hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Considering I made appeals to the opposite this is just bizarre. I guess it makes more sense to equivocate fiction with reality than look at multiple population groups deriving drastically different outcomes from similar environments.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Then how on earth would the example of 80% illiteracy for black students be relevant to anything? If you are suggesting that the current methodology is uniquely bad for blacks then I made the point in my post to point out that such examples are not necessarily relevant for all students. If you have a methodology that is better for all students then why not lead with that? Why squeal for sympathy by winding on the blacks?
Low literacy rates in this population are evidence of ineffective methods because 18% seems like such a very low estimate of the proportion of black kids who are educable to an 8th grade reading level.
You have no idea one way or another what the literacy rate for black students should be nor do you know what the reason for the comparatively low literacy rates for blacks is. I'm sure you could raise it. But I seriously doubt you could do so to any meaningful extent by telling the teacher to focus on 'phonics' instead of something else. On top of that you don't considering turning your example around. Is the high literacy rate among Asians not an example that the method works? This rubric you employ is obviously faulty.
Again, I'm not saying 'phonics' is worse, I'm inclined to believe you could teach kids to read using 'phonics' quite quickly. At least it seemed to work for me though I have little to compare against it. What I am saying, however, is that the implication of the examples you gave is that you can produce meaningful change in the literacy of blacks by changing the methodology. I don't see that belief being warranted. I do instead recognize it as part of an endless line of argumentation that proposes that we can meaningfully impact the gaps between blacks and whites using 'this one weird trick'. I see no reason to acknowledge that line of argumentation as anything other than what it is. And hopefully dismissing it so we can talk about something that actually matters.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
English is my second language. But when I went through elementary school there was a big push to teach kids English. So there was a kind of parallel thing going on where kids who weren't even alphabetically literate in their first language were doing the ABC's in English.
I'm pretty sure you could teach an English speaker how to read English by just slightly modifying the way you learned to read Dutch and you wouldn't have many problems. Learning to read might be very important but it's ultimately not hard. Literally, kids can do it. It just takes a little time.
My nonsense detector goes off every time blacks are used as an example for why X is bad. It's the typical Boasian anthropology 'cart before the horse' thinking that permeates every single mainstream explanatory theory relating to the gaps between blacks and whites. So when a person who subscribes to Boasian anthropology presents a new battleground where they can potentially excuse the drastic differences between people with innate cognitive differences with some half baked social theory my brain just shuts off. I mean, honestly, do people never tire of this ridiculous rigamarole that is repeated again and again? Do they never start questioning or doubting the hope they feel in their hearts when this sort of theory gets peddled? The differences are there. They will always(within lifetime) be there. Just like there are dumb white kids who can't into reading properly there are dumb brown kids who can't either. And the distribution of these dumb kids between the different population groups is not the same.
It's important to be able to help dumb kids function in modern society but you can't couch that concern as a universal worry for all children. Kids have been learning how to read for centuries. With time, methods and materials that are so lacking by today's standards that it's not even comparable. By the same token I've seen kids take special classes for years with specially trained teachers that ultimately amounted to very little comparatively. I am sure the extra time helped compared to not having it, but you would never blame the problem those kids were having on the method. Those were obvious cases where the kids had issues.
So whilst there might be an interesting discussion relating to the efficacy of various teaching methods on 'normal' children there simply isn't any space for it in mainstream society. We have retarded ourselves to the point of being unable to accurately categorize reality and have methodologically reduced ourselves to rely on hopeful fiction. That is leaving aside the larger problems with 'teaching' kids in a classroom regardless of their affinity or ability.
But on the actual topic, I only have anecdotal experience as a student.
As a kid I remember not liking 'phonics' since I had a much easier time reading text than doing specific exercises. Especially if I had some way to contextualize the text I was going to be reading. I would not read letters but instead look at the words as symbols. So I lagged behind in reading through first and second grade since most of the 'reading' was just exercises. But through third grade and onward I had great scores for reading since the exercises were more narrative based. Which, I found, was much more entertaining than the boring exercises that centered around individual letters or words disconnected from context. Reading a text I could contextualize two or three times with someone next to me that could tell me what a word I didn't know was helped me learn quickly comparatively.
On the whole, if you can't teach normal kids how to read when they are locked in a room with you for hours, 5 days a week for years then you have issues beyond state mandated methodology and are probably just a bad and incapable person. I remember hearing stories of my relative's teacher from their years in elementary school in the early 80's. The teacher had no qualification other than his own literacy. They had only a few 'books' and of those the only ones designed for children were handwritten by the teacher himself. Yet somehow learning how to read was not an issue in that class despite the kids spending much less time there than they would today.
I feel that illustrates just how low the bar is when we are talking about teaching normal kids how to read. And how inconsequential teaching methodologies, textbooks and all the other crap that gets brought up might be when it comes to teaching something basic like reading. That's not to say all methods or environments are equal. But after a certain point, that is set very very low, you quickly start seeing diminishing returns. So when folks start looking that way for solutions to obviously giant problems I think it's more pertinent to ask why people are looking in such an obviously wrong direction.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
These sort of brave 'hold the line' moments of trans exclusionary feminism always lack self awareness. Where the typical scenario of a desperate plea in the name of 'women's health' are paraded about like a holy shield. Not recognizing the 'health' that will be sacrificed in the name of these 'women', notably the health of trans women. But on top of that not recognizing the 'health' that has already been sacrificed in the name of feminism at the cost of men.
The core mode of feminist 'meta' discourse is that of designating who is in and who is out. Who the 'actual women' are. You know feminists are in disagreement when some of them have started talking about what is best for 'actual women'. Women who find themselves on the out realize this very quickly. They are not 'actually women'. They are the outgroup. Being pro-life, for instance, functionally makes you not an 'actual woman' since your values are not going to be carried out by the people who 'actually care about women'. You might think that you are a woman and that being pro-life is good for women but you are wrong. The 'actual women' are pro-choice.
Taking this framework of feminist 'meta' discourse and applying it to the trans thing, the display is obvious. Trans is in. Even if it's just certain institutions, you can see the lightning quick reflexes. The Florida Highschool Athletic Association is not standing on their heels. There are people there who know what's up. They know what's 'in'. And in the name of every single element of society that feminism crushed to get where it is today all I can say is lol.
How on earth can radical feminists or feminists in general pretend that the sort of radical change in society, to the point of floating ideas that are to the direct detriment of someone else's health, are somehow beyond them? I've lost count of the times a radfem will stomp their foot on the ground and proclaim that no matter anything else, 'what is best for the mom is what's best for the baby'. Even if that means killing the baby so mom can continue chasing her dreams in marketing. Hell, where are the old radfem forum threads where women were floating the idea of not breastfeeding their boys so that they would become more physically equal to women? Those notions were, admittedly, radical. But the notions of drastically changing society to make these sort of 'equalities' come about via different means were not. In some aspects they've just become policy.
Feminist discourse has a very simple mode for how to view itself and 'actual women': Everything that is not 'actual women' takes a backseat. No matter what that entails. There is no principle. There is no line in the sand it will not cross. It is always and has always been a very simple mode. The ingroup always comes before the outgroup. There is no debate about anything else on that topic. The only debate is what qualifies as the ingroup. And that debate is, as it stands, over. The feminism of the past would not have batted an eye if they had to discuss this in any other context. At best they would only have acknowledged any resistance with mockery.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If you're this skeptical then I don't understand why you would say 'gender identity' exists at all.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I always find those attempts very annoying. Not just due to the fact that it intentionally distorts basic intuitive assumptions that a fantasy desperately relies on to create a believable world. But that it's an obvious admission of the reality of those intuitive assumptions. It's only pretending they're not there because they obviously are there.
It's the equivalent of taking a Rubik's cube, recognizing that it does look satisfying when there is obvious order to the colors, jumbling it up until it's an incoherent mess and then presenting it saying 'There. Isn't this satisfying?' No. It's not. It's a jumbled incoherent mess and the only reason you jumbled it up is because you recognize order and the inherent reality congruent intuition everyone has about these things. But for reasons that are purely derived from modern political norms authors predictably and performatively distort them without acknowledging that without the intuition and order they would have nothing to write about in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
These are not semantic debates when the people who instigate them insist that the bleeding unconscious mess on the floor loves them.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
So the people of Iraq, that hate America and wish for nothing more than to see it destroyed, can now vote and this is a win for the US because? Not that this is an actual worry since Iraq, by some think tank standards, has not been less democratic since they starting measuring the country in 2006. And is categorized as "authoritarian", ranking 124th out of 167.
I'm reminded of the color revolution in Egypt and the democratic upheaval in the country that resulted in the most backward Islamic rule in recent times to win control over the country because, contrary to the words of liberal-progressive English speaking university students that could give interviews to CNN on the ground, the voting majority was anything but. This then lead to a hastily organized military coup to correct the record of the peoples will. Democracy indeed.
I guess I am asking what on earth 'you' won.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
A recent tragic event: Mother accused of killing three children in Massachusetts
A mother is accused of strangling three of her children before she jumped out a window in an attempted suicide at their suburban Boston home, officials said Wednesday.
An arrest warrant had already been issued Wednesday for Lindsay Clancy for two counts of homicide in connection with the deaths of her 5-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son. Her 8-month-old son, who she's also accused of strangling and was "grievously wounded," has since died, NBC Boston reported.
First responders found three children in the home in Duxbury. The children were unconscious and “with obvious signs of severe trauma,” Cruz said. "Preliminarily it appears that the children were strangled,"
The Culture War angle: Following this event some TikTok accounts have released videos in support of the mother and voicing concern over mothers and their mental health, leading to discussion. Examples: https://postimg.cc/NKpX61ty, https://postimg.cc/vxT8d6jK, https://postimg.cc/CnnyNC9w, https://postimg.cc/8FvttKzK, https://postimg.cc/TK6wKhWK, https://postimg.cc/K3cXXSKv
Considering the nature of the crime I find the wording in the TikTok's off putting. This isn't phrased as something the mother, Lindsay Clancy 'did'. It's something that 'happened to her' and that she 'needs support'.
On a tangential note: This reminds me of an older sex war question surrounding female violence towards children and how women are treated in society. Specifically the terminology of SIDS. Sudden Infrant Death Syndrome. Which became a notable issue when multiple women who murdered their own children ended up, after a few years, being released scot-free. Neven Sesardić, a Croatian philosopher, wrote a very interesting article published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Specifically relating to Sally Clark, a woman in the UK who was accused of murdering two of her children, and some relevant statistical analysis that cast aspersions on the validity of SIDS as it was relied on by expert witnesses to defend Clark in court. Along with leveraging statistical critiques against the Royal Statistical Society.
The tangential relevance here is whether or not Lindsay Clancy will be afforded similar legal leniency on top of everything else. Though with the hellish nature of the crime, one could only really hope for punishments that far exceed all the comforts that a lifetime in a women's prison will afford her.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Mind-killed seems strong. A sufficient explanation of their actions would be to say that they are consistent in the application of the belief that any discrepancy between groups that benefits whites or disadvantages blacks is a racism.
Considering how many people hold to that belief only when convenient I can only congratulate the democrats and media in general and the NYT in particular for their consistency.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
People hated him and it had very little to do with stealing jokes. Much more the fact that he was extremely successful along with the reasons I gave prior. I don't think it says that in his Wikipedia article, but it's lacking all relevant context anyway so I don't think you are in a position to make the argument you are making if you are also lacking the relevant context.
To put things in perspective, I don't think you can look over any recent interviews or people talking about Dane Cook of the past without them mentioning how hated he was.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The issue I would have with that is that it decouples the act from context.
When the term 'cancel culture' is allowed to sit as an individual entity it serves to diminish the nature of the act and its gravity. Which serves those who engage in it when they want to excuse it.
As an example, from a material perspective Louis CK getting 'cancelled' is stupid. Caring about it is stupid. The guy isn't going to starve on the street. He's made multiple lifetimes worth of money. And he has fans who actively seek out and pay to hear what he has to say. Same goes for nigh every single high profile example of 'cancel culture'. Often times the people getting 'cancelled' even have huge social media platforms to advertise their 'cancellation' to others. By becoming upset at someone like this being 'cancelled' you are being, at best, hyperbolic. It's completely nonsensical from a material perspective to care about 'cancel culture' in all but the vast minority of cases.
Yet these 'cancellings' still animate people. The reason for that, from my perspective, is obvious. It's a weapon of war being used against 'your side' and being angry that your side was attacked is a natural response. In that context it makes sense to me to get a little perturbed when some conservative talking head can't repeat their talking points to 100 students in some college and has to cry about it to their million followers on twitter.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Relying on vague terms is obfuscatory to recognizing anything real. Calling something 'cancel culture' diminishes the impulses being acted upon. These are people looking to destroy the enemy. Trying to disassociate that process from normal people by acting as if these impulses are different than when acted upon by people in historically significant contexts only obfuscates the universality of the process and the depth of the cultural divide.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I always assumed it was predetermined by multiple parties with leverage that CK was out. And then 'they' just executed 'their' hit as an excuse, taking advantage of convenient times.
That theory is evidenced by the fact that he was striking out a bit on his own prior to this more recent ad friendly comeback. Doing stand-up with even more crass jokes, hanging around outsiders like Shane Gillis and so on. Indicating that he was hanging out with a new crowd doing less cucked comedy(for his standards).
Considering the bottom barrel high school tier clique based social networks that seem to dominate the 'comedy crowd' in the US, and the rumors within that space that CK could be a socially deaf asshole that treated people with less clout than him with indignity, I'd wager CK managed to step on enough toes, or at least the wrong ones, and found himself with too few friends in higher places, and too many people who hated his guts.
I know this might sound a bit like far fetched fan fiction, but I'm always reminded of how Dane Cook managed to be treated like the worst comedian in the history of the universe whilst he was selling out tickets to his shows. Only because the 'comedy crowd' in the cities didn't like him. Presumably just because he coded red and wasn't doing the George Carlin 'nihilism' bit like most everyone else. Meaning that it doesn't necessarily take much to find yourself without any friends in the US comedy scene(gutter).
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm talking about the de-nazification policies after the war. Not so much the end of war massacres and war crimes tribunals. Nazis got canceled.
That's not a relevant distinction. It would still fall under the definition I am giving of it just being warfare. The term 'cancel culture' is obfuscatory and redundant. It's just cultural warfare.
I'm talking about social media accounts versus powerful organizations like US government.
So am I. I still don't understand why you would say that it's risible for 'ordinary people' to engage in warfare when all warfare is enacted by ordinary people.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's risible because ordinary people are assumed to have a responsibility to find a way to live in peace with each other within a country. Ordinary people refusing to do so in Russia and Germany are a big part of the reason WWII came about.
That's not an answer to the relevant follow up question pertaining to the lack of reasons people had to find ways to live in 'peace'. I mean, I can certainly understand why an impoverished Russian farmer didn't quite fancy the 'peace' of a perpetual state of starvation, which would lead to conditions which would ultimately bring about the Soviet Union. And I can also understand why a German might not like to live under Weimar conditions. I would, in fact, sympathize more with them than the person who considers those situations tolerable.
It's not. Groups matter. Russia, Germany, The American North and South in the Civil War and after, all were shaped far more by social dynamics than by atomic individual choice.
This statement is completely irrelevant to what you are replying to.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think you have things backwards. What the allies did to the nazis wasn't 'cancel culture'. It was just warfare. The enemy was the nazis and they hunted the enemy down and murdered them. That war was a total war. Not just in the economic sense but in every sense possible. That's why the allies executed Julius Streicher despite him not having fired a weapon or commanded any troops. Same goes for the monuments and art the allies intentionally destroyed due to the connections to nazi ideology.
What I don't understand is why you would say it's risible for 'ordinary people' to try and give other people the nazi treatment. It was always ordinary people who did these things. From the soldier and his rifle to the largest institutions in the world. It's all individual people.
If you don't live in an actual nation with a national ideology then I don't see why you would expect the society you live in to not devolve into a state of warfare.
The black-white IQ gap could mean that whites are less likely to get caught. It's reasonable to assume smarter criminals will take precautions to avoid being caught.
Crime victimization surveys cast shade on this theory. Arrest rates match rather closely with self reported victimization rates. If there were any relevant amount of white criminals going underpoliced you would see that discrepancy in the victimization surveys.
I would also say that it's reasonable to assume that a lot of white criminals are not very bright. I'd also argue, as a counterweight to the idea that black criminals are more policed relative to white criminals, that black criminals are more likely than white criminals to get away with serious crimes without being arrested due to the sheer amount of crimes being committed in the areas that make up the bulk of black crime rates. Like, for example, in Chicago where the majority of homicides go unsolved.
If you just look at homicides, excluding serial killers, then blacks are way overrepresented.
Of the total % of serial killers by race whites are underrepresented at around 30% whilst black are overrepresented at around 60%.
Outside of that point #2 is valid. Though I have reservations about considering violent crime on the same level as financial crime, for various reasons.
Counter point to that theory is crime victimization surveys. Arrest rates match rather closely with self reported victimization rates. If there were any relevant amount of white criminals going underpoliced you would see that discrepancy in the victimization surveys.
I'd also argue, as a counterweight to the idea that black criminals are more policed relative to white criminals, that black criminals are more likely than white criminals to get away with serious crimes without being arrested due to the sheer amount of crimes being committed in the areas that make up the bulk of black crime rates. Like, for example, in Chicago where the majority of homicides go unsolved.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's not how it would work for someone like Rowling. Who ingroups women and minorities.
For someone like myself, yes, the NAACP is a racist hate group just as much as David Duke and his former KKK chapter was. Yes, the affirmative action programs have the racial hatred of white people at its core just like Jim Crow laws had hatred of black people at its core. Yes, a scholarship only for women is sexist and hateful towards men just like men only being allowed into school was sexist and hateful towards women. Now, at no time did either side of any of these issues describe themselves as hateful in any way. But that doesn't change the fact that the victors of history describe their defeated foes that way.
To clarify, I would not use the word hate to describe these things, just ingroup bias. But people like Rowling have been using terminology such as 'hate' for a long time. Since they accept the cultural narrative of the victors. I just think it's fair it gets applied to people like Rowling by the same standard.
Did Rowling actually say any man who is not actively working for a feminist movement is doing harm to women?
I doubt I could find a direct quote. But considering the feminism she supports which demands that men do give their power away to women or be branded whatever slur is popular with the feminists I don't see why I would need to. I think it would be a fair statement to say that people like Rowling believe the patriarchy does harm to women. And we can just work our way back from there.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Does Rowling make such considerations for others? I don't think she does. I think she if fine with calling people racist misogynists regardless of the nuanced truth value of their statements. I find it hard to sympathize with such a character. By her own philosophy she is a transphobe.
I'm pretty sure she is being called a transphobe precisely because of that belief of hers. Am I missing something?
But regardless of that:
'Believing black people are dumber than whites isn't racist. It's a question regarding psychological matter of fact.'
'Believing women shouldn't be allowed to vote isn't misogynistic. It's a question of democratic franchisement'
I don't think Rowling would accept that logic. I think she would call anyone who said that a racist misogynist.
It's not about what I, you or any people outside the Overton window think. It's about what Rowling thinks in every other context. This is her world. She broke the rules. And now she wants her case to be heard on grounds she would reject for anyone else.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Because it's not her opponents terminology any more than it is hers. The only problem she has with it is that she is the target. Outside of that she accepts every single premise around such rhetorical devices. Racist, homophobe, misogynist. That's her home. That's how she judges others.
It would only be evidence of bad teaching for blacks though, since other groups have much better literacy rates with similar teaching methods. To that point I asserted that you have no baseline for what the literacy rates for blacks should be.
Again, if the point was not about blacks, why specifically mention blacks? If a method is bad since it can't teach blacks then would it be, by the same token, good since it can teach Asians? This rubric is obviously faulty. I don't buy the sincere proposition that we are specifically mentioning blacks because that's the best way to illustrate the problem.
I don't disagree. I just can't manage to fit all those pieces together. I mention the black white gap because of the implications that has to any methodology that assumes that you can in one way or another uniquely affect the literacy of blacks whilst assuming that blacks and whites are of equal cognitive ability. I assumed the people doing the podcast were not race realist HBD types. That was a complete guess on my part though. But for anyone that is not, I don't know how you piece that narrative together. It's not as if most kids that aren't black are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
The reason I said you didn't lead with that is because you didn't. The point made by you was not a study controlling for relevant factors concluding that kids learned to read better using phonics and that this would greatly benefit all children. It's was: "The results, the podcast claims, are dismal. As evidence, it includes some agonizing statistics, like that 80+% of African American 8th graders do not test as proficient readers."
You're right. Those adjectives all apply. But by the same token the constant reliance on black tears to garner sympathy sickens me on a fundamental level. I mean, are the illiteracy rates of poor white kids not good enough? Do we really need to weave a narrative including the white kids that have vs the black kids that have not when talking about what methodology works best to teach kids how to read? Like, really?
In any case I explicitly responded to vitriol I felt was implied but that might not have been warranted when directed at you. My bad.
More options
Context Copy link