[Zelandakh]

For reference, the original quote that started this sub-thread is:

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-22, 14:31, said:

Winstonm, on 2016-October-22, 13:56, said:

Wow. I cannot believe anyone smart enough to play bridge can really believe these things:

While many of my friends call your kind "uninformed uneducated libtards", I know better. Many liberals are quite well educated and smart, but IMO have been fooled by the mainstream media.

Notice that the post is directed directly at Winston and that the qualifier only goes towards the "uninformed uneducated" part and not the unnecessary and inflammatory "libtard" name-calling.

So Hrothgar, may I suggest you edit your post to read:
--
Have you considered that maybe the problem is with you?

If I had to weigh the probabilities between:

1. Kaitlyn S is surrounded by a vast liberal conspiracy where ever she goes

2. Kaitlyn S posts a lot of really stupid stuff and most people I know would call her kind "racist, bigoted idiots" (though I am "enlightened" enough to know that some of her kind are not racists)

I'm guessing that #2 is a hell of a lot more likely

(Especially as there is a lot of direct evidence that confirms #2)
--

Apparently this would then not qualify as a personal attack and is perfectly ok on BBF.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-31, 06:51, said:

Apparently this would then not qualify as a personal attack and is perfectly ok on BBF.

FWIW, I am not complaining about personal attacks and don't have a problem with them.
For example, I never said anything about the use of the word "Libtard" when it first appeared, I simply (mentially) noted the use of the expression...

What I do complain about is being singled out for instigating personal attacks when I did not start the mudslinging

[kenberg]

onoway, on 2016-October-30, 10:19, said:

To get back to the question, ran across this today and thought it had some interesting points to make http://www.upworthy....are-their-ideas

I'll say a little more here. I copy the three points:

• School is harder. There's less homework but the material is more rigorous. People take education more seriously, from selecting the content to selecting the teachers.
• Sports are just a hobby. In the U.S., sports are a huge distraction from the business of school, but that's not the case in other countries.
• Kids believe there's something in it for them. The students in other countries deeply believe that what they are doing in school affects how interesting their lives were going to be. Even if they don't like a class, they see their education as a stepping stone to their future.

1. Probably true, but I mention a couple of things. When my older daughter took a year abroad, going to a regular school rather than one set up for visitors from abroad, she was shocked to find how easy it was and how casual the students were about their studies. That's a sample size of one, and it is college not high school, but it is some indication of variability. Perhaps a bigger issue: As I see it the variation among public high schools is immense. Far greater than when I was that age.





2. This certainly is true in some cases. Mostly, with the kids I know of, there is more emphasis on organized sports than when I was young. We mostly just put on skaes and went skating, or got on a bike and went riding, or played pick up baseball or football, or whatever. No parental involvement at all. That has changed. But most youngsters that I know get at least somewhat involved in organized sports but they keep it in perspective..





3..This one is a problem. She (the narrator) says it is the biggest of the three listed problems, and I agree. The solution is hardly clear. Thinking back, I see my sophomore year in high school as being both critical and turbulent. At 14, I still regarded my parents as something of a guide. At 15, as I finished my Sophomore year, I was largely self-determined. I chose my way, others chose their way. If they do not choose to take school seriously that is likely to be a mistake. But the speaker does not suggest how to change their minds. Without a doubt, the choices are often not the best. Of course many continue to receive strong parental guidance. Many do not, and these are often the ones in trouble. Society should do what?




I am by no means denying that 3. is a problem. Indeed, it is an enormous problem. The solution is elusive.

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2016-October-31, 07:15, said:

FWIW, I am not complaining about personal attacks and don't have a problem with them.

But (I think) most people do and it is difficult to argue that they do not make the boards a less friendly and welcoming place. I suspect what happened here is that Kaitlyn was given a little extra leeway due to being fairly new and being in the middle of posting some decent content though for all we know Barry might have issued a silent warning directly.

The issue for me in a case like this where a moderator comes down clearly and publicly on one side or the other is that it reinforces the idea that the one behaviour is ok and the other not. Given the nature of the original post (as quoted in #101) that was probably a mistake. Ideally we can get back to being pink and fluffy and having constructive dialogue with each other again.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-31, 06:51, said:

For reference, the original quote that started this sub-thread is:

Notice that the post is directed directly at Winston and that the qualifier only goes towards the "uninformed uneducated" part and not the unnecessary and inflammatory "libtard" name-calling.

So Hrothgar, may I suggest you edit your post to read:
--
Have you considered that maybe the problem is with you?

If I had to weigh the probabilities between:

1. Kaitlyn S is surrounded by a vast liberal conspiracy where ever she goes

2. Kaitlyn S posts a lot of really stupid stuff and most people I know would call her kind "racist, bigoted idiots" (though I am "enlightened" enough to know that some of her kind are not racists)

I'm guessing that #2 is a hell of a lot more likely

(Especially as there is a lot of direct evidence that confirms #2)
--

Apparently this would then not qualify as a personal attack and is perfectly ok on BBF.

Yes, it appears as though use of a qualifying phrase allows any personal attacks to be O.K. For example, "I don't want to sound biased" or "Some people say" could then be followed by people like (insert name) are Trumpholes and all would be lovey-dovey.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2016-October-31, 07:15, said:

FWIW, I am not complaining about personal attacks and don't have a problem with them.
For example, I never said anything about the use of the word "Libtard" when it first appeared I simply noted the use of the expression...

What I do complain about is being singled out for instigating personal attacks when I did not start the mudslinging

If there were earlier personal attacks, I must have missed them. I apologize for not scrutinizing every message. Note that I didn't notice "libtard" being leveled at any specific individuals, I thought it was used to refer to a whole class of people, which obviously included some posters.

I admit that I tend to notice this kind of stuff in your posts, because you have a history that makes me sensitive to them, while I'm not yet biased regarding Kaitlyn. On the other hand, I frequently read posts without looking at the author first. So what often happens is I read a post, notice a particularly nasty jab, then scroll back and say to myself "Of course it was you...". Although from what I've read about psychology, it's possible that I noticed the author subconsciously as I was scrolling to the post, and it primed me to be sensitive to the language. I'd probably have to read the group in an fMRI to find out if this is going on.

But I'm not going to apologize for singling you out. You've been warned many times, so should know better, yet you never change.

[Thiros]

PassedOut, on 2016-October-29, 08:33, said:

I'm a conservative, and I've never encountered the term "libtard" before, let alone used it.

I have seen this word in one other place, and one place only: the current events board on a Stanford athletics fan site. A place where -- coincidentally -- a "Katelyn" arrived out of the blue and has been arguing vehemently against Hillary since August 24 of this year.

Although, that probably doesn't mean very much of anything because the term doesn't appear to be all that uncommon.

[PassedOut]

Thiros, on 2016-October-31, 13:05, said:

I have seen this word in one other place, and one place only: the current events board on a Stanford athletics fan site. A place where -- coincidentally -- a "Katelyn" arrived out of the blue and has been arguing vehemently against Hillary since August 24 of this year.

Although, that probably doesn't mean very much of anything because the term doesn't appear to be all that uncommon.

Looked up the definition in your Urban Dictionary link and, although the term itself might be common, I don't believe I've met anyone who fits the definition (and I've met and talked with a lot of people).

[kenberg]

It's surprising, or maybe it isn't, how often these intended insults backfire. The New Minor Forcing convention was once know as PLOB. Someone of the old school referred to it as a Petty Little Odious Bid and the acronym was born The latest example is that "Nasty Woman" tee shirts are selling off the shelves.Basket of Deplorables didn't play so well either. The faithful applaud the cleverness, the rest sigh or maybe moan, and move on.

[Kaitlyn S]

Thiros, on 2016-October-31, 13:05, said:

I have seen this word in one other place, and one place only: the current events board on a Stanford athletics fan site. A place where -- coincidentally -- a "Katelyn" arrived out of the blue and has been arguing vehemently against Hillary since August 24 of this year.

It's not me. She is way too well-informed, well-spoken, and intelligent to be me

Thiros, on 2016-October-31, 13:05, said:

Although, that probably doesn't mean very much of anything because the term doesn't appear to be all that uncommon.

I would think some would have found that link offensive but I found it hilarious. To me, most of the text defined some very smart people that can make some good arguments - in fact if you replaced 'libtard' by 'liberal' every time it was found in the article, it would be a lot less offensive but would describe many of the posters in another forum to a tee.

In any event, I'm sorry that I descended upon your nirvana and offered a dissenting opinion to cause such an uproar. OK, maybe not that sorry, but I am sorry that I brought out the ugly side of people. Hopefully going forward we can kind of agree to somewhat respect the other posters.

Quote

Kaitlyn S posts a lot of really stupid stuff

I get that a lot every time I post that I think that Hillary will be worse for the country than The Donald, so I guess I should have expected close to the response I got. No hard feelings, it's all good.

[Vampyr]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-31, 21:42, said:

I get that a lot every time I post that I think that Hillary will be worse for the country than The Donald, so I guess I should have expected close to the response I got. No hard feelings, it's all good.

You use the word "think" very loosely. I do not believe that a person who actually has the capacity to think can hold your position.

[kenberg]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-31, 21:42, said:

It's not me. She is way too well-informed, well-spoken, and intelligent to be me
I would think some would have found that link offensive but I found it hilarious. To me, most of the text defined some very smart people that can make some good arguments - in fact if you replaced 'libtard' by 'liberal' every time it was found in the article, it would be a lot less offensive but would describe many of the posters in another forum to a tee.

In any event, I'm sorry that I descended upon your nirvana and offered a dissenting opinion to cause such an uproar. OK, maybe not that sorry, but I am sorry that I brought out the ugly side of people. Hopefully going forward we can kind of agree to somewhat respect the other posters.

I get that a lot every time I post that I think that Hillary will be worse for the country than The Donald, so I guess I should have expected close to the response I got. No hard feelings, it's all good.

I guess the education issue has gone by the boards so I will comment on this. "Libtard" is defining rather than offensive, but defining of the person that uses it. Try a thought experiment. Imagine that I call you a contard. Would you be up in arms, deeply offended? Or would you think "That kemberg guy sounds like an idiot that confuses slogans with thought"? I rest my case.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-01, 02:41, said:

You use the word "think" very loosely. I do not believe that a person who actually has the capacity to think can hold your position.

I am not so shocked. I work at an Engineering/Architecture firm, with about 30 staff at our midwestern location. These are people who earned A/E degrees of various advancement, who practice A/E and are good at. We design buildings, new land developments, etc. As a group we lean conservative, and some have openly supported Trump. Others don't believe in AGW. These are smart people who indeed can think, they don't at all fit the image of the uneducated alt-righty Trump supporter. And yet there it is, it puzzles me too.

[Kaitlyn S]

kenberg, on 2016-November-01, 06:57, said:

I guess the education issue has gone by the boards

That's too bad because I enjoyed the discussion and learned a few things.

However, I think the discussion got killed because it's pretty clear to the posters that Elliana is pretty clearly right on pretty much everything (or at least right enough that nobody here can dispute her) and everybody else can only say +1 or ignore the thread.

However, our education system can definitely use improvement. For, we don't have an Elianna in every classroom; far from it, in many classrooms we have teachers that are putting in their time until retirement, and in others, we have teachers wanting to teach but for some reason not gaining enough respect from the children to have total control of the classroom. I can't say for sure, but it's possible that some classrooms do have an Elliana equivalent, but the teacher isn't given the tools to teach well; either that the tools aren't funded, or that the teacher has to use a curriculum that she feels is inferior but is mandated, or that teachers are forced to teach to a test.

It is also hard for me to put two conflicting buckets of evidence together in the same world; one where Elliana has people coming up with their own scheme of multiplying 12 by 18 and having other posters agree that this is a likely scenario, and the real world where I see young people who have difficulty taking 50% off $2; not realizing that there is anything wrong when they compute something off a $10 item and try to charge me $13, or run for their calculators when they need to know what 9+6 is. Now granted, many of the people I am dealing with are store clerks, where many of Elliana's students might be destined to be doctors, lawyers, and hedge fund managers so I am probably dealing with the lower half of the spectrum. BTW, I would consider it rather humorous if some of the same people who have advocated for the legalization of pot say that the total lack of mathematical talent I am seeing is due to the effect of chemicals on young brains.

All teachers would love to teach the gifted, attentive children. However, the majority of children aren't gifted. I think it's important that the "normal" child does not grow up to be as clueless as the clerks in my examples. By the way, I am not cherrypicking clueless clerk examples, I run into such cluelessness practically every time I check out unless what they have to do is routine. And yet, the testing is saying that our education is improving in many cases; perhaps what it is really saying is that we are teaching to standardized tests better.

Wal*Mart is starting to avoid the clueless clerk problem by installing self checkout lanes. (Perhaps it is having to meet many new costly government regulations they are trying to avoid, but that's a matter for a different thread.) It's possible that in our lifetime virtually all checkout counters will be unmanned so that these people for who it's not obvious that $13 is more than $10 will have to find other employment in a world where most menial work is automated. Smart cars will replace taxi and limousine drivers and perhaps truck drivers, drones will replace delivery people, many houses could be equipped with self-cleaning features - you get the idea. Children are going to have to somehow pick up the skills to be needed in tomorrow's world. This means reading comprehension, the ability to communicate, basic math skills so that virtually all children know that when you take something away from 10 and get 13, you'd better recalculate, and some competence at actual thinking. Clearly I'm no expert at education but those that are need to weigh in and be heard to the next generation will have those needed skills.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 11:58, said:

Children are going to have to somehow pick up the skills to be needed in tomorrow's world. This means reading comprehension, the ability to communicate, basic math skills so that virtually all children know that when you take something away from 10 and get 13, you'd better recalculate, and some competence at actual thinking. Clearly I'm no expert at education but those that are need to weigh in and be heard to the next generation will have those needed skills.

As I recall, there was an effort by experts in Education to recommend a basic skill set to prepare people for such a world as well as pedagogic techniques to complement this...

What was it called again (The "Common Core" or some such)?

[Kaitlyn S]

hrothgar, on 2016-November-01, 12:29, said:

As I recall, there was an effort by experts in Education to recommend a basic skill set to prepare people for such a world as well as pedagogic techniques to complement this...

What was it called again (The "Common Core" or some such)?

Indeed, I would be in favor of Common Core if I was certain that the party in power would not try to politicize education (i.e. brainwash the children with their beliefs.) "They" say it can't happen. However, federal dollars frequently come with strings and it will be the DOE that works for the pleasure of the president that will choose those strings.

While IMO, teaching conservative principles such as "The Constitution, just as our Founding Fathers intended it, without all this tyrannical government control" is just common sense, I would be opposed if in 2021, President Ted Cruz used Common Core to ram extremely right of center positions down our children's throats when much of our country would be appalled. And just because the curriculum isn't political now is no guarantee that it never will be. How much of Ted Cruz's agenda do you want your children to learn before the Supreme Court does something about it?

[billw55]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 11:58, said:

However, our education system can definitely use improvement. For, we don't have an Elianna in every classroom; far from it, in many classrooms we have teachers that are putting in their time until retirement, and in others, we have teachers wanting to teach but for some reason not gaining enough respect from the children to have total control of the classroom. I can't say for sure, but it's possible that some classrooms do have an Elliana equivalent, but the teacher isn't given the tools to teach well; either that the tools aren't funded, or that the teacher has to use a curriculum that she feels is inferior but is mandated, or that teachers are forced to teach to a test.

Indeed, having nearly finished putting two kids through the public schools, I can attest that there are good teachers, bad teachers, and somewhat more average ones. I suspect Eliana is among the former, and strongly suspect that she knows her share of the others.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 11:58, said:

It is also hard for me to put two conflicting buckets of evidence together in the same world; one where Elliana has people coming up with their own scheme of multiplying 12 by 18 and having other posters agree that this is a likely scenario, and the real world where I see young people who have difficulty taking 50% off $2; not realizing that there is anything wrong when they compute something off a $10 item and try to charge me $13

I wonder. I have occasionally met store clerks such as these; one at the meat counter could not figure out what 2/3 of a pound was on their decimal-only scale. But this is relatively rare, I would say 80+% have no trouble that I have noticed. However there may be some selection bias at work: stores choosing employees who can do arithmetic to work register.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 11:58, said:

Wal*Mart is starting to avoid the clueless clerk problem by installing self checkout lanes. (Perhaps it is having to meet many new costly government regulations they are trying to avoid, but that's a matter for a different thread.) It's possible that in our lifetime virtually all checkout counters will be unmanned so that these people for who it's not obvious that $13 is more than $10 will have to find other employment in a world where most menial work is automated. Smart cars will replace taxi and limousine drivers and perhaps truck drivers, drones will replace delivery people, many houses could be equipped with self-cleaning features - you get the idea.

I want one of those roving vacuum robots. Partly to clean the carpet, and partly for the thrill it would give our dogs.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 13:10, said:

Indeed, I would be in favor of Common Core if I was certain that the party in power would not try to politicize education (i.e. brainwash the children with their beliefs.) "They" say it can't happen. However, federal dollars frequently come with strings and it will be the DOE that works for the pleasure of the president that will choose those strings.

While IMO, teaching conservative principles such as "The Constitution, just as our Founding Fathers intended it, without all this tyrannical government control" is just common sense, I would be opposed if in 2021, President Ted Cruz used Common Core to ram extremely right of center positions down our children's throats when much of our country would be appalled. And just because the curriculum isn't political now is no guarantee that it never will be. How much of Ted Cruz's agenda do you want your children to learn before the Supreme Court does something about it?

Your posts continue to amaze me - you try to sound open-minded and tolerant but you continually prove to hold a closed, binary worldview.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 13:10, said:

Indeed, I would be in favor of Common Core if I was certain that the party in power would not try to politicize education (i.e. brainwash the children with their beliefs.) "They" say it can't happen. However, federal dollars frequently come with strings and it will be the DOE that works for the pleasure of the president that will choose those strings.

While IMO, teaching conservative principles such as "The Constitution, just as our Founding Fathers intended it, without all this tyrannical government control" is just common sense, I would be opposed if in 2021, President Ted Cruz used Common Core to ram extremely right of center positions down our children's throats when much of our country would be appalled. And just because the curriculum isn't political now is no guarantee that it never will be. How much of Ted Cruz's agenda do you want your children to learn before the Supreme Court does something about it?

I find it interesting that most of your complaints about poor educational outcomes focus on innumeracy while your complaints about the common core seem focused on fears about political indoctrination.

For the moment, lets shelve issues like Civics or History and focus instead on topics such as Mathematics, Physics, and Biology.
Are you also opposed to the Common Core being used for these subjects?

[awm]

There's a common issue where students who are perfectly able to solve a given math problem in math class, are seemingly unable to solve the same problem in a different context (i.e. their work, or even in science class). This sort of context-dependency is more common among people who learned math in a very procedural way (memorized a set of rules, with no real understanding) and is very much one of the problems common core is designed to reduce. Of course, implementing common core in math requires teachers with a reasonable understanding of both mathematics and teaching best practices, and sadly there are a lot of teachers who lack one or both of these abilities.

The idea that common core is somehow a takeover of education by the federal government is quite interesting. Common core was developed primarily by educators, and its adoption is determined primarily at the state level. It is already possible for a state government to decide to indoctrinate its kids (see some decisions by the Texas school board for example); if anything common core makes this less likely rather than more. And of course any state can always opt out.