|
Post by Christine on Oct 23, 2017 8:54:04 GMT -5
Let's talk about Affirmative Action. (This is not a tangent. Bear with me.) Most people are either for or against Affirmative Action both because they have a misunderstanding of what it actually is/is supposed to be, and because they see how it's actually implemented. A liberal professor friend of mine once gave me the AA lecture he gave his grad students at the start of every semester. He was proud of the fact that they would typically come in with attitudes ranging from skepticism to hostility (the white ones, anyway) and by the end of his lecture, he'd have converted them to believing that AA actually made sense. He did the same for me. I won't try to summarize his entire lecture, because it's not my field, but basically he described a very sensible regimen of evaluating outcomes - i.e., is the number of non-white people graduating college proportionate to the population? How about the grading curve? If there are inequitiies, let's study them and find out if they are happening because of implicit or explicit biases. Etc. If not enough black people are being admitted to a university, look at the criteria, look at the rejection and acceptance rates for whites and blacks, find out if black people are being screened for factors other than not being as good as the white applicants. All really quite reasonable approaches that anyone who's actually against racism would have a hard time disagreeing with. Here's the problem: what most people think of as AA is how it actually gets implemented: quotas. Because the above method is really difficult and time-consuming and expensive, and it's much easier to say "If the number of white students admitted is too high, obviously there is racism so we need to reduce the number of white students." Some people are cool with that. Maybe you're cool with that. I'm not, but I like to see programs implemented in a way that shows empirical efficacy. This is all quite reasonable. And I totally agree that "does it work" is an important question. This sounds like a great idea. This is how I see the concept, as well. I think each teacher/professor in each class should do this. And probably many do. This is where I disagree. I don't think this T.A. is representative of what actually happens, at all. I think the OP story is an example of taking a single extreme instance (and yes, I'm sure there are more out there) and using it to cut down a technique that has merit. As is the case with many "SJW" stories. Essentially, "This can work if it is implemented properly" is not invalidated by the argument "This doesn't work because there are some people who won't implement it properly." Implementation is important, and so, again, I don't think we are that far apart here. I also get the sense that many teachers/professors are already, to the best of their ability, using these techniques, checking their own biases, putting emphasis on hearing from minority voices, and so forth--and that is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 23, 2017 9:09:09 GMT -5
This is where I disagree. I don't think this T.A. is representative of what actually happens, at all. I think the OP story is an example of taking a single extreme instance (and yes, I'm sure there are more out there) and using it to cut down a technique that has merit. As is the case with many "SJW" stories. Essentially, "This can work if it is implemented properly" is not invalidated by the argument "This doesn't work because there are some people who won't implement it properly." Implementation is important, and so, again, I don't think we are that far apart here. I also get the sense that many teachers/professors are already, to the best of their ability, using these techniques, checking their own biases, putting emphasis on hearing from minority voices, and so forth--and that is a good thing. This is probably where we fundamentally and irreconcilably disagree. You have more faith in the good intentions, charity, and competence of SJWs than I do. I believe SJWs (and I know that term is a loaded one, I am using it deliberately to distinguish them from the more general case of "People who believe social justice is a good thing") are mostly bad faith actors who fancy themselves to be doing good but mostly engage in showy displays of virtue, while their actual objective is counting coup against enemies and acquiring influence and status. And "progressive stacking" is a quintessential SJW construct. It's all about creating a new form of "meritocracy" where merit is measured by how many axes you are oppressed on. I do think most teachers are genuinely concerned about discrimination in the classroom, but I don't think most teachers are adopting "progressive stacking" as a classroom methodology and I think it would be a bad idea for them to do so. I also cannot discount "This is a bad idea because it is usually implemented badly" as readily as you do. Yes, Affirmative Action, and even progressive stacking, would probably be useful and beneficial if implemented by the book as intended. Arguably, so would communism. When an idea has demonstrably failed to work as intended, it's time to consider that maybe a good idea on paper just doesn't work in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 23, 2017 9:31:31 GMT -5
So much for MLK's dream.
Too bad he didn't throw something in there about dangly bits, or the lack thereof, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 23, 2017 11:38:42 GMT -5
So much for MLK's dream. Too bad he didn't throw something in there about dangly bits, or the lack thereof, as well. You do know MLK was a very strong proponent of Affirmative Action, right?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 23, 2017 11:55:32 GMT -5
I agree that a teacher shouldn't conduct their class the way any 1 student or group of students thinks is the proper way. That's absurd and can't be done. And certainly, if you're a person who thinks you're being discriminated against because you're not the first person to get called on all the time, you need an ego check.
But if the remedy to the idea that students haven't been treated fairly in the past is to insist on a system where you don't treat students fairly in the reverse order, you need a new way of doing things.
Again McKellop didn't talk about a method to make sure all voices are heard equally. She specifically said that white male voices are the last she wants to hear from, and only when there's no other choice.
This didn't come from a white male student that felt that she may not chose him as much as she chooses some other student, these were her words.
She operates on the assumption that a woman of color has the least opportunities to be heard. Period. That a male POC is next likely not to have that chance. A white woman, (I'm assuming WW meant white woman and not Wonder Woman, because if it was the latter, always call on Wonder Woman, first, last and in-between) the 3rd most likely. And a white male, by virtue of being a white male, is so privileged that they never have not heard their voices heard.
I had a discussion about this with my foster son's older brother this weekend and he was pretty peeved at the idea that he's privileged. Without going into personal detail, I can assure you his family has known no privilege and there are plenty of white men out there who also have not.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 23, 2017 12:04:30 GMT -5
Let's talk about Affirmative Action. (This is not a tangent. Bear with me.) Most people are either for or against Affirmative Action both because they have a misunderstanding of what it actually is/is supposed to be, and because they see how it's actually implemented. A liberal professor friend of mine once gave me the AA lecture he gave his grad students at the start of every semester. He was proud of the fact that they would typically come in with attitudes ranging from skepticism to hostility (the white ones, anyway) and by the end of his lecture, he'd have converted them to believing that AA actually made sense. He did the same for me. I won't try to summarize his entire lecture, because it's not my field, but basically he described a very sensible regimen of evaluating outcomes - i.e., is the number of non-white people graduating college proportionate to the population? How about the grading curve? If there are inequitiies, let's study them and find out if they are happening because of implicit or explicit biases. Etc. If not enough black people are being admitted to a university, look at the criteria, look at the rejection and acceptance rates for whites and blacks, find out if black people are being screened for factors other than not being as good as the white applicants. All really quite reasonable approaches that anyone who's actually against racism would have a hard time disagreeing with. Here's the problem: what most people think of as AA is how it actually gets implemented: quotas. Because the above method is really difficult and time-consuming and expensive, and it's much easier to say "If the number of white students admitted is too high, obviously there is racism so we need to reduce the number of white students." Some people are cool with that. Maybe you're cool with that. I'm not, but I like to see programs implemented in a way that shows empirical efficacy. This is all quite reasonable. And I totally agree that "does it work" is an important question. This sounds like a great idea. This is how I see the concept, as well. I think each teacher/professor in each class should do this. And probably many do. This is where I disagree. I don't think this T.A. is representative of what actually happens, at all. I think the OP story is an example of taking a single extreme instance (and yes, I'm sure there are more out there) and using it to cut down a technique that has merit. As is the case with many "SJW" stories. Essentially, "This can work if it is implemented properly" is not invalidated by the argument "This doesn't work because there are some people who won't implement it properly." Implementation is important, and so, again, I don't think we are that far apart here. I also get the sense that many teachers/professors are already, to the best of their ability, using these techniques, checking their own biases, putting emphasis on hearing from minority voices, and so forth--and that is a good thing. The entire concept of all of this is to make sure students that may have been marginalized aren't, right? A teacher can't control what happens in other classes, just their own. So the idea of progressive stacking is call on that side first because you may have a bias and not be aware of it. So make sure you start here with this student or there with that one, not with the white guy.
The approach itself indicates the issue is with the teacher and their bias, and a way to overcome it. Being aware is one thing. But knowing that students often participate more or less for a variety of different reasons is probably more important.
This teacher has an implicit bias against white male students. So if that's true, should she be mandated to call on them first?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 12:35:13 GMT -5
So much for MLK's dream. Too bad he didn't throw something in there about dangly bits, or the lack thereof, as well. MLK threw in a lot of things in the 1963 March on Washington speech, but as to be expected, guys like you always cherry-pick it and treat it like a buffet: choose what you want and ignore the rest. That's quite annoying to those of us who embrace the entire speech, not just the bastardized parts. ...one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.It's appalling how someone who styles himself as such an intellectual icon he goes so far to quote himself, could miss the subtle warnings and direct confrontation in MLK's speech. Why hasn't King's dream come to pass? Because the crisis conditions he described here have not been resolved. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream." If you truly believe in the Dream you can't dilute it down to a catchphrase. It must be taken in its totality. If you can't or won't then leave MLK and his dream the hell alone.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 23, 2017 12:46:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 23, 2017 12:54:25 GMT -5
Agreed, but I don't think she needs to be disciplined. She just needs to be told not to do dumb shit, and not to brag about doing dumb shit on Twitter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 13:43:10 GMT -5
derail/
To note, Vince, the "not all white males are privileged" argument is pretty much guaranteed to get the thread off on a massive acrimonious detour. And for the record, I get why. A white guy might grow up poor, he might be abused, he might struggle tooth and nail to achieve. But put him in a suit, give him an education, polish up his manners, and he's going to blend right in with the other white guys. Whereas a person of color can't remove their skin. A woman can't turn into a man. And you can give us a fancy education, lots of money, etc., and there will always, always, always be some who will refuse to regard us as equals. Sometimes blatantly so, more often subtly so.
For example, as a woman, and particularly as a petite woman, I often have to work harder and speak more assertively to get some guys to take me seriously. Frankly, I often have to work harder to get the WOMEN to take me seriously -- because pfft on that sisterhood crap, a lot of women regard another woman achieving things as a direct reproach/offense to them and do all they can to put us and keep us down. If I speak quietly, too often I'm ignored. If I speak louder, too often I'm dismissed as shrill and bossy. And there is nothing much I can do about that but keep on keeping on. Similarly, a black man will have a certain number of people who will always regard him (consciously or unconsciously) with fear and/or suspicion, and/or as less intelligent and accomplished than they are -- regardless of evidence to the contrary. (Indeed, because of my Hispanic name, I get the "assumption of less intelligence" thing directed at me. It's a thing I have experienced and really hate. And that, by the way, is why I'm pretty assertive and a tad defensive about "I don't need any goddamn help, thanks. I'm smart, I'm hard-working. Just don't stand in my way and we'll be fine." It's a chip on my shoulder, one I carry to this day.)
E.g., look at just how many people still sneer at Barack Obama and dismiss his obvious intelligence and demonstrated accomplishments as being solely because he must have gotten some kind of special "help." Ditto on Hillary Clinton. I submit that if they were both exactly the same except that they were white males, some might still hate 'em, but there wouldn't be the "oh, he was an idiot and only there because of quotas" "oh, she only accomplished anything because she married Bill."
So -- the privilege thing isn't about how much hardship you go through in your life. It's about how a white male skin, in and of itself, is the absence of a particular disadvantage. It is one white males in our society have always had, and therefore don't necessarily even appreciate or notice. And it's one that people of color and women have never had and can never have. Until we eliminate racism and sexism, that will always be true, though I submit it's not as bad as it was. A woman CAN be a CEO. A black man CAN be president. We're definitely not there all the way, there's still a long way to go, but it's better than it was.
/derail
So. Back to the thread topic. Here's why I don't think "progressive stacking," as implemented by this TA, is useful. In fact, I think it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE and does more harm than good. I don't mean to white males. Let's take aside the white males for a moment and assume it has no negative effect on them. (Prob not true, btw, but we'll assume it.) I mean to the people it purports to help.
(1) Again I have to note that we don't have a shred of evidence in this thread, even anecdotal, to show that simply raising your hand and participating isn't enough to solve the problem of white males doing most of the talking in college classes. (Actually, we don't even have anything in the thread to show that white males are dominating classrooms in the first place. I'm not at all sure it's true these days. But I'm going to assume it's the case for purposes of this post.)
I actually bothered googling for studies, even flimsy ones, showing that college professors ignored non-white males who raised their hands and tried to join the discussion. (I bolded that because I think there are indeed arenas where this happens. I just don't think modern college campuses are one of those arenas, or at least not often.) And indeed, since my own experience and observation is exactly counter to that, I'm not willing to buy that this is a thing without something, anything, showing it is the case. (You are asking me to reject what I've seen and experienced -- is it really such a goddamn stretch to ask for evidence or at least a damn anecdote?)
(2) Perhaps not ALL college campuses are liberal, but surely college campuses overall these days are about the most liberal institutions you're going to find. Professors, student bodies, administrations -- Yeah, sure there are some racists. But there is also a much, much larger proportion of allies and sympathizers than one would find in most places. Overall you are damn unlikely to find a more nurturing environment to find your wings and learn to deal with asserting yourself, and with competing and dealing with the more privileged, and getting a shit ton of support in doing so.
(3) One really good way to hone your skills for the real world is in learning to assert yourself in a classroom -- which is a reasonably safe space, generally speaking. Getting past that hump and raising your hand, asking questions, countering assertions -- that's valuable experience that carries through into the real world. If anyone tries to silence you or ignore you -- hell, you fucking pay tuition. Complain and chances are good, much better than in the real world, that you'll get the support of the administration or a protesting horde of sympathetic fellow students and maybe an article in HuffPo.
(4) If instead of encouraging people of color and women to take their places in that fray and give as good as they get, you say "shut up, all you white boys, and leave the field open so that only the people of color can speak," you create a false world that doesn't in the least help in the real world where, hello, that is not going to happen.
You can denigrate my own experience all you like, Nighttimer, but learning to get past my own feelings of intimidation to speak up and debate the Robeiaes, Amadans, and Optys in class was damn fucking good practice for my doing so in my career and in real life in general. I don't expect -- or need -- anyone to shut up in order for me to speak.
You repeatedly scoff and abuse my pride in this, seemingly assuming that this was handed to me out of the goddamn clouds as a divine gift. (I also enjoy how you twist my pride in MY ASSERTING MYSELF IN CLASS as bragging about how intelligent I am.) Well, it wasn't a gift. I didn't grow up rich and fancy, and I was brought up in a pretty traditional environment where the women all were married by age 20 and started popping out kids, where the women did all the cooking and household chores, and where both of my parents actually tried to DISCOURAGE me from applying to ivy league schools or becoming a lawyer because that wasn't for "people like us." It took them actually seeing me at my law school graduation for my own fucking family to actually fucking start to accept that I could maybe do it. Taking aside sexism, etc., I had some native shyness and native feelings of inferiority I had to overcome. Hell, I still fight those things.
And it is from THAT standpoint that I say it was actually a very helpful thing to push my way past all that and learn to debate with the naturally confident white guys who tended to lead classroom discussions -- to learn that I could not only hold my own in a discussion with them, but also win my share of the arguments, and to learn that the first vital indispensable step was thrusting up my hand and my voice and getting all Hermione.
THAT was empowering. A hell of a lot more empowering than if someone said "OK, all you white boys shut up. Only girls get to talk in my class. Now dear, go ahead and speak."
As I've already said, I think professors absolutely should double down on efforts to encourage those who are interested in participating to participate. If there are professors ignoring people of color and women in their class, they need to be called out on it. Absolutely.
But frankly, I think the real problem in college classes these days (assuming there is one, which we still have no evidence for) is less likely to be professors ignoring women and people of color and more likely to be women and people of color feeling intimidated, not confident, or whatever, and not putting themselves out there in the first place. And THAT is a problem I think is better addressed not by telling white college boys to shut up in class but instead by encouraging people of color and women to speak up and make themselves heard. That effort IMO actually should begin a lot earlier, back in grade school. That's also where a lot of the effects of racism need to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 23, 2017 13:57:26 GMT -5
Agreed, but I don't think she needs to be disciplined. She just needs to be told not to do dumb shit, and not to brag about doing dumb shit on Twitter. I agree. Initially, I skimmed and thought she was a professor. But she's not, she's a PHD candidate working as a TA. Telling her what is wrong with her approach is sufficient, imo. Of course, the problem now is there seem to be people who actually think her approach was okay And really, whatever she does in a lecture or the like is between her and the students there (who again are paying to be there). If they don't complain, that's the end of it. Her big mistake was presented her methods publicly as her classroom policy, as it were. Again, I don't think that the school can allow that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 14:00:54 GMT -5
Agreed, but I don't think she needs to be disciplined. She just needs to be told not to do dumb shit, and not to brag about doing dumb shit on Twitter. I agree. Initially, I skimmed and thought she was a professor. But she's not, she's a PHD candidate working as a TA. Telling her what is wrong with her approach is sufficient, imo. Of course, the problem now is there seem to be people who actually think her approach was okay And really, whatever she does in a lecture or the like is between her and the students there (who again are paying to be there). If they don't complain, that's the end of it. Her big mistake was presented her methods publicly as her classroom policy, as it were. Again, I don't think that the school can allow that. Agree.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 15:19:15 GMT -5
It's about fucking time you and Christine acknowledged my presence in this thread. Up until now you were too goddamn busy talking to the white boys and pretending I wasn't here. Not the first time it has happened, either. I got as in your face as I could to try to change that dynamic. Mission. Fucking. Accomplished. I reference this only to remind myself of how shrill and confrontational it was. And how it assured everything after it would be shrill and confrontational. Mission. Fucking. Accomplished. Indeed. Hope you're feeling better. You can denigrate my own experience all you like, Nighttimer, but learning to get past my own feelings of intimidation to speak up and debate the Robeiaes, Amadans, and Optys in class was damn fucking good practice for my doing so in my career and in real life in general. I don't expect -- or need -- anyone to shut up in order for me to speak. You repeatedly scoff and abuse my pride in this, seemingly assuming that this was handed to me out of the goddamn clouds as a divine gift. (I also enjoy how you twist my pride in MY ASSERTING MYSELF IN CLASS as bragging about how intelligent I am.) Well, it wasn't a gift. I didn't grow up rich and fancy, and I was brought up in a pretty traditional environment where the women all were married by age 20 and started popping out kids, where the women did all the cooking and household chores, and where both of my parents actually tried to DISCOURAGE me from applying to ivy league schools or becoming a lawyer because that wasn't for "people like us." It took them actually seeing me at my law school graduation for my own fucking family to actually fucking start to accept that I could maybe do it. Taking aside sexism, etc., I had some native shyness and native feelings of inferiority I had to overcome. Hell, I still fight those things. It's great you became empowered and assertive and now you're so fucking fierce you don't have to take a back step for anyone. What do you want me to do here? Applaud? I didn't denigrate your experience. I said your experience is irrelevant to this topic. It is. So is mine, but the difference between us is I know it already. You insist anecdotal stories are relevant and take umbrage to it being doubted. I didn't scoff and abuse your pride. You took dismissing your anecdotal stories as scoffing and abusing your pride. We did this routine last week over Liz Soeiro vs. Melania Trump and you took that personally too. It's nice you feel confident you're battle tested enough to crash and bang with the Amadans, Optys and robeiaes in your college classes and now on this board, but eeing how I'm none of those guys, have nothing in common with of those guys, and I'm nothing like any of those guys, a more relevant question in regards to the contentious serve-and-volley of the last few weeks is, " Are you ready to deal with nighttimer?" I'll confirm one thing and one thing only you brought up earlier. No, I didn't have a problem speaking up in class and making my viewpoint clear and where I stood on the matte. Speaking up for myself and asserting myself in the presence of White people has never been a problem. Other Black college students do have that problem. They feel isolated as they are often outnumbered in the lecture halls and classrooms. They may not have all the right facts in the correct order. They may feel embarrassed by how they speak and wonder if they're articulate enough to engage with their White classmates and professors (or teaching assistants). Maybe they shut down and shut up. Move to the back of the classroom or lecture hall and hope like hell the instructor doesn't call on them or when they do, mumble out something to indicate they aren't prepared to answer the question even though they are. A powerful and influential Black man once said, "I didn't grow up speaking standard English at home...I grew up with people who were not lettered people, most of whom couldn't read at all. It was not uncommon, when someone was signing something, they would simply make their mark. Or they would take your word for it. Or they would be upset if you asked them to sign a contract because their word was the contract. So in that environment these people, my relatives, my neighbors, treasured education in a way that people who were hungry would treasure food." That was Clarence Thomas. Thomas also said in his 2007 memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son,” he had never asked questions in college or law school and felt intimidated by some of his fellow students. Thomas said he was self-conscious about the way he spoke, partly because he had been teased about the accent he grew up speaking with in Georgia. That still holds true. College campuses chew up and spit out the ill-prepared, the too shy, the easily intimidated. There's a certain safety in silence. Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. That's a great coping tactic to get through feeling you're not as smart as your peers or your presence isn't really wanted and they probably think you only got in because of affirmative action in the first place. Why open your mouth and possibly confirm their suspicions? Why set yourself up to be publicly humiliated because you don't have the right clothes or speak with a drawl or drop your "g's"? What you don't get Cassandra is no matter how inspirational your story is to you, that's your story. It's got nothing to do with what a Black female college student goes through. Maybe you think they could learn from you and that's certainly possible. But it's not likely. Not when you assert because its never happened to you it doesn't exist in your world. Lucky you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 15:31:27 GMT -5
Well, I will certainly agree that you and I are not arguing in the same world.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 23, 2017 16:22:52 GMT -5
This is probably where we fundamentally and irreconcilably disagree. You have more faith in the good intentions, charity, and competence of SJWs than I do. I believe SJWs (and I know that term is a loaded one, I am using it deliberately to distinguish them from the more general case of "People who believe social justice is a good thing") are mostly bad faith actors who fancy themselves to be doing good but mostly engage in showy displays of virtue, while their actual objective is counting coup against enemies and acquiring influence and status. And "progressive stacking" is a quintessential SJW construct. It's all about creating a new form of "meritocracy" where merit is measured by how many axes you are oppressed on. I don't refer to people as "SJWs." I don't have more faith than you in "SJWs"; I have more faith that people aren't these "SJWs" of which you speak -- especially not just because, in this case, they find merit or see logic in progressive stacking. I find merit and see logic in it, and I'm not an "SJW." (In my opinion, heh.) I don't know why you think they aren't. It's just speculation either way, but isn't there a general complaint out there that so many schools/professors/administrators are over-the-top ultra-liberal, whiny, safe-space providing, free-speech restricting, generally abominable places? Surely at least some of them are doing this. The other thing I was pondering on today: you had mentioned how schools have, for a long time, been all about empowering the girls. And I agree that, at least for white women, this has had a positive effect. So I wonder how many people back in the day were complaining about how useless or unfair or virtue-signally it was to implement programs that empowered girls? I think a better argument against communism, rather than that it was implemented badly, would be that people did not respond as was predicted. Anyway, you're right, we're most likely not ever going to agree on some of these things. Regardless, I appreciate the conversation.
|
|