7 ms·

I agree on the brick-and-mortar schools suggestion. I wrote this in favor of them: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/14833/9518 https://academia.stackexchan

I agree on the brick-and-mortar schools suggestion. I wrote this in favor of them: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/14833/9518 https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/14833/9518 > Students overwhelmingly report retaining and applying less from online courses versus face-to-face courses. > However, this may be due to a difference in factors other than distance learning. However, I find your insult to Trump voters gratuitous and unnecessary.

dmix 9y ago
> However, I find your insult to Trump voters gratuitous and unnecessary. I originally upvoted the OP's comment as I somehow missed this aside at the end and unvoted. HN is really not the place for that stuff...
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  As OP, I would like to adopt dpwm's restatement: > They are like [the] Trump voters willing to throw their lot in with whomever tells them "it will be okay", regardless of how unscrupulous and incompetent those promise-makers are.
aykm84 9y ago
Reminder: Trump University probably falls under the category of 'sketchy school'. www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/31/522199535/judge-approves-25-million-settlement-of-trump-university-lawsuit
dpwm 9y ago
> However, I find your insult to Trump voters gratuitous and unnecessary. I read it without placing the emphasis on the colon and I'm sure it's less barbed and strengthens the point: They are like [the] Trump voters willing to throw their lot in with whomever tells them "it will be okay", regardless of how unscrupulous and incompetent those promise-makers are. That there were some, not all, trump voters who were actually quite vulnerable and were manipulated. Just as there were some Clinton, Johnson and abstaining voters who were vulnerable and manipulated. The key difference was that Trump dropped a shockingly honest hint about the desire to exploit the manipulable: "we love the poorly educated," arguably has a hint of suckering about it. I suspect this is something some Trump supporters are uneasy about by appealing to symmetry (i.e. if the other side had done this). I found the analogy I misread quite useful as it linked two phenomena that I had previously believed to be disparate. It would be a shame for that to be lost for the sake of a missing word and a superfluous colon.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Trump was "shockingly honest" - and it was shocking! - about a lot of things about which Nice People Don't Speak, all throughout the election cycle. His bombshell about buying politicians in the first GOP debate is a sterling example - roughly from memory: "I know you guys are for sale because I buy you all the time!" Shocking indeed. But not on substance - no one familiar with modern US politics would seriously doubt that most politicians are absolutely for sale, although probably not thinking of it in those terms, or that the two meaningful parties do absolutely sucker rubes into voting for cynically promised outcomes which often aren't even plausible and are the rest of the time rarely pursued. Obama was the best I've seen in my lifetime, in terms of trying hard to live up to his campaign promises and also being competent to pursue them, and even he only passes if we grade on a real generous curve. No, what's shocking is that anyone would say it, at least where the rubes might hear. And, again, that is shocking! One does not expect to hear the inchoate doubts shared among much of the electorate confirmed outright by a major-party candidate. And I suppose if one confidently expects to get screwed either way, it might make some sense to vote for the guy who's at least honest about it.
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  As OP, I would like to hereby adopt your reading, but it's beyond the edit window to fix directly. Alas, I hereby leave this as my mea culpa.
pavedwalden 9y ago
"Gratuitous and unnecessary" is well put. Because it's not like I disagree with the comment, but I cringed a little.
ACow_Adonis 9y ago
Here's an interesting thought: do you find the notion/anecdote regarding the returned servicemen insulting? Because to me, he's applied an analogy describing a certain behaviour to both groups: but you find one "a political insult" and presumably one "an accurate description, or at least an acceptable anecdote". It appears to me, as a non-american, the analogy is not only apt but accurate, but i understand how one may find it insulting. But then, I also understand how a returning veteran might find this entire thread/idea insulting when applied to them. But in both cases...that doesn't make the point deviate or approach the truth any more or less. Personally, I believe there is a "rational voter paradox" at play in both of our societies political cultures (I'm australian for what its worth). We find certain ideas insulting and degrading when applied to the notion of "voter", because we carry a political ideology of sanctity (the rational voter) around the voters decision. Because we are partisan, any attempt to analyse voter activity that draws away from the rational automatically puts you in the camp of "the other", which makes you an enemy, which makes everything an insult. Hint that voters voted for trump because they were anxious and threw their lot in with someone giving out soothing epithets and its an insult. That same idea however, returned service men being anxious about the future and being duped into throwing their lot into schools that make grand promises...and its an observation. Even a completely legitimate thread. I've had the same thing happen to me a few times: express what I think is a fact, and been told that this is not the place for such hostile speak, insults, or comments. I will leave HN today with this thought from my professional experience: If you're an analyst, and you actually have to predict these things, don't give anything but politeness to the people who find such observations to be insults, even though you know they're wrong, and use them if they're predictive :P
- metaphor 9y ago
  This veteran is in complete agreement with your assessment.
killjoywashere 9y ago
My apologies, I would like to adopt dpwm's restatement: > They are like [the] Trump voters willing to throw their lot in with whomever tells them "it will be okay", regardless of how unscrupulous and incompetent those promise-makers are.
- dang 9y ago
  Ok, we've put that edit in. But please don't drop partisan tangents into HN comments. It's basically trolling, as you can see by the destructive effects on this thread (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14277404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14277404) and, even with the edit, mars your otherwise fine comment.
  - georgemcbay 9y ago
    This is why reasonable, rational people are losing and will continue to keep losing. Because we accept calling Trump unscrupulous and incompetent as a partisan opinion when it is actually clearly a statement of fact based on ample amounts of evidence.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      There are certain topics that destroy otherwise rational discussions. You know this. We all know this. So why bring it up in an unrelated thread? All it does is damage the quality of conversation.
      - killjoywashere 9y ago
        OP here. In response to your question, I was seizing on a well-known phenomenon (voters responding to a hollow jobs promise) to make an illustrative comparison to my thesis, another situation that evokes similar behavior. To me, it was like being in a thread about trees and saying "Trees are green, you know, like money." The "like money" part, was just a comparison.

dmix 9y ago

> However, I find your insult to Trump voters gratuitous and unnecessary. I originally upvoted the OP's comment as I somehow missed this aside at the end and unvoted. HN is really not the place for that stuff...

killjoywashere 9y ago
As OP, I would like to adopt dpwm's restatement: > They are like [the] Trump voters willing to throw their lot in with whomever tells them "it will be okay", regardless of how unscrupulous and incompetent those promise-makers are.

aykm84 9y ago

Reminder: Trump University probably falls under the category of 'sketchy school'. www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/31/522199535/judge-approves-25-million-settlement-of-trump-university-lawsuit

dpwm 9y ago

> However, I find your insult to Trump voters gratuitous and unnecessary. I read it without placing the emphasis on the colon and I'm sure it's less barbed and strengthens the point: They are like [the] Trump voters willing to throw their lot in with whomever tells them "it will be okay", regardless of how unscrupulous and incompetent those promise-makers are. That there were some, not all, trump voters who were actually quite vulnerable and were manipulated. Just as there were some Clinton, Johnson and abstaining voters who were vulnerable and manipulated. The key difference was that Trump dropped a shockingly honest hint about the desire to exploit the manipulable: "we love the poorly educated," arguably has a hint of suckering about it. I suspect this is something some Trump supporters are uneasy about by appealing to symmetry (i.e. if the other side had done this). I found the analogy I misread quite useful as it linked two phenomena that I had previously believed to be disparate. It would be a shame for that to be lost for the sake of a missing word and a superfluous colon.

throwanem 9y ago
Trump was "shockingly honest" - and it was shocking! - about a lot of things about which Nice People Don't Speak, all throughout the election cycle. His bombshell about buying politicians in the first GOP debate is a sterling example - roughly from memory: "I know you guys are for sale because I buy you all the time!" Shocking indeed. But not on substance - no one familiar with modern US politics would seriously doubt that most politicians are absolutely for sale, although probably not thinking of it in those terms, or that the two meaningful parties do absolutely sucker rubes into voting for cynically promised outcomes which often aren't even plausible and are the rest of the time rarely pursued. Obama was the best I've seen in my lifetime, in terms of trying hard to live up to his campaign promises and also being competent to pursue them, and even he only passes if we grade on a real generous curve. No, what's shocking is that anyone would say it, at least where the rubes might hear. And, again, that is shocking! One does not expect to hear the inchoate doubts shared among much of the electorate confirmed outright by a major-party candidate. And I suppose if one confidently expects to get screwed either way, it might make some sense to vote for the guy who's at least honest about it.
killjoywashere 9y ago
As OP, I would like to hereby adopt your reading, but it's beyond the edit window to fix directly. Alas, I hereby leave this as my mea culpa.

pavedwalden 9y ago

"Gratuitous and unnecessary" is well put. Because it's not like I disagree with the comment, but I cringed a little.

ACow_Adonis 9y ago

Here's an interesting thought: do you find the notion/anecdote regarding the returned servicemen insulting? Because to me, he's applied an analogy describing a certain behaviour to both groups: but you find one "a political insult" and presumably one "an accurate description, or at least an acceptable anecdote". It appears to me, as a non-american, the analogy is not only apt but accurate, but i understand how one may find it insulting. But then, I also understand how a returning veteran might find this entire thread/idea insulting when applied to them. But in both cases...that doesn't make the point deviate or approach the truth any more or less. Personally, I believe there is a "rational voter paradox" at play in both of our societies political cultures (I'm australian for what its worth). We find certain ideas insulting and degrading when applied to the notion of "voter", because we carry a political ideology of sanctity (the rational voter) around the voters decision. Because we are partisan, any attempt to analyse voter activity that draws away from the rational automatically puts you in the camp of "the other", which makes you an enemy, which makes everything an insult. Hint that voters voted for trump because they were anxious and threw their lot in with someone giving out soothing epithets and its an insult. That same idea however, returned service men being anxious about the future and being duped into throwing their lot into schools that make grand promises...and its an observation. Even a completely legitimate thread. I've had the same thing happen to me a few times: express what I think is a fact, and been told that this is not the place for such hostile speak, insults, or comments. I will leave HN today with this thought from my professional experience: If you're an analyst, and you actually have to predict these things, don't give anything but politeness to the people who find such observations to be insults, even though you know they're wrong, and use them if they're predictive :P

metaphor 9y ago
This veteran is in complete agreement with your assessment.

killjoywashere 9y ago

My apologies, I would like to adopt dpwm's restatement: > They are like [the] Trump voters willing to throw their lot in with whomever tells them "it will be okay", regardless of how unscrupulous and incompetent those promise-makers are.

dang 9y ago
Ok, we've put that edit in. But please don't drop partisan tangents into HN comments. It's basically trolling, as you can see by the destructive effects on this thread (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14277404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14277404) and, even with the edit, mars your otherwise fine comment.
- georgemcbay 9y ago
  This is why reasonable, rational people are losing and will continue to keep losing. Because we accept calling Trump unscrupulous and incompetent as a partisan opinion when it is actually clearly a statement of fact based on ample amounts of evidence.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    There are certain topics that destroy otherwise rational discussions. You know this. We all know this. So why bring it up in an unrelated thread? All it does is damage the quality of conversation.
    - killjoywashere 9y ago
      OP here. In response to your question, I was seizing on a well-known phenomenon (voters responding to a hollow jobs promise) to make an illustrative comparison to my thesis, another situation that evokes similar behavior. To me, it was like being in a thread about trees and saying "Trees are green, you know, like money." The "like money" part, was just a comparison.