Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [alex_korr] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 13:54

Post #101 of 323 (1332 views)

I've a equivalent degree from the Quadratic Equation. Not that you would want me to build anything for you

We're dancing around a question asked by a hyper soccer Mom in San Diego?

there is no satisfying that phoneme---she will dash on to the next shiny object in public discourse.

Steve

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [Steve Hawley] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 14:00

Post #102 of 323 (1323 views)

Steve Hawley wrote:

Shouldn't you be skiing in Gestaad or sailing the Caribean in a yacht---while telling us lesser folks how to act, live and vote?

* I hear there's a partial eclipse of the sun up in Nova Scotia!?

I like it ^ don’t think many will get it.

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [alex_korr] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 14:01

Post #103 of 323 (1321 views)

alex_korr wrote:

chaparral wrote:

alex_korr wrote:

CallMeMaybe wrote:

Vocabulary and word choice. I’ve been thinking about the meanings of words and phrases.

I was talking with someone who said black people cannot be reasonably expected to continue to put up with disrespect. I understood his use of “disrespect” to be synonymous with racism, white supremacy, violation of human dignity, inequality, It was a serious conversation so I gave the word “disrespect “ a very serious meaning.

I hear complaints about hyper-aggressive, woke, cancel culture, and I wonder if this feeling of being pushed too far is related in some way to vocabulary and word choice. I wonder if white men were a little more loosey-goosey as they interpret and translate messages about this subject, would they be more amenable to the core concepts? Would there be more common ground?

Do certain words and phrases jar you? Does reading about “white supremacy math” bug you? Does the phrase “math teaching styles that are disrespectful to human dignity” bug you? They are the same thing.

I have not been particularly bothered by the phrase “defund the police” because I understand it to mean reallocating resources and duties for nonpolice work away from police to people who should have the work and resources. It doesn’t seem objectionable, but I know plenty of people do find it objectionable. Why do they object?

How comfortable are you letting someone else define a word or phrase? (“Excuse me, I’m speaking.”)

Specifically with regards to “white supremacy math” - what I find objectionable is that the people charged with teaching kids how to take derivatives and find square roots, instead feel that they can promulgate their political views in a public school setting (which is supposed to be apolitical in theory).

There is a fundamental problem with your view here. You are saying that addressing biases in education is promulgating some political view. But if you believe that is what is happening, then not addressing them (what you are proposing) is simply promulgating a different political view.

So you appear to actually support political views in school, as long as they are ones you agree with.

Perhaps I don't believe that there are material biases? At least neither myself nor my spouse or my kids have really noticed them through our combined 60+ years or so of going through schooling.

Wow, really large sample size there. Are you suggesting that your evidence is better than an actual study, with larger sample size and more rigorous analysis? Also, maybe are not the best judge of if there was bias?

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [Clutch Cargo] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 14:02

Post #104 of 323 (1321 views)

Carly Rhey

and

Carly Simon will get it

Steve

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [Clutch Cargo] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 14:12

Post #105 of 323 (1312 views)

Steve

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [chaparral] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 14:23

Post #106 of 323 (1305 views)

chaparral wrote:

alex_korr wrote:

chaparral wrote:

alex_korr wrote:

CallMeMaybe wrote:

Vocabulary and word choice. I’ve been thinking about the meanings of words and phrases.

I was talking with someone who said black people cannot be reasonably expected to continue to put up with disrespect. I understood his use of “disrespect” to be synonymous with racism, white supremacy, violation of human dignity, inequality, It was a serious conversation so I gave the word “disrespect “ a very serious meaning.

I hear complaints about hyper-aggressive, woke, cancel culture, and I wonder if this feeling of being pushed too far is related in some way to vocabulary and word choice. I wonder if white men were a little more loosey-goosey as they interpret and translate messages about this subject, would they be more amenable to the core concepts? Would there be more common ground?

Do certain words and phrases jar you? Does reading about “white supremacy math” bug you? Does the phrase “math teaching styles that are disrespectful to human dignity” bug you? They are the same thing.

I have not been particularly bothered by the phrase “defund the police” because I understand it to mean reallocating resources and duties for nonpolice work away from police to people who should have the work and resources. It doesn’t seem objectionable, but I know plenty of people do find it objectionable. Why do they object?

How comfortable are you letting someone else define a word or phrase? (“Excuse me, I’m speaking.”)

Specifically with regards to “white supremacy math” - what I find objectionable is that the people charged with teaching kids how to take derivatives and find square roots, instead feel that they can promulgate their political views in a public school setting (which is supposed to be apolitical in theory).

There is a fundamental problem with your view here. You are saying that addressing biases in education is promulgating some political view. But if you believe that is what is happening, then not addressing them (what you are proposing) is simply promulgating a different political view.

So you appear to actually support political views in school, as long as they are ones you agree with.

Perhaps I don't believe that there are material biases? At least neither myself nor my spouse or my kids have really noticed them through our combined 60+ years or so of going through schooling.

Wow, really large sample size there. Are you suggesting that your evidence is better than an actual study, with larger sample size and more rigorous analysis? Also, maybe are not the best judge of if there was bias?

My parents taught me that those, who want to find something to be outraged by, will likely succeed. That's all. If you feel that your kids will benefit from being taught math in a way that's different from the way top schools in Europe and Asia have taught it for centuries - it is totally your choice. Just don't be upset if these antiracist math classes produce students who can spot a microagression from a mile away, but struggle with multiplying matrices. I've made my choices, and that's enough for me.

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [alex_korr] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 17:48

Post #107 of 323 (1273 views)

Quote:

My parents taught me that those, who want to find something to be outraged by, will likely succeed.

I think the two of you should figure out what each other is talking about before continuing the pissing match. I don't know what white supremacy math is, either, but I'm also not going to assume that I know.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [BarryP] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 18:40

Post #108 of 323 (1247 views)

BarryP wrote:

Quote:

My parents taught me that those, who want to find something to be outraged by, will likely succeed.

I think the two of you should figure out what each other is talking about before continuing the pissing match. I don't know what white supremacy math is, either, but I'm also not going to assume that I know.

From what little research I've done, there are probably multiple definitions. However, there are apparently educators who claim that teaching math to students as having right and wrong answers is indicative of the white supremacist patriarchy. I think the term of art is "Equitable Math." In Oregon, the school district's manual on Equitable Math stated "getting the right answer" and having students "show their work" were signs of "white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom."

If the concern of a teacher is to teach while treating her students with the general respect and consideration that should be afforded to any person in general, I'm good with that.

If the concern of a teacher is to develop curriculum that more closely mirrors a student group's life experience than some other group (i.e. adding bushels of corn for a rural student body vs adding city blocks for an urban group), I'm good with that as well.

If the concern of the teacher or school board is not to teach math, but rather to upset the entrenched white supremacist patriarchy, then I think they're probably focused on the wrong thing and maybe blaming the wrong factors.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [slowguy] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 19:46

Post #109 of 323 (1226 views)

Quote:

However, there are apparently educators who claim that teaching math to students as having right and wrong answers is indicative of the white supremacist patriarchy. I think the term of art is "Equitable Math." In Oregon, the school district's manual on Equitable Math stated "getting the right answer" and having students "show their work" were signs of "white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom."

As you probably know I used to be a high school math teacher. I wouldn't be at all surprised if what you said above was true, and it reminds me of one of the major reasons why I left teaching.

*sad face*

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 20:56

Post #110 of 323 (1212 views)

“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” - George Carlin

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [TMI] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 21:45

Post #111 of 323 (1201 views)

TMI wrote:

“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” - George Carlin

I don’t think we’re talking about political correctness here. We’re talking about words that people of different backgrounds use to describe things, and having an openness to different meanings in order to get past the differences in vocabulary.

If political correctness is saying only one particular term is correct, then I’m suggesting that there are multiple correct terms. Don’t insist on your own word— build goodwill by being flexible with words.

This was just an idea— a little like word empathy. Instead of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes to imagine what their experience is like, put yourself in someone else’s vocabulary to discuss an idea.

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Feb 26, 21 23:09

Post #112 of 323 (1185 views)

Slowman wrote:

slowguy wrote:

I also think there’s a substantive difference between hating someone for their politics, and hating someone for their ethnicity.

and...

slowguy wrote:

Her point was that the Holocaust and WWII didn’t start out at full on war and genocide. It started as one group convincing individual people to hate their neighbors based on religion/ethnicity. And that she sees the current hatred being directed at Trump supporters as analogous, and a dangerous first step down a bad road.

i see your points (quotes above taken from 2 of your posts). but i'm not so sure i agree any longer, in the context of america's divisions, that there is a firm line between politics and religion (and perhaps ethnicity). while i understand carano's point, i think she's got it backwards. starting in 1994, with newt gingrich, along with the rise in AM hate radio (limbaugh notably), the people who were the cause of all your personal failures were women, and democrats.

i think you can see that among a lot of republicans there has been a morphing (blending) of religion and republicanism, and now trumpism, sort of like when a new religion imposed on an old, and you get a durable blend of orthodoxy and paganism.

this new trumpo-christianity has replaced the apostle's creed, and you may as well print it on the back of the week's program handed to you as you enter church. there is no more evangelical christianity in america. it's gone. to be fair to believers - and i mean believers, not those who check a "christian" radio button - this religion was always supposed to be a small persecuted insurgency, separate from govt, rendering unto god what is god's. evangelicalism renders unto trump what is god's. today's true christian insurgency is not arrayed against democrats, but against evangelicals.

what are religions and ethnicities other than tribes? can you tell the difference between a serb and a croat? an armenian and a turk? what we have, today, is a quarter century of hate spewed by right winger loudmouths. not disagreement. hate. there is no real difference between evangelicalism and trumpism. you can't parse between them. this is a tribe.

but the hate has been there for a long time, stoked by right wing provocateurs. trump gave it a megaphone, and brought haters out of the closet. he made right wing hate respectable. the reason so many christians and republicans were willing to abandon everything we thought they believed in to side with trump is because we didn't understand what they really believed in all along.

so, i'm not so sure anymore that in our present environment that meaningful difference between politics and religion exists. trumpo-christians have formed something that smells and tastes like a religion, and they have decided that coastal elites, educated women, and so on form the "tribe" of infidels that stand in their way. (which explains why no republican senators will vote for wildly popular legislation, if it's proposed by the infidel party.)

hate is hate.

Yes Dan it's just the Right being divisive...the snow driven Left is a kumbaya circle of peace & love man.

The Rules

"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

"Never go outside the expertise of your people."

"Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."

"Keep the pressure on."

"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. "

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."

"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."

"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. "

Last edited by: windywave: Feb 26, 21 23:11

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 6:02

Post #113 of 323 (1161 views)

Quotes? Attribution?

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [gofigure] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 6:18

Post #114 of 323 (1148 views)

gofigure wrote:

Quotes? Attribution?

Dan will know.

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 6:22

Post #115 of 323 (1142 views)

windywave wrote:

gofigure wrote:

Quotes? Attribution?

Dan will know.

i don't know. but i'd be obliged for a response to what i wrote, rather than a deflection from what i wrote. or, no response at all is also fine.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 6:26

Post #116 of 323 (1139 views)

None of your quotes are hate related. Your point being?

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [TMI] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 6:35

Post #117 of 323 (1135 views)

TMI wrote:

“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” - George Carlin

Your simplistic talking point only confirms you have zero understanding of what actual fascism is.

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 6:35

Post #118 of 323 (1133 views)

windywave wrote:

gofigure wrote:

Quotes? Attribution?

Dan will know.

If you’re going to have a private conversation with Dan, perhaps you could send him a private message?

I don’t know what you’re talking about with all your quotes, but I suspect you want him to defend something you believe is indefensible.

I’ve seen this tactic before when I’ve heard the argument that summer riots and looting somehow caused Trump’s MAGA crowd to attack Congress. It’s an effort to shift blame and force a person who is critical of the MAGA attack to defend the summer riots, minimize the summer riots, or condemn candidates or leaders who didn’t “do enough.”

I don’t like bringing in tenuously connected events and framing the argument so that one is asked to defend the indefensible. It’s a dishonest argument.

The summer riots were not the proximate cause of the MAGA attack on Congress. Applying the legal reasoning behind the defenses of justification and excuse to the facts, it is clear that the summer riots do not excuse or justify the MAGA attack. The left candidates and leaders were not a bigger causal force of the summer riots than Trump, Trump’s DHS goons, and Trump’s white supremacist supporters.

Dan previously posted about examining and deciding upon a personal set of rules for politics. The beauty of deciding your own criteria for political beliefs is that you don’t have to defend anyone but yourself.

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 6:41

Post #119 of 323 (1126 views)

"The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so," the document for the "Equitable Math" toolkit reads. "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict."

Oregon promotes teacher program that seeks to undo 'racism in mathematics' | Fox News

I did a little internet research and I'm probably more confused now then the kids that are supposed to be learning Mathematics in Oregon.

As a background so you don't have to look up my posts, I'm the Plant Manager for a big manufacturing facility. I have 22 year in the Navy Nuclear Power Program and a degree in Applied Mathematics, as well as an MBA.

As best I can tell, forcing kids to learn math a certain way is forcing White Supremacy on them. I'm not sure how that conclusion was drawn and everything I read simply states something similar to what I quoted above.

I understand that in pure mathematics there are often several ways to get the correct answer. If you have ever watched a video put out by Presh Talwalker, the guy behind the website "Mind Your Decisions" he will show how to solve certain problems using different techniques. At that level of mathematics that is fine because the audience has the prerequisite background to understand that there is more than one correct way to skin a cat. There is still only one correct answer.

I have never taught mathematics at the junior high (6 through 8 grade) level but I suspect that allowing students to go off on their own tangent to solve those problems would create a mess in the classroom. At that level there is only one way to solve a problem, the way the teacher feels is best. Regardless of how a problem is solved, in pure mathematics there is only one right answer. In my professional world you have to be able to get that answer every time, and to quote Rickover, "If you can't write it down you don't understand it." That is especially true in mathematics. If you don't show your work you didn't solve the problem.

Lastly, I don't see how any of that is a white supremacy indicator. Much of the foundations of mathematics today were laid out by people who were not white. In fact, I would bet that if you go back to the very beginning of modern mathematics you would find that the majority of modern mathematics was put down on paper by non whites, and every one of them showed their work.

What I see developing here is a generation from that area that can't work in the hard sciences world when they grow up, and that is a travesty.

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [BarryP] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 6:51

Post #120 of 323 (1123 views)

BarryP wrote:

Quote:

However, there are apparently educators who claim that teaching math to students as having right and wrong answers is indicative of the white supremacist patriarchy. I think the term of art is "Equitable Math." In Oregon, the school district's manual on Equitable Math stated "getting the right answer" and having students "show their work" were signs of "white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom."

As you probably know I used to be a high school math teacher. I wouldn't be at all surprised if what you said above was true, and it reminds me of one of the major reasons why I left teaching.

*sad face*

i looked into this a little, and the narrative surrounding "equitable math" is facepalmingly woke. however, in gentle pushback, i do think there's a grain of something valid in the notion of teaching anything - math included - in a manner that gets the theses across. what i mean is, it's not up to the teacher to deliver the material. it's up to the teacher whether the student learns the material.

i have often wanted to teach applied math in workshops up here at the compound, where kids come up and stay, glamping style, for a week or so, and we build something, and we have to engineer the thing we build, as a way to show kids that: 1) math has practical applications that you can't avoid in later life; and 2) there's an organic way that math, physics, engineering is knitted into our lives. we are all engineers, by nature, and the disciplines are ways of expressing the concepts we already use instinctively.

i don't know that math is immune from the charge that teaching methods could be tailored to fit the student, rather than making student's adapt to the teaching method. obviously teaching history through the white mans lens to black, latino, and native americans is a problem. i don't know that the same isn't true, to a lesser degree, for the sciences. not that science is inherently subject to racism, rather that i'd like to better understand whether there's a variance in the way disparate cultures are taught to uptake concepts.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [AutomaticJack] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 6:57

Post #121 of 323 (1123 views)

AutomaticJack wrote:

"The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so," the document for the "Equitable Math" toolkit reads. "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict."

Oregon promotes teacher program that seeks to undo 'racism in mathematics' | Fox News

I did a little internet research and I'm probably more confused now then the kids that are supposed to be learning Mathematics in Oregon.

As a background so you don't have to look up my posts, I'm the Plant Manager for a big manufacturing facility. I have 22 year in the Navy Nuclear Power Program and a degree in Applied Mathematics, as well as an MBA.

As best I can tell, forcing kids to learn math a certain way is forcing White Supremacy on them. I'm not sure how that conclusion was drawn and everything I read simply states something similar to what I quoted above.

I understand that in pure mathematics there are often several ways to get the correct answer. If you have ever watched a video put out by Presh Talwalker, the guy behind the website "Mind Your Decisions" he will show how to solve certain problems using different techniques. At that level of mathematics that is fine because the audience has the prerequisite background to understand that there is more than one correct way to skin a cat. There is still only one correct answer.

I have never taught mathematics at the junior high (6 through 8 grade) level but I suspect that allowing students to go off on their own tangent to solve those problems would create a mess in the classroom. At that level there is only one way to solve a problem, the way the teacher feels is best. Regardless of how a problem is solved, in pure mathematics there is only one right answer. In my professional world you have to be able to get that answer every time, and to quote Rickover, "If you can't write it down you don't understand it." That is especially true in mathematics. If you don't show your work you didn't solve the problem.

Lastly, I don't see how any of that is a white supremacy indicator. Much of the foundations of mathematics today were laid out by people who were not white. In fact, I would bet that if you go back to the very beginning of modern mathematics you would find that the majority of modern mathematics was put down on paper by non whites, and every one of them showed their work.

What I see developing here is a generation from that area that can't work in the hard sciences world when they grow up, and that is a travesty.

i'm not sure why you addressed your post to me, but i'm glad you did. our posts arrived on the site at about the same time. i agree with you that there's only 1 right answer. i guess i do question, tho, whether there's more than 1 way to get into a kid's head the mechanics needed to get at that right answer.

i was fasttracked through math in HS, taking trig as a junior and calculus as a senior. and then off into college. but i had to go back and relearn trigonometry in my professional life because i needed that discipline, and all i was in HS was a professional test taker. i learned to recognized patterns, and the patterns allowed me to succeed in taking the test. i never really understood what i was being taught.

i think teaching math must be a real skill. i just effing love teaching. i love the whole idea of teaching. teaching, learning, principles of teaching. i'm highly enthused by the theory of teaching to those in different cultures. i guess that is the motivation for my post above.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 7:05

Post #122 of 323 (1118 views)

My kids learned math under the common core plan, which was implemented when my older boy was in first grade with Mrs. Healy. My mom-friends complained bitterly nonstop about the new way to do math. It involved new methods using sets of 10. A good book that I read at the same time to my kids that captures that style of teaching math is called The Grapes of Math. It’s a good book.

Last edited by: CallMeMaybe: Feb 27, 21 7:05

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 7:34

Post #123 of 323 (1101 views)

windywave wrote:

Slowman wrote:

slowguy wrote:

I also think there’s a substantive difference between hating someone for their politics, and hating someone for their ethnicity.

and...

slowguy wrote:

Her point was that the Holocaust and WWII didn’t start out at full on war and genocide. It started as one group convincing individual people to hate their neighbors based on religion/ethnicity. And that she sees the current hatred being directed at Trump supporters as analogous, and a dangerous first step down a bad road.

i see your points (quotes above taken from 2 of your posts). but i'm not so sure i agree any longer, in the context of america's divisions, that there is a firm line between politics and religion (and perhaps ethnicity). while i understand carano's point, i think she's got it backwards. starting in 1994, with newt gingrich, along with the rise in AM hate radio (limbaugh notably), the people who were the cause of all your personal failures were women, and democrats.

i think you can see that among a lot of republicans there has been a morphing (blending) of religion and republicanism, and now trumpism, sort of like when a new religion imposed on an old, and you get a durable blend of orthodoxy and paganism.

this new trumpo-christianity has replaced the apostle's creed, and you may as well print it on the back of the week's program handed to you as you enter church. there is no more evangelical christianity in america. it's gone. to be fair to believers - and i mean believers, not those who check a "christian" radio button - this religion was always supposed to be a small persecuted insurgency, separate from govt, rendering unto god what is god's. evangelicalism renders unto trump what is god's. today's true christian insurgency is not arrayed against democrats, but against evangelicals.

what are religions and ethnicities other than tribes? can you tell the difference between a serb and a croat? an armenian and a turk? what we have, today, is a quarter century of hate spewed by right winger loudmouths. not disagreement. hate. there is no real difference between evangelicalism and trumpism. you can't parse between them. this is a tribe.

but the hate has been there for a long time, stoked by right wing provocateurs. trump gave it a megaphone, and brought haters out of the closet. he made right wing hate respectable. the reason so many christians and republicans were willing to abandon everything we thought they believed in to side with trump is because we didn't understand what they really believed in all along.

so, i'm not so sure anymore that in our present environment that meaningful difference between politics and religion exists. trumpo-christians have formed something that smells and tastes like a religion, and they have decided that coastal elites, educated women, and so on form the "tribe" of infidels that stand in their way. (which explains why no republican senators will vote for wildly popular legislation, if it's proposed by the infidel party.)

hate is hate.

Yes Dan it's just the Right being divisive...the snow driven Left is a kumbaya circle of peace & love man.

The Rules

"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

"Never go outside the expertise of your people."

"Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."

"Keep the pressure on."

"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. "

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."

"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."

"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. "

Saul Alinksy my man ... minus 3 points

Should I bother or will you just call me a Trump supporter despite all the evidence to the contrary? (Rules 5,6,8,11 and 13 combined)

You go on a tangent about provocateurs on the right stoking hate while completely ignoring the divisions created by the Left which IMO gave rise to the provocateurs on the Right even having a voice.

The Rules are the foundation for the modern Democratic Party's playbook (Dukakis was the last candidate to not be tainted by it IMO). Bill Clinton started to use some of it due to Hillary (wrote her thesis on Alinsky) Gore less so but he uses Clinton operatives, Obama grew up politically in literally where the Rules originated, Hillary see above, Biden tainted by Obama (and they are relatively moderate in their utilization compared to down ticket usage).

But windy those meanies on the Right. Well around 2009 the Tea Party aka the original provocateurs (they at least had a pretense of Conservative values) started using the Rules (I mean they literally handed out the fucking book at meetings) and began deploying the tactics. Well damn if it didn't work for them too both internecine and in attacking the Left. The the fringes of both parties were like damn girlfriend and here we are.

The fundamental principles are to denigrate and diminish your opponent while isolating them as the enemy, basically creating the tribes you reference. Over time the denigrating and polarization morphs into hate on both sides, as both the action and reaction and here we are.

And no I don't think we can pull back unless there is a fundamental change to the strategies of both parties.

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 8:04

Post #124 of 323 (1086 views)

windywave wrote:

windywave wrote:

Slowman wrote:

slowguy wrote:

I also think there’s a substantive difference between hating someone for their politics, and hating someone for their ethnicity.

and...

slowguy wrote:

Her point was that the Holocaust and WWII didn’t start out at full on war and genocide. It started as one group convincing individual people to hate their neighbors based on religion/ethnicity. And that she sees the current hatred being directed at Trump supporters as analogous, and a dangerous first step down a bad road.

i see your points (quotes above taken from 2 of your posts). but i'm not so sure i agree any longer, in the context of america's divisions, that there is a firm line between politics and religion (and perhaps ethnicity). while i understand carano's point, i think she's got it backwards. starting in 1994, with newt gingrich, along with the rise in AM hate radio (limbaugh notably), the people who were the cause of all your personal failures were women, and democrats.

i think you can see that among a lot of republicans there has been a morphing (blending) of religion and republicanism, and now trumpism, sort of like when a new religion imposed on an old, and you get a durable blend of orthodoxy and paganism.

this new trumpo-christianity has replaced the apostle's creed, and you may as well print it on the back of the week's program handed to you as you enter church. there is no more evangelical christianity in america. it's gone. to be fair to believers - and i mean believers, not those who check a "christian" radio button - this religion was always supposed to be a small persecuted insurgency, separate from govt, rendering unto god what is god's. evangelicalism renders unto trump what is god's. today's true christian insurgency is not arrayed against democrats, but against evangelicals.

what are religions and ethnicities other than tribes? can you tell the difference between a serb and a croat? an armenian and a turk? what we have, today, is a quarter century of hate spewed by right winger loudmouths. not disagreement. hate. there is no real difference between evangelicalism and trumpism. you can't parse between them. this is a tribe.

but the hate has been there for a long time, stoked by right wing provocateurs. trump gave it a megaphone, and brought haters out of the closet. he made right wing hate respectable. the reason so many christians and republicans were willing to abandon everything we thought they believed in to side with trump is because we didn't understand what they really believed in all along.

so, i'm not so sure anymore that in our present environment that meaningful difference between politics and religion exists. trumpo-christians have formed something that smells and tastes like a religion, and they have decided that coastal elites, educated women, and so on form the "tribe" of infidels that stand in their way. (which explains why no republican senators will vote for wildly popular legislation, if it's proposed by the infidel party.)

hate is hate.

Yes Dan it's just the Right being divisive...the snow driven Left is a kumbaya circle of peace & love man.

The Rules

"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

"Never go outside the expertise of your people."

"Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."

"Keep the pressure on."

"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. "

"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."

"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."

"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. "

Saul Alinksy my man ... minus 3 points

Should I bother or will you just call me a Trump supporter despite all the evidence to the contrary? (Rules 5,6,8,11 and 13 combined)

You go on a tangent about provocateurs on the right stoking hate while completely ignoring the divisions created by the Left which IMO gave rise to the provocateurs on the Right even having a voice.

The Rules are the foundation for the modern Democratic Party's playbook (Dukakis was the last candidate to not be tainted by it IMO). Bill Clinton started to use some of it due to Hillary (wrote her thesis on Alinsky) Gore less so but he uses Clinton operatives, Obama grew up politically in literally where the Rules originated, Hillary see above, Biden tainted by Obama (and they are relatively moderate in their utilization compared to down ticket usage).

But windy those meanies on the Right. Well around 2009 the Tea Party aka the original provocateurs (they at least had a pretense of Conservative values) started using the Rules (I mean they literally handed out the fucking book at meetings) and began deploying the tactics. Well damn if it didn't work for them too both internecine and in attacking the Left. The the fringes of both parties were like damn girlfriend and here we are.

The fundamental principles are to denigrate and diminish your opponent while isolating them as the enemy, basically creating the tribes you reference. Over time the denigrating and polarization morphs into hate on both sides, as both the action and reaction and here we are.

And no I don't think we can pull back unless there is a fundamental change to the strategies of both parties.

Those are empty words coming from someone who once said, “I fucking despise the Left!”

Oh, and what evidence is there that you don’t support Trump? All I ever see is you defending him while simultaneously claiming you’re not defending him. Please cite the posts where you’ve criticized him?

Re: “Wokeness & cancel culture” vs “Excuse me, I’m speaking” [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Feb 27, 21 8:19

Post #125 of 323 (1079 views)

what i mean is, it's not up to the teacher to deliver the material. it's up to the teacher whether the student learns the material.
---

Err... what?

It is absolutely up to the teacher to deliver the material. And how to deliver the material. And to decide whether the student learns the material. And to determine to what degree the student learns the materials. And to change their delivery system if it's determined that the students aren't learning it at an acceptable level.

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.