Is Political Correctness Making Our Kids Stupid?

[guacamole]

In support of Guac's claims, here is an article of a liberal weenie who actually walked out on Shriver's speech because she thinks cultural appropriation is good, even in fiction.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...alk-out-on-her

Yeah, the Slate piece I read dismissed the speech as a "strawman" but then devoted a lot of verbiage to attacking it.

Here for the masochists amongst you.

A sample:

[demi-conservative]

I saw Professor Bonevac on TV last night. He said for all intents and purposes debate has been shut down because of political correctness. Kids no longer are exposed to contrary views, classical moral thought, and their ability to debate or even defend their own positions has almost completely atrophied. What a complete disservice these educators are doing to our young people.

So much for libs being 'more educated', 'more open-minded', 'more rational' and all that nonsense.

[Sparko]

I wish I saw it as you do. As it is, it stands as a pretty stark threat to the creative rights and obligations of an author. Part of the idea is that people of such-and-such an identity ought to be the ones making the money from that identity, as though there were some point to a kind of literary affirmative action as opposed to the arts being an ideal meritocracy.

That's part of the drive, for example, behind some industry news that notes that Disney purposefully chose to use Polynesian actors, some relative unknowns (clearly not the Rock, tho), for Moana. For whatever reason, Lin Manuel Miranda got a pass despite not being an actual Polynesian composer. You get what you get, eh?

The frustrating thing about this is how, on one side, the same set of people who criticize cultural appropriation in pop-culture and art, also applaud a show like Hamilton, written and performed by admittedly genius performers, but performers who, if the rules were consistently applied, were appropriating the imagery and culture of colonial White America.

fwiw,
guacamole

Good point. I guess it is OK for a black person to play a white character (Hamilton) but not vice versa. Also for females to play male roles (like Starbuck in the newer Battlestar Galactica)

It seems it is OK as long as you are bucking the status quo of the dominant culture.

Can you imagine the applause at having a black actor play Huckleberry Finn? But the outrage of a white actor playing slave Jim?

[Sparko]

What is confusing is that the left thinks it is wrong to "appropriate" another person's culture, while at the same time supports and applauds things like transgenderism, and "self-identifying" with other races or orientations, or genders. A complete and ironic disconnect IMHO.

[seer]

What is confusing is that the left thinks it is wrong to "appropriate" another person's culture, while at the same time supports and applauds things like transgenderism, and "self-identifying" with other races or orientations, or genders. A complete and ironic disconnect IMHO.

Right, and if black folks vote on their self-interest it is OK, but if white folks vote on their self-interest it is racist.

[Bill the Cat]

What is confusing is that the left thinks it is wrong to "appropriate" another person's culture, while at the same time supports and applauds things like transgenderism, and "self-identifying" with other races or orientations, or genders. A complete and ironic disconnect IMHO.

I think we should just start calling transgender and transvestite behavior "gender appropriation"

[Sparko]

I think we should just start calling transgender and transvestite behavior "gender appropriation"

Already did that.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...opriation-quot

[lilpixieofterror]

IIRC, the highest US tax rate used to be significantly higher than that and during a period of economic growth, so I would hardly call it an idea worthy of dismissal without thought.

If you're talking about the 1950's, you have to be careful there because things have changed since that time. Just a few things I can think of:

1. Much of the world was still in a recovery period entering the decade. Both Japan and Germany were going though hyperinflation entering the decade. The USSR, UK, and France were still rebuilding their shattered economies. Likewise, the powerhouse known as China was in the middle of a civil war. This put the US in the perfect position since we were about the only major industrialized power that hadn't been majorly damaged during WWII and wasn't in the middle of fighting a bunch of wars (IE China and France). Roughly 60% of the world's finished goods and around that much of the world's GDP was produced in the US. Obviously, the world has recovered from WWII by now and places, like China, are now competing in the world markets along with many other powers (IE India, the middle east, southeast Asia) are competing with the US now too. We simply can't afford to be noncompetitive, with high taxes or obsessive regulations anymore.
2. From what I could find, it seems from 1950-1959, economic growth was around 3.5-3.8%, which is above average, but isn't on the level of higher economic growth periods. Why is the decade is remembered as being a boom time, I would say it is due to who was living in it. That generation has grown up in the shortages of the great depression and WWII, so compared to what they grew up with; the 1950's were boom times. If what you grew up with was shortages and depressions; you'd be pretty excited when that is no longer the reality.
3. Few actually paid those kind of rates due to all the legal loop holes that existed.

Take this all together, I don't think we should move back to the tax rates of the 1950's. It simply wouldn't work today.

[lilpixieofterror]

No that was in your imagination. I did wonder why you didn't seem to have read the thread OP and had just written a random rant that didn't seem to apply. The thread wasn't about Hillary, or her lack of election, and wasn't about the mainstream media.

Funny how many others made the same links I did and concluded that it was the major news media trying to make excuses for their failure to get their new savior elected, eh? Sorry dimbulb, but this just goes to show how unintelligent you are since the media didn't seem to care about 'fake news' until after their criminal candidate lost the election. Besides, with the all the fake news that the MSM has been caught spreading, they are hardly in the position to accuse others of spreading fake news.

I deny your ability at reading comprehension. You don't even seem to have understood the topic of the thread. Just go away.

And yet, others seem to have caught on and said the same things. Funny how you're not accusing me of not being able to read that or the only stupid one around here is well.... you...

[lilpixieofterror]

There was a time that while tax rates were high, the number of deductions and exemptions were much more numerous. The complaint of the time was how the rich had so many "loopholes" that they rarely paid any actual income taxes.

And didn't Kennedy run on the idea of 'fixing' what was wrong with America?

[Sea of red]

I disagree.
Understand, I'm not advocating the teaching of Creationism - I honestly don't care; however, it isn't hard to imagine some benefits.

1: Most people in the US hold to some type of Creationism. I should think students being familiar with a majority view, even if that view is wrong, would be a good thing.
2: It would equip Evolutionists to deal with common misconceptions/attack points/weaknesses in their own theory. They'd be better evolutionists.

As a Creationist I once debated a co-worker (degreed scientist) and I pulled his pants down and humiliated him because he was utterly clueless that there was even a controversy. He had no idea when I was leading him into a trap, no clue as to the importance of certain definitions, and he was absolutely defenseless because he'd been sheltered. I couldn't do that here because all the Evolutionists on TWEB know the battleground well and they'll not concede a single key point. They've been educated. They are better Evolutionists.

If I were in charge of education I'd expose my students to any number of crackpots because in a school environment I can help them work through some of the tougher nuts to crack. I can set up what appears to be an unbeatable opposing argument and show them how to take it apart. Why anyone would avoid that type of education is beyond me.

This idea would render students more ignorant than they were before. At best, any knowledge they gained would be canceled out by the crack-pot ideas presented to them as if they were equally valid as the factual ones.

The reason we don't expose kids in high school to crackpot ideas is because education is hard enough without throwing them into the mix. Most crack-pot theories involve misunderstanding of technically deep issues surrounding a theory, and so it can very be difficult to illustrate where the idea falls into foolishness for a general audience. I can't speak for other fields, but ideas in science have to earn their place in a textbook. Every sound theory had to pay it's dues and pass thorough testing by researchers - with disagreements on what the results of experiments imply usually. To let ideas that have not paid their dues be presented in a classroom with the same respect as the ones that have, not only gives younger people a false impression of how truth is determined, but is an overall disservice to their education.

Like it or not, some disagreements and controversy are best left to experts that have been properly trained in a fields methods. Sometimes the facts can be broken down for a general audience, and others times it's just not possible to do.

There is certainly merit to showcasing how to conduct sound logic as a a way of finding truth, but this is not one of them.

[Bill the Cat]

This idea would render students more ignorant than they were before. At best, any knowledge they gained would be canceled out by the crack-pot ideas presented to them as if they were equally valid as the factual ones.

The reason we don't expose kids in high school to crackpot ideas is because education is hard enough without throwing them into the mix. Most crack-pot theories involve misunderstanding of technically deep issues surrounding a theory, and so it can very be difficult to illustrate where the idea falls into foolishness for a general audience. I can't speak for other fields, but ideas in science have to earn their place in a textbook. Every sound theory had to pay it's dues and pass thorough testing by researchers - with disagreements on what the results of experiments imply usually. To let ideas that have not paid their dues be presented in a classroom with the same respect as the ones that have, not only gives younger people a false impression of how truth is determined, but is an overall disservice to their education.

Like it or not, some disagreements and controversy are best left to experts that have been properly trained in a fields methods. Sometimes the facts can be broken down for a general audience, and others times it's just not possible to do.

There is certainly merit to showcasing how to conduct sound logic as a a way of finding truth, but this is not one of them.

Crackpot theories? Have you ever seen Common Core math?

[RumTumTugger]

Crackpot theories? Have you ever seen Common Core math?

something like this?

[hansgeorg]

I saw Professor Bonevac on TV last night. He said for all intents and purposes debate has been shut down because of political correctness. Kids no longer are exposed to contrary views, classical moral thought, and their ability to debate or even defend their own positions has almost completely atrophied. What a complete disservice these educators are doing to our young people.

I agree. Look at Sparko in this thread! Here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...9-My-Hero-Zero

Stop debating this now!

See what I mean?

[hansgeorg]

something like this?

Song: New Math
Artist: Tom Lehrer
Album: That Was the Year that Was

I think the video contains some parody of common core.

One thing where it isn't half as bad as made out is the grid method of multiplication.

I use the grid method rather often when multiplying two large numbers where one doesn't just have a lot of zeros in the Arabic version.

And I use zeros, when applicable, in the grid method. I just don't think that makes them a number.