low expectations based on race. We shouldn't be seeing things like diversity hires and lowering of college entry requirements based on race.
So, because this person kidnapped their neighbor's dog to throw at some customers while yelling racial slurs, you shouldn't shower, brush your teeth, or go to work?
How does that track? Also, that's a timeline, not a conclusion nor an argument. Like, this is a giant and particularly ridiculous non-sequiter.
Okay, so obviously you disagree that the current predominant way of teaching math in the US has a racist background. Fine. Bearing in mind that globally we suck at math, are the suggestions bad?
Is the idea that tests shouldn't be used for grades but for identifying areas that need to be studied better a bad idea? Incidentally, that's the philosophy for most tests used in Japan, and they are kicking our ass at math, so think carefully
Is the idea that we should be tying word problems and math examples to local conditions instead of Throckmorton's Texas Turnip Stand a bad idea? I don't give a shit how they got there, is the idea bad?
Last edited:
Those are good questions. Unfortunately, the document isn't interested in addressing them, nor are many others.
I don't know what a "WASPC approach" is, to be frank.
Actually, I am aware of it. Off the top of my head, I recall reading how, when segregation ended, some pools were drained or paved over because racists would rather have no pool rather than share it (or something like that).
That said, not sure how this is relevant to what's actually being discussed.
Anita isn't a nobody. She's argued in front of the UN, among other things.
Not that the sexist harassment was defendable in any way.
Except that's a fact that's true of, well, wokeists as well (for lack of a better term).
It's this bizzare situation where African immigrants to the US do much, MUCH better than people who might be grouped under "ADOS." So on one hand, it's a poke in the eye to actual white supremacists, but it's also not something one should mention when discussing the effects of racism. It's why the Smithsonian article is so bizzare because...well, as I've shown earlier, it's a case of wokeists and racists putting forward the same argument to make their point.
Not sure I like where that argument is going.
First, I'll fully admit that different groups will, on average, have different interests. Fair enough. However, if you're going to tailor your class based on its composition, I don't think that idea is entirely without merit, but it runs into the risk of putting such 'groups' into cultural silos. Predominantly black class? Study rap. Predominantly white class? Study classical music. Predominantly female class? Study Jane Austen. Predominantly male class? Study George Orwell. It's also arguably deterministic - "you're X, so of course you're going to be interested in Y."
There's also the fact that if you ask what kids are into, they'll generally latch onto easy readings. I forget where I read it exactly, but I recall a school trying this approach, and what the kids wanted to read was stuff like Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. Now, I'll sing the praises of the former till the day I die, but is HP really the kind of text you'd assign to children? I can go even further back and go over the debate about Goosebumps, with one strain of thought saying "these books are trash, and kids are reading trash," with another saying "well, they're reading something, that's good, isn't it?" I can't say which strain of thought is correct, but I can say that Goosebumps is not a series I'd ever assign to students.
I've read through the document. I can't see where he's being dishonest.
It's one thing to say stuff like "it's a good idea to have kids show their working," it's another to filter that idea through an inherent trait.
Were they filtering that idea through the lens of race or not?
Except in the cases being discussed, the language is the same.
No just the idea it has an objectively right answer and not it potentially being any answer you want because personal truth nonsense.
Also some of the thing that were being called White culture / Whitenes
You're getting it backwards. The point is that just because you should shower and brush your teeth and go to work, that doesn't mean you should listen to anyone who tells you to.
Here's a concrete real world example: Jordan Peterson tells people to clean their rooms. Cleaning your room is a good thing. Imagine if people here were criticizing Jordan Peterson, and my defense was just to insist "he tells people to clean their rooms, so he's not all bad" and then ignore the stuff people are criticizing.
I already addressed this in brief: it is an improvement to adapt the classroom for what you hope the pupils are interested in and I agree it poses some risk of making unsafe assumptions, but you can also just find out direct from the pupils by finding out what they are interested in. I would not be surprised if there aren't some (and potentially a surprisingly large number) teachers who have no interest in what their pupils like. They want to teach X in this way, and so it will be done, even if it decreases the engagement of 90% of their pupils. (I am frequently amazed at many teachers' disregard for their pupils I hear from others.)
You appear to be talking about an English class here. At an early age, leaving the kids free to choose to get the books they read to help develop interest in reading seems suitable, but there's clearly a point where they need to read works of appropriate complexity. Again, it should be possible for a teacher to know what interests a class and select works that may be more likely to interest them. In later years, demands for state-level exams will normally mean a much more limited number of set texts on a syllabus due to the need for state/national exams.
As just one example, I refer you to my reply #966, the section replying to Schradrach. His portrayal of the document is clearly not the same as the document.
In a piece of degree coursework I had to do a pharmacokinetics calculation. We were taught a way to do it in pharmacology tutorial, but it was a mathematical process I was familiar with from my schooldays. So when I did the coursework, I did it in a way that made more intuitive sense to me from my old understanding rather than the way taught in the tutorial. I will admit my "intuitive" method was clumsier and more long-winded, but I just preferred it. I got the right answer, but was marked down for my calculation. I objected that what I had done was mathematically accurate, and was basically told "tough". So I literally have personal experience of what it is like to be penalised for not meeting a prescribed or standardised maths working, and I do not think it was fair then nor do I think it fair now.
A big hole in our reasoning here is that I suspect none of us have read the texts in the bibliography. In there, I would suggest, is a theoretical lens through which many of the processes in the document are justified to reduce racism. And not just racism of course, but sexism, homophobia etc. too. If we take a simple idea of an education system as a power structure: syllabus design through to teachers to pupils, then societal attitudes pour through the system from the top down. Disrupting that and giving more say to those at the bottom (pupils) could reasonably reduce the deliberate or neglectful imposition of societal attitudes suspected to be unhealthy.
This is made all the more infuriating when I realize the bulk of idiotic gatekeeping posts like "If yo man does (insert innocent innocuous activity) then he's a HOMO/FEMININE!!" are done by black women.
Because I don't like lies and people try to take others out over perceived slight just because they misinterpret things. You know, a lot of the basis of cancel culture