This Mostly White City Wants To Leave Its Mostly Black School District

[compuwiz1]

It's all very funny these clowns don't ever chase their guys from Bannon and whoever else Trump is openly recruiting on down (not to mention the "white country", "chimps" and muslim-genocide sorts around here), but get real upset when anyone calls any of them on it.

I'm sure there'll be some liberal/moderate brilliant gentleman along shortly to apologize for your lot, that it's all due to unfortunate economics or something and not inherent sense of racial entitlement that's passed down the generations.

I was completely unaware that people were allowed to post from mental institutions.

 

[agent00f]

I was completely unaware that people were allowed to post from mental institutions.

Easy to see why only klan recruiters accuse you guys of cleverness.

 

[compuwiz1]

Easy to see why only klan recruiters accuse you guys of cleverness.

What's your handle over at Ars?
How did it feel when Reddit outted you, as the troll you are?
Have you ever watched the movie, Red Dawn?
Still married to the geek, or did she kick your ass to the curb?
How's the weather in Boston, or did you move back to California?
Still a Hells Angels wannabe?

 

[agent00f]

What's your handle over at Ars?
How did it feel when Reddit outted you, as the troll you are?
Have you ever watched the movie, Red Dawn?
Still married to the geek, or did she kick your ass to the curb?
How's the weather in Boston, or did you move back to California?
Still a Hells Angels wannabe?

I can only recommend you let no one dissuade you from this pursuit.

 

[glenn1]

Of course you will. I never said any different. You'll also characterize it in a way that justifies your own greed.

LOL, sure. "Greed", eh? Good thing your betters who are the wealthy suburbanites are very generous and fund charities that help kids like this.

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL, sure. "Greed", eh? Good thing your betters who are the wealthy suburbanites are very generous and fund charities that help kids like this.

Yeh, more money means you're "better", obviously.

 

[Jaskalas]

Money is mobile. It moves out of the city, out of the county, out of the state, and even... out of the country.
Funding might be an issue of topic here, but so is the effect of flight further reinforcing ethnic enclaves.
People segregate themselves, what are we to do about it?

So far it seems the only argument is over money. Perhaps over many decades enough wealth could dissolve an ethnic enclave... by letting people both venture out, and encouraging others to move in. That's why major cities, in totality, can be quite diverse but they too all share ethnic neighborhoods. A rich white section, a poor black section. Chicago exemplifies this, yes? It would appear that money alone is no answer to the crux of the issue.

Although it might help if all the people in poverty had social security to meet their needs. As a way to discourage crime perhaps.
Yes... perhaps it really does begin by obtaining a better, national, economic structure. Maybe this recent rise of racial tension is merely because Americans are poorer and more desperate than previous decades. Are we really at each others throats because of how !@#$y things have become?

Maybe after a certain economic tipping point we're all just starving dogs fighting over scraps.

 

[agent00f]

Money is mobile. It moves out of the city, out of the county, out of the state, and even... out of the country.
Funding might be an issue of topic here, but so is the effect of flight further reinforcing ethnic enclaves.
People segregate themselves, what are we to do about it?

So far it seems the only argument is over money. Perhaps over many decades enough wealth could dissolve an ethnic enclave... by letting people both venture out, and encouraging others to move in. That's why major cities, in totality, can be quite diverse but they too all share ethnic neighborhoods. A rich white section, a poor black section. Chicago exemplifies this, yes? It would appear that money alone is no answer to the crux of the issue.

Although it might help if all the people in poverty had social security to meet their needs. As a way to discourage crime perhaps.
Yes... perhaps it really does begin by obtaining a better, national, economic structure. Maybe this recent rise of racial tension is merely because Americans are poorer and more desperate than previous decades. Are we really at each others throats because of how !@#$y things have become?

Maybe after a certain economic tipping point we're all just starving dogs fighting over scraps.

Did you think history books were fiction or didn't read them? Damn those brownies must be so dumb to live in the shit neighborhoods.

 

[bshole]

Money is mobile. It moves out of the city, out of the county, out of the state, and even... out of the country.
Funding might be an issue of topic here, but so is the effect of flight further reinforcing ethnic enclaves.
People segregate themselves, what are we to do about it?

So far it seems the only argument is over money. Perhaps over many decades enough wealth could dissolve an ethnic enclave... by letting people both venture out, and encouraging others to move in. That's why major cities, in totality, can be quite diverse but they too all share ethnic neighborhoods. A rich white section, a poor black section. Chicago exemplifies this, yes? It would appear that money alone is no answer to the crux of the issue.

Although it might help if all the people in poverty had social security to meet their needs. As a way to discourage crime perhaps.
Yes... perhaps it really does begin by obtaining a better, national, economic structure. Maybe this recent rise of racial tension is merely because Americans are poorer and more desperate than previous decades. Are we really at each others throats because of how !@#$y things have become?

Maybe after a certain economic tipping point we're all just starving dogs fighting over scraps.

I think it is the rise of social media.

I saw a video the other day on youtube where a young black woman asserted that ALL white people were racist and that they should not be interacted with until they acknowledged their racism. Do a search on "yes all white people" for the video. It is an interesting perspective she had.

 

[agent00f]

I think it is the rise of social media.

I saw a video the other day on youtube where a young black woman asserted that ALL white people were racist and that they should not be interacted with until they acknowledged their racism. Do a search on "yes all white people" for the video. It is an interesting perspective she had.

Arguably the right approach is learn to act white enough until she measures up to one of the good ones.

 

[bshole]

Arguably the right approach is learn to act white enough until she measures up to one of the good ones.

??? Didn't quite understand that.

Do you think every single white person is a racist? I sort of do. I will expand that even further, I think that a case could be made that every single human is racist by nature, that there is an innate antipathy of the other inside all humanity.

Racism is hardwired into the brain and operates unconsciously because areas that detect ethnicity and control emotion are closely connected, according to scientists.

Researchers explain that the same brain circuits that allow us to classify a person into an ethnic group overlap with other circuits that process emotion and make decisions, leading people to make unconscious decisions based on another's race.

The latest study, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, found that functional magnetic resonance imaging brain scans revealed that interactions between people from different racial groups trigger reactions that researchers think may be completely unknown to our conscious selves.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/racism-...-unconscious-decisions-based-ethnicity-240970

 

[agent00f]

??? Didn't quite understand that.

Do you think every single white person is a racist? I sort of do. I will expand that even further, I think that a case could be made that every single human is racist by nature, that there is an innate antipathy of the other inside all humanity.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/racism-...-unconscious-decisions-based-ethnicity-240970

There are certainly a lot of white people who aren't considered racist, by, you know, not being racist. It's just simple reality some portion are.

What you're talking about is natural inclinations. Good thing humans are usually smart enough to overcome through learned behavior. Like for example most men learn not to sexually aggress women they find attractive.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

So that's one person who wants the suburban kids to get dragged down. Unfortunately for you most of the people who vote like you want their kids away from poor blacks also. And the bluest Democrat voting places are the most segregated.

how about we try to lift EVERYONE up, and for some it will require more effort than others, should we just say 'fvck it, it's too much work'?
according to you, yes, yes we should.

 

[bshole]

There are certainly a lot of white people who aren't considered racist, by, you know, not being racist. It's just simple reality some portion are.

What you're talking about is natural inclinations. Good thing humans are usually smart enough to overcome through learned behavior. Like for example most men learn not to sexually aggress women they find attractive.

Well that is kind of funny. My son is a white kid whose friends are black. He loves everything about black culture, he dresses black, he talks black, etc.... What is amazing to me is that he has developed a bit of antipathy for the white race and has expressed self-loathing of his white race on occasion. When a white racist does a harmful thing, he is ALL over it and extrapolates that single data point to ALL whites. He appears to have made the white race the OTHER even though he himself is white. It seems like humans NEED there to be an OTHER, that if they learn to tolerate a certain group with differences they instinctively find another group to become the OTHER.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Affluent schools not accepting of disadvantaged kids from neighboring communities is a totally different scenario.

If they refuse to lower their academic standards to facilitate it then they are doing what is in the best interest of all of their students. A standard is in place to bring uniformity, such as common core attempts to do, so that students everywhere will receive the very same standard of learning. Students in poor areas are fighting many things that hinder learning so the root causes must be addressed or this will never change. Lowering educational standards is never a good thing and harms people in the long run. Schools with poor performing students need to analyze the root cause for the poor performance and present their case to the appropriate agency for assistance with it. Schools are not responsible for what goes on at a child's home where the parents bear sole responsibility so stop trying to offload it onto the school system.

 

[Sunburn74]

I'll take my "GMFY" over your seeing suburbanites as nothing but a source of funds to give to city folks.

Yes. Suburbanites are a source of funds for city folks. I don't see an issue in regards to that. It's called living in our society. The young are a source of funds for the old. The healthy a source of funds for the sick. And so on and so on. 70% of my taxes paid will do absolutely nothing for me personally. That is fine. Wealthy suburbs should support poor inner city educational systems. This is a no brainer and fairly undisputable idea and only the most selfish, cold and incompassionate really would disagree..

You see, the fact of the matter is kids do not choose their parents. Its luck of the draw from the point of the view of the child. They also do not get to choose the quality of their education and their adulthood is heavily affected by these factors. At the very least, if we believe that this is a fair and just society, we should actively try and level the playing field. If this means some money going from wealthy areas flowing to poor areas to subsidize education, so be it. Ideas about capitalism and conservatism and etc are fair ideas to apply to adults. They are NOT fair ideas to apply to children.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. Suburbanites are a source of funds for city folks. I don't see an issue in regards to that. It's called living in our society. The young are a source of funds for the old. The healthy a source of funds for the sick. And so on and so on. Honestly the only reason to argue against it is selfish interests which yes must be balanced and are valid. Nonetheless, wealthy suburbs should support poor inner city educational systems. This is a no brainer undisputable idea.

The fact of the matter is kids do not choose their parents. They also do not get to choose the quality of their education and their adulthood is heavily affected by these factors. At the very least, if we believe that this is a fair and just society, we should actively try and level the playing field. If this means some money going from wealthy areas flowing to poor areas to subsidize education, so be it. Again, ideas about capitalism and etc are fair ideas to apply to adults. They are NOT fair ideas to apply to children.

There's only one problem with glenn's idea, it's totally false. Cities are (in general) net exporters of tax funds to suburban and rural areas, not the other way around. Glenn and his fellow suburbanites depend on money from the productive cities he hates so, so much.

 

[interchange]

If they refuse to lower their academic standards to facilitate it then they are doing what is in the best interest of all of their students. A standard is in place to bring uniformity, such as common core attempts to do, so that students everywhere will receive the very same standard of learning. Students in poor areas are fighting many things that hinder learning so the root causes must be addressed or this will never change. Lowering educational standards is never a good thing and harms people in the long run. Schools with poor performing students need to analyze the root cause for the poor performance and present their case to the appropriate agency for assistance with it.

It's hard for me to parse my feelings for this problem with my feelings about our school system in the US. Both are so broken.

Schools are not responsible for what goes on at a child's home where the parents bear sole responsibility so stop trying to offload it onto the school system.

I agree that the child's home and community and sense of self within higher education are critical, and there is little the school system can do to confront these problems directly.

Except my main position is that segregation of communities and education are what reinforce these attitudes over the long run, not in the individual case.

Here's an analogy:
Cats and dogs aren't inherently enemies of the animal kingdom. However, their body language evolved separately, and diverged in ways where signals are opposite. For example, an excited and playful dog will wag his tail, which a cat perceives as a threat. Cats and dogs can, however, overcome this barrier, if they are raised together in the same household from the beginning.

Let's say we see the same problem, though. I think we do. If a household has a high degree of disarray, poverty, pessimistic attitude toward education, low education in parents (leading to shame in attempting to teach kids), high degree of childcare out of the home due to needing to work longer hours, high degree of single parenting, etc., then I would not begrudge you in saying that the failure is in the household to raise that child to thrive academically, and sending them to a better school will not fix this.

How does that scenario change over 25 years?

 

[fskimospy]

Let's say we see the same problem, though. I think we do. If a household has a high degree of disarray, poverty, pessimistic attitude toward education, low education in parents (leading to shame in attempting to teach kids), high degree of childcare out of the home due to needing to work longer hours, high degree of single parenting, etc., then I would not begrudge you in saying that the failure is in the household to raise that child to thrive academically, and sending them to a better school will not fix this.

How does that scenario change over 25 years?

This is exactly the problem that so many of our schools face and nobody wants to admit it. I think it comes down to the fact that for the most part we can't even agree on a common idea of what the goal of education is. Is it to teach the kids the most facts? Is it to instill community values? Is it to provide the social services needed to compensate for domestic abuse/indifference at home? Etc, etc. And no, you can't say 'it's all of them', because we can't afford to do all of them well.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Let's say we see the same problem, though. I think we do. If a household has a high degree of disarray, poverty, pessimistic attitude toward education, low education in parents (leading to shame in attempting to teach kids), high degree of childcare out of the home due to needing to work longer hours, high degree of single parenting, etc., then I would not begrudge you in saying that the failure is in the household to raise that child to thrive academically, and sending them to a better school will not fix this.

How does that scenario change over 25 years?

When I lived in Philly they had forced bussing to bring black kids from the west side of town to the predominately Italian Southside to attend school. Did this work? Hell no it didn't. The kids were not in any way more inclined to learn at our high school than they were in the schools that permeated their own neighborhoods. Their attitudes towards learning needed to be shaped first but that required parental involvement to establish learning norms for them to abide by. You can allow them to attend the best schools but if they possess the wrong attitudes they will not only fail to learn but will serve as a bad influence on those around them adversely affecting their ability to learn as well.

Before I attended kindergarten my mother taught me to read and write and instilled the desire to read and learn in me. I didn't need an adult to coax me into picking up a book to learn from. I would sit all by myself with an encyclopedia and begin reading about everything within on a daily basis because I had high self efficacy. When a person has a personal desire to learn they can do so no matter what the knucklehead around them are doing. Time to stop blaming schools where the students come from areas that suffer from poor rearing. In no way should lowering the standards ever be allowed to accommodate poor learners nor should they get a sympathy pass during their school years. If they cannot produce the required results then they should fail until they can.

 

[Sunburn74]

When I lived in Philly they had forced bussing to bring black kids from the west side of town to the predominately Italian Southside to attend school. Did this work? Hell no it didn't. The kids were not in any way more inclined to learn at our high school than they were in the schools that permeated their own neighborhoods. Their attitudes towards learning needed to be shaped first but that required parental involvement to establish learning norms for them to abide by. You can allow them to attend the best schools but if they possess the wrong attitudes they will not only fail to learn but will serve as a bad influence on those around them adversely affecting their ability to learn as well.

Before I attended kindergarten my mother taught me to read and write and instilled the desire to read and learn in me. I didn't need an adult to coax me into picking up a book to learn from. I would sit all by myself with an encyclopedia and begin reading about everything within on a daily basis because I had high self efficacy. When a person has a personal desire to learn they can do so no matter what the knucklehead around them are doing. Time to stop blaming schools where the students come from areas that suffer from poor rearing. In no way should lowering the standards ever be allowed to accommodate poor learners nor should they get a sympathy pass during their school years. If they cannot produce the required results then they should fail until they can.

You're judging the value of the bussing based on the entire population. The reality is education may benefit some and not others. Maybe only 10% of those bussed kids get a significant benefit and go on to do great things, which would not have happened with inferior schools. That is enough.

In medicine, a drug may only help 10% of people it is indicated for and because of that it will get sweeping FDA approval and cost hundreds of thousands a year. A ten percent improvement is a landslide in medicine. You may win the Nobel prize for a drug that has a 10 percent reduction in mortality. So stop judging and grasp the concept. You only need a few kids to benefit to offset the entire program and to change communities over time. Look at what's happened with minorities in law and medicine and engineering once small steps were taken to improve their access.

 

[brycejones]

Good thing the white kids in Gardendale don't have civil rights, else the judge might need to take those into consideration also.

Well hello sir derps a lot.

 

[Corn]

What's your handle over at Ars?
How did it feel when Reddit outted you, as the troll you are?
Have you ever watched the movie, Red Dawn?
Still married to the geek, or did she kick your ass to the curb?
How's the weather in Boston, or did you move back to California?
Still a Hells Angels wannabe?

I don't think I am buying what you are trying to sell here. But, if you are right, damn. If Mike has devolved into a worthless troll, well I guess that's too bad. Not sure why you think that's him though.

 

[glenn1]

You're judging the value of the bussing based on the entire population. The reality is education may benefit some and not others. Maybe only 10% of those bussed kids get a significant benefit and go on to do great things, which would not have happened with inferior schools. That is enough.

In medicine, a drug may only help 10% of people it is indicated for and because of that it will get sweeping FDA approval and cost hundreds of thousands a year. A ten percent improvement is a landslide in medicine. You may win the Nobel prize for a drug that has a 10 percent reduction in mortality. So stop judging and grasp the concept. You only need a few kids to benefit to offset the entire program and to change communities over time. Look at what's happened with minorities in law and medicine and engineering once small steps were taken to improve their access.

Then it's clearly evident that you should support this "mostly white city" because the benefit they'd gain by not being chained to the poor urban schools would almost certainly be way, way above 10%.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes. Suburbanites are a source of funds for city folks. I don't see an issue in regards to that. It's called living in our society. The young are a source of funds for the old. The healthy a source of funds for the sick. And so on and so on. 70% of my taxes paid will do absolutely nothing for me personally. That is fine. Wealthy suburbs should support poor inner city educational systems. This is a no brainer and fairly undisputable idea and only the most selfish, cold and incompassionate really would disagree..

You see, the fact of the matter is kids do not choose their parents. Its luck of the draw from the point of the view of the child. They also do not get to choose the quality of their education and their adulthood is heavily affected by these factors. At the very least, if we believe that this is a fair and just society, we should actively try and level the playing field. If this means some money going from wealthy areas flowing to poor areas to subsidize education, so be it. Ideas about capitalism and conservatism and etc are fair ideas to apply to adults. They are NOT fair ideas to apply to children.

Thank you.