Why here? Because, as I said below, I posted that in response to this specific thread somewhat by mistake. I was discussing racially motivated changes in university acceptance criteria on a parenting forum and pretty much the same example was being used as an example of the thinking of those calling for the changes.
> And great example of anecdotal evidence.
Is anecdotal the new dismissal word of 2023 or something? "Oh, sure that happens and you see it near you, but that's just an anecdote - if you can't show it happening worldwide it doesn't count!"
Racialized teaching is in schools, rarely with justification this blatant though. They're using this rhetoric to justify getting rid of advanced classes and push groups of people entirely out of academics sometimes. If you don't follow schools and local politics I can imagine why you don't hear about it though.
> The only effect your long comment has is to further radicalize people into believing
Oh, I thought you were using the actual meaning of radicalize - you know. Violence instead of speech, etc.
> that nothing should be done to support minorities
No... That what should be done to support minorities is the same thing that should be done to support the majority - full and proper academic standards.
You should never need to talk about a student's race, or even take it into account. If a specific group of students really need extra help, use class analysis (ie, poverty) instead of racial analysis.
> Think twice before writing reactionary nonsense
Is this like calling me fascist, or do you actually mean something by this label?
> btw, the source you quote here, Unherd, has this article at the top of their website "Why lesbian women should sleep with men". Laughable.
I don't pick and choose source sites by their overall ideology so I didn't check the rest of their site before sharing the opinion piece.
But, yeah .... That is laughable. Can you believe that homophobes are literally attacking lesbian at pride parades and dyke marches for saying things such as "Lesbianism is female."
Note the Benford question mark in the headline though, it's sarcastic - the content says lesbians should not sleep with men. Sadly though, the article is in response to very real calls for violence against lesbians.
Using anecdotal evidence is what you do when you don't have factual evidence. Like a study that proves your point.
Feel free to use a dictionary or google to look up the meaning of "to radicalize" - I get "cause (someone) to adopt radical positions on political or social issues.".
What do you think reactionary mean? You have no further point other than reaction to what some activists do. You don't work for schools to have actual policy, you just flail your arms.
Vetting media outlet by general editorial quality is a good idea to not read nonsense.
You don't understand evidence. When our school boards are getting rid of advanced classes they're referencing race based reasoning like that example. Also, these specific recommendations are adopted in many schools - Stride Equitable Math - it's one of the more common.
> "cause (someone) to adopt radical positions on political or social issues".
That's circular reasoning though. What about the positions I would encourage someone to adopt is "radical"?
So far you're just using it as an insult.
> What do you think reactionary mean? You have no further point other than reaction to what some activists do. You don't work for schools to have actual policy, you just flail your arms.
That's probably the dumbest standard because by nobody has a plan when they first discover a problem. As you're using it, it's just an insult, and an empty one at that.
> "You don't work for schools to have actual policy"
Also, um, yeah. We do. A policy which bans using racial identifiers in all policy and policy discussions. Mandates that the same curriculum be available to any student gated only by skill.
> Vetting media outlet by general editorial quality is a good idea to not read nonsense.
I said I don't check for ideology. The quality is just fine - a mom had a complaint and they published her opinion piece as an editorial.
You pointed to a headline you didn't understand about lesbians but that's on you, not the paper. The headline was fine and references real events.
> Good job not using HN for ideological battles
Ironically, here you are flailing with insults and wildly reacting to my comments about a radical new movement to shove racism into schools.
Only one of us is having a battle.
You got freaked out because you saw something you didn't understand, refused to read deeply and engage, and now you've accused me of all this crypto-racism because I'm trying to remove racist policies from schools. Slow down. Not everyone uses your dog whistles, and not everyone on the other side is a bad guy.
Do you actually have any problem with my stance on this, that "what should be done to support minorities is the same thing that should be done to support the majority - full and proper academic standards."
Yes, but you haven't explained why this is a problem though.
Let's say a black man gets beaten by the police. It's just "anecdotal" in that he hasn't performed a study showing that it's a global issue, but it is irrefutable proof that police do beat up at least some black men.
In this case, let's say that only our school was enacting these policies and that we the parents discovered it only by our personal observation of policy updates, why would that matter? We'd still want to change it.
"The high school, [the parents] argued, should reinstate honors English classes that were eliminated because they didn’t enroll enough Black and Latino students. The district earlier this school year replaced the honors classes at Culver City High School with uniform courses that officials say will ensure students of all races receive an equal, rigorous education."
> "no ideological battles"
You're the one having a battle, and over an ideology. Walk away or engage with the issue, either is fine, but you're attacking me directly, using labels (radical, reactionary, etc) and saying that I "know what I'm doing".
You don't say what you'd do instead. You don't say why you support the policies, or would/wouldn't if they existed.
Please read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article, it'll clarify the issue.
Please chat with your representative with all this wonderful evidence I'm sure you'll change their mind or they will gladly answer all your questions - I'm not a civil servant, I'll let them do it
> Please read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article, it'll clarify the issue.
No. It doesn't. Because we have the school boards saying this in this in their own words and publishing them in their policy updates. All the "limited in value" stuff in the Wiki article is about ad-hoc and poorly collected evidence and that doesn't apply here. We're pointing to their own words.
> chat with your representative with all this wonderful evidence
It's perfect evidence. It's their own policy statements with their own justification.
A lot of people are like you initially but when they actually read the policies they come around - race-based rules are something most people feel icky about.
I've seen people rudely dismiss a pamphlet about this from a white parent only to happily read and engage when approached by an asian parent only moments later. That's racist, but I understand because all the news pumps out is a constant stream of partisan race-baiting and it takes many people a while to turn off that defensiveness.
> or they will gladly answer all your questions
No, usually they refuse to let us even get on the agenda for meetings.
> I'm sure you'll change their mind
Thankfully we don't have to talk to our representatives when they're this dismissive, we can simply vote them out and we have been.
But usually we find that at least half of them felt railroaded into these blatantly racist policies by a bunch of small frog-boiling policies and they're grateful for an opportunity to put things back in order.
That's what I thought! Go chat with your reptesentative - or keep wasting your time here, I'm sure you don't have anything else better to do for this very important issue !
Why here? Because, as I said below, I posted that in response to this specific thread somewhat by mistake. I was discussing racially motivated changes in university acceptance criteria on a parenting forum and pretty much the same example was being used as an example of the thinking of those calling for the changes.
> And great example of anecdotal evidence.
Is anecdotal the new dismissal word of 2023 or something? "Oh, sure that happens and you see it near you, but that's just an anecdote - if you can't show it happening worldwide it doesn't count!"
Racialized teaching is in schools, rarely with justification this blatant though. They're using this rhetoric to justify getting rid of advanced classes and push groups of people entirely out of academics sometimes. If you don't follow schools and local politics I can imagine why you don't hear about it though.
> The only effect your long comment has is to further radicalize people into believing
Oh, I thought you were using the actual meaning of radicalize - you know. Violence instead of speech, etc.
> that nothing should be done to support minorities
No... That what should be done to support minorities is the same thing that should be done to support the majority - full and proper academic standards.
You should never need to talk about a student's race, or even take it into account. If a specific group of students really need extra help, use class analysis (ie, poverty) instead of racial analysis.
> Think twice before writing reactionary nonsense
Is this like calling me fascist, or do you actually mean something by this label?
> btw, the source you quote here, Unherd, has this article at the top of their website "Why lesbian women should sleep with men". Laughable.
I don't pick and choose source sites by their overall ideology so I didn't check the rest of their site before sharing the opinion piece.
But, yeah .... That is laughable. Can you believe that homophobes are literally attacking lesbian at pride parades and dyke marches for saying things such as "Lesbianism is female."
Note the Benford question mark in the headline though, it's sarcastic - the content says lesbians should not sleep with men. Sadly though, the article is in response to very real calls for violence against lesbians.