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'd rather have a senile Biden than a communist. What's your point?
What is it like to be so tedious?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.Offhand, strikes me that showing the working achieves several important functions:
1) Allowing students to get partial credit for doing some things right even if the final product was wrong
2) Facilitating feedback to the students so they can see what they did wrong
3) Facilitating feedback to the teacher to show what the students are doing wrong, with the dual function of both helping those students do better, but also to allow reflection on one's own teaching in case it could be improved.
Potentially also in some circumstances:
4) Making cheating harder. It's easy for a student to tell another an answer (e.g. "18"), much harder to tell them how that answer was achieved.
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.I don't think I've ever seen someone spin their argument 180 degrees faster than this. How did you go from "ideas come from somewhere, white people using them doesn't make the idea white" to "who invented a concept isn't nearly as important as how it's expressed here and now" that fast? I'm not saying those are mutually exclusive, but it's like watching a swimmer reach a wall, do a kick flip, and start swimming completely the opposite direction.
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.I think you're closer to correct this direction, but if the point here is "how you express things matters", that doesn't justify defending that guide. People who wrote that understand that how you express something matters. People who oppose it also understand that. Probably most people entirely indifferent understand that. "Well yes, they have a point that expressing things in certain ways makes a difference in educational outcomes for people from different backgrounds", sure, but they make concrete recommendations for how to express things that involve a lot of stupid crap.
I dismissed it as specious waffle because it was couched in terms of specious waffle about CRT.You gave your most flippant response to the part where I point to them advocating against teaching money to fight capitalism. Would you care to acknowledge some of that?
I refer you to what I said above to Tstorm.I read through the whole thing.
If we take the document as a statement ...
No.I can see the argument behind that. But then, wasn't being expected to show your work another of those things that's supposedly a way white supremacy creeps into mathematics, just like being expected to get the right answer?
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".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.
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.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".
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.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.
Well, sure, but it just seemed a little bit like those exceptionally beautiful or handsome people who say looks don't matter.I've spent the last few pages arguing it's bullshit.
If IQ scores measure what they pretend to measure, then feeling good or bad about your number is like feeling good or bad about your eye color or shoe size. Aka, you shouldn't feel good or bad about your eye color or shoe size and it's bullshit that society pushes you to.
Only we can prove what color eyes are and what size feet are, but we aren't sure IQ tests measure IQ and it's probably just bullshit to begin with.
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...No but coming in like Anita did to counter the claims being made rather suggests a specific position and wanting people to doubt said research saying it didn't improve learning.
His ideal?I will when you can explain how exactly I'm misrepresenting Doctor King's ultimate ideal situation he wanted to see reached.
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.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.
Dunno why you're bothering.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
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.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
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?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.
Imagine a person who tells you things you should do, and it's like:
-Piss out the window
-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".
Those are good questions. Unfortunately, the document isn't interested in addressing them, nor are many others.Nobody's defining "white supremacy" as "good at math".
How does Singapore teach math? How does Japan teach math? How do the Netherlands teach math?
I don't know what a "WASPC approach" is, to be frank.And how does that differ from the USA's bizarre White Anglo Saxon Protestant Calvinist approach to...basically everything?
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).I don't know if you know this, but in the USA white supremacists have a long and proud history of hurting themselves as long as they hurt other people worse.
Anita isn't a nobody. She's argued in front of the UN, among other things.Let's pretend for a second that this is true (and we're pretending because you've proven your relationship with facts is tangential at best often enough), Anita is literally just a random video blogger. Her videos mean nothing in the end beyond her having an opinion and have influence over no one. She's really not famous for anything beyond being the target of sexist harassment.
Except that's a fact that's true of, well, wokeists as well (for lack of a better term).You also do not do that split regarding African Americans, African refugees, and African immigrant, which, like "Asians" all being lumped together, also show vastly different statistics for different groups.
White supremacists tend to not like people pointing out that Black people track the same as white people with regards to most stats when you compare equivalent access to resources.
Not sure I like where that argument is going.That argument is sophistry: clearly ideas come from places; for a majority white society to take and implement ideas and examples from non-white communities does not automatically make those ideas "white". There are forms of cultural relevance: if black people's interest in country and western is much lower than their interest in R&B, if we want to set a problem around a real-life situation (because such context can help provide relevance, and thus learner engagement), R&B may be better choice than country and western for a majority black class. Or even better, find out what interests are of kids in the class (irrespective of race, class, gender, etc.) and use them rather than attempt to predict.
I've read through the document. I can't see where he's being dishonest.I can forgive you and Hawki and millions more not knowing anything about pedagogy, as you are not teachers and were probably educated many years ago under systems and teachers that were plenty of years behind the cutting edge even at the time. McWhorter, however, appears to be in higher education. He reasonably could and should be aware, and instead he's written what seems to me to be a somewhat ignorant or dishonest criticism. But then I guess he doesn't need to try harder. I am not his intended audience, you are.
Were they filtering that idea through the lens of race or not?EDIT: Just on maths teaching in particular, I remember a while ago that they had to try and change the way the teach math because there were heaps of people who could do their times tables but a large portion of them didn't understand how to multiply. Don't think it helps in this case but just an interesting fact
Except in the cases being discussed, the language is the same.To give a simple idea of this, imagine teaching mathematics in Romanian to a bunch of German speakers: it doesn't matter how good the mathematical explanations might be, the educational experience for the students would be extraordinarily poor.
No just the idea it has an objectively right answer and not it potentially being any answer you want because personal truth nonsense.Nobody's defining "white supremacy" as "good at math".
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.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?
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.)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."
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.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.
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.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?
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 cultureDunno 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?