4 ms·

> Why are we talking about this? Why here? Because, as I said below, I posted that in response to this specific thread somewhat by mistake. I was discussing ra

> Why are we talking about this? 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.

dmbche 3y ago
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. Good job not using HN for ideological battles
- LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
  > when you don't have factual evidence. 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."
  - dmbche 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence Go read the HN guidelines buddy And you piggybacked on a racebaiting comment on an unrelated subject. Come on.

dmbche 3y ago

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. Good job not using HN for ideological battles

LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
> when you don't have factual evidence. 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."
- dmbche 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence Go read the HN guidelines buddy And you piggybacked on a racebaiting comment on an unrelated subject. Come on.