Red Mosquito

verb_to_trust wrote:Rob spelled backwards kind of spells bore

Rob wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Rob spelled backwards kind of spells bore

I dunno, maybe you’re right, but how exciting do you think you are? I come here everyday, and so do you. And we both post the same shit.

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:<snip>




His statement itself is a based on a faulty assumption as you don't need to persuade someone who driven by guilt and shame. They will volunteer as penance.

Yeah I don't think the tactic is so much about persuading anyone to submit, but rather telling the persuaded how to submit in order to be forgiven. It's about reaping the harvest. At some point, the televangelist has to get the brainwashed to give them stuff.

You seem blissfully unaware that you are on the other side of this equation, scouring the internet for anecdotes that play to your narrative. As the woke wars heat up, so does your infatuation. This is one of the annoying things in life that doesn’t just live on Twitter or whatever social media. I have family members texting me periodically because they are so riled up against the woke crowd, they can’t see how ridiculous they sound.

Bi_3 wrote: I think there is a growing sense of parallels between where woke is going and the Socialist revolutions (Bolsheviks, Maoists... and yes them) of the last century: othering with racial over national identity, historical and cultural erasure, suppression of dissent, class warfare, etc., forcing people to into more and more cognitive dissonance were objective truth (2+2=4) becomes an offense vs speaking the subjective 'your truth' (2+2=5), and also what Burt posted above with this idea that power is inherently relative and thus is a zero sum game so the only way to build up one group is to tear down another. A perception that the ends (the ever-amorphous 'equity') justify the means, a key tenet of Socialist revolution, and we all know how those turned out.

So this goes back to the question of motives, same question I've asked in many threads: What is the destination, how do we know when we've reached it, and what is path to get there?

Rob wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: I think there is a growing sense of parallels between where woke is going and the Socialist revolutions (Bolsheviks, Maoists... and yes them) of the last century: othering with racial over national identity, historical and cultural erasure, suppression of dissent, class warfare, etc., forcing people to into more and more cognitive dissonance were objective truth (2+2=4) becomes an offense vs speaking the subjective 'your truth' (2+2=5), and also what Burt posted above with this idea that power is inherently relative and thus is a zero sum game so the only way to build up one group is to tear down another. A perception that the ends (the ever-amorphous 'equity') justify the means, a key tenet of Socialist revolution, and we all know how those turned out.

So this goes back to the question of motives, same question I've asked in many threads: What is the destination, how do we know when we've reached it, and what is path to get there?

Do people think this way? Maybe the absolute smartest members of that last generation could have sold it this way, but that time is gone, I think.

Bi_3 wrote:this idea that power is inherently relative and thus is a zero sum game so the only way to build up one group is to tear down another.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:this idea that power is inherently relative and thus is a zero sum game so the only way to build up one group is to tear down another.

I want it noted that I was bottom pages posting the exact antithesis of this belief.

Also, I support class warfare. Not, like, real warfare, but yeah fuck corporations and the rich.

Bi_3 wrote:B, Know where I could find a video about Ad Hominem attacks?

B wrote:I also bet she's fun to debate.

"African-American communities are less likely to have the ID required by conservative legislatures, their communities have less dropboxes and polling places per capita than majority white communities. African-Americans are more likely to be purged from the polls due to inactivity and less likely to receive notification that their polling place has changed. They are less likely to receive a provisional ballot if they are missing something or in the wrong place, and when they do receive those provisional ballots, they are less likely to be approved."

"Are you saying I'm too stupid to vote?"

B wrote:THAT was ad hominem!

In the Name of Equity, California Will Discourage Students Who Are Gifted at Math

The new framework aims to keep everyone learning at the same level for as long as possible.

California's Department of Education is working on a new framework for K-12 mathematics that discourages gifted students from enrolling in accelerated classes that study advanced concepts like calculus.

The draft of the framework is hundreds of pages long and covers a wide range of topics. But its overriding concern is inequity. The department is worried that too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don't make it past basic algebra. The department's solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.

"The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12," reads a January 2021 draft of the framework. "In summary, middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes."

In fact, the framework concludes that calculus is overvalued, even for gifted students.

"The push to calculus in grade twelve is itself misguided," says the framework.

As evidence for this claim, the framework cites the fact that many students who take calculus end up having to retake it in college anyway. Of course, de-prioritizing instruction in high school calculus would not really solve this problem—and in fact would likely make it worse—but the department does not seem overly worried. The framework's overriding perspective is that teaching the tough stuff is college's problem: The K-12 system should concern itself with making every kid fall in love with math.

Broadly speaking, this entails making math as easy and un-math-like as possible. Math is really about language and culture and social justice, and no one is naturally better at it than anyone else, according to the framework.

"All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents," reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. "The belief that 'I treat everyone the same' is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities."

The entire second chapter of the framework is about connecting math to social justice concepts like bias and racism: "Teachers can support discussions that center mathematical reasoning rather than issues of status and bias by intentionally defining what it means to do and learn mathematics together in ways that include and highlight the languages, identities, and practices of historically marginalized communities." Teachers should also think creatively about what math even entails: "To encourage truly equitable and engaging mathematics classrooms we need to broaden perceptions of mathematics beyond methods and answers so that students come to view mathematics as a connected, multi-dimensional subject that is about sense making and reasoning, to which they can contribute and belong."

This approach is very bad.