White? Dont teach here. Op Updated to address false 'racist' labal

[dank69]

Seems likely, but I don't know how much of a factor it was, and it doesn't seem relevant? Easy Yes though. Probably not primary.

sorry for the personal annotations. It may well end up being relevant. Just seems so unlikely. Am i in for a big surprise?

No, you are not in for a big surprise. Again, I am not trying to trick you. I am just walking you through my thought process in small steps so we don't get confused again. Annotate away if you want. I am not sure why you don't want to commit to primary. What other purpose do you think he had? It seems straightforward to me that from that post we can deduce that Waggy does not agree with the protesters. After that post, do you think Waggy agrees with the protesters? (Yes/No)

 

[justoh]

No, you are not in for a big surprise. Again, I am not trying to trick you. I am just walking you through my thought process in small steps so we don't get confused again. Annotate away if you want. I am not sure why you don't want to commit to primary. What other purpose do you think he had? It seems straightforward to me that from that post we can deduce that Waggy does not agree with the protesters. After that post, do you think Waggy agrees with the protesters? (Yes/No)

I couldn't really comment as to his intentions.

I'd be more comfortable with conclude. But, yes to that question.

To the questions with the prompt, No. Hmm. I also think he disagrees with them. I'm not sure if that's the same as me not thinking that he agrees with them.

 

[dank69]

I couldn't really comment as to his intentions.

I'd be more comfortable with conclude. But, yes to that question.

To the questions with the prompt, No. Hmm. I also think he disagrees with them. I'm not sure if that's the same as me not thinking that he agrees with them.

Good. So after that post we both think Waggy disagrees with the protesters. (Yes/No)

 

[justoh]

Good. So after that post we both think Waggy disagrees with the protesters. (Yes/No)

Yes. Was that the punchline?

 

[realibrad]

No the questions do not stop, we fully explore the situation until we come to a consensus. Sound good?

I believe that was Waggy's intention. Let's look at it again:

Notice the sarcasm at the end. He is clearly making fun of Karen.

I believe Waggy's intention was to make fun of the protesters for being wrong. Do you agree? (Yes/No)

Comment by Spungo

“On the flip side, Karen Crozier is implicitly saying that black teachers are incapable of teaching European history. How progressive of her.”

This establishes the idea that black teachers cannot teach history from cultures that are white.


Waggy Says

“exactly. so i guess they should fire every black history teacher (except for African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies).


I didn't know that the color of your skin dictated what history you could teach! Thanks karen!”

At no point does Waggy establish US history, and this is important. Here is where its important to know what the protesters context was. The protesters believe that cultural history cannot be effectively taught by someone who has not experienced said history. This is why Spungo said that a black teacher could not teach European history, because the vast majority of their history did not include blacks. So, understating that individual cultural histories are what make up a national history, a teacher cannot teach the national history without teaching the individual cultural histories. Following from the protesters logic, how could a black teacher teach American history, when American history includes many different cultural histories? If a prerequisite to teaching a cultural history is dependent on first-hand experience, then a black teacher could only teach the narrow subject of (African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies).

 

[dank69]

Yes. Was that the punchline?

No punchline. No joke. Did you know Waggy disagreed with the protesters before that post? (Yes/No)

 

[dank69]

Comment by Spungo


This establishes the idea that black teachers cannot teach history from cultures that are white.


Waggy Says

At no point does Waggy establish US history, and this is important. Here is where its important to know what the protesters context was. The protesters believe that cultural history cannot be effectively taught by someone who has not experienced said history. This is why Spungo said that a black teacher could not teach European history, because the vast majority of their history did not include blacks. So, understating that individual cultural histories are what make up a national history, a teacher cannot teach the national history without teaching the individual cultural histories. Following from the protesters logic, how could a black teacher teach American history, when American history includes many different cultural histories? If a prerequisite to teaching a cultural history is dependent on first-hand experience, then a black teacher could only teach the narrow subject of (African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies).

I suggest you be patient and let us work through this. You are skipping way ahead, and that has led to your confusion.

 

[justoh]

No punchline. No joke. Did you know Waggy disagreed with the protesters before that post? (Yes/No)

No. I think almost anyone would, but I didn't know it, and I still don't. I think he does.

 

[dank69]

No. I think almost anyone would, but I didn't know it, and I still don't. I think he does.

Good answer. I agree 100%. Did you learn anything else about Waggy from that post? (Yes/No)

 

[justoh]

Good answer. I agree 100%. Did you learn anything else about Waggy from that post? (Yes/No)

erm. He was making fun of either spungo or himself. Just kidding.

 

[dank69]

erm. He was either making fun of spungo or himself. Just kidding. It's doc who's really the problem.

signature:

"there are 10 million million million million million million million million million million particles in the universe that we can observe. Yo momma took the ugly ones and put them into one nerd." Albert Einstein

I don't see a yes or no in there. This is going to take a long time even without getting sidetracked.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How about this sig? You like it better?

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." - Albert Einstein

 

[justoh]

I don't see a yes or no in there. This is going to take a long time even without getting sidetracked.

oh, sorry. Yes.

 

[justoh]

How about this sig? You like it better?

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." - Albert Einstein

Much better. Use that one? Seems like it should be the obvious choice. Aren't you glad i said something?

 

[dank69]

oh, sorry. Yes.

Okay, please list everything you learned about Waggy from that post.

 

[justoh]

Waggy Says

At no point does Waggy establish US history, and this is important. Here is where its important to know what the protesters context was. The protesters believe that cultural history cannot be effectively taught by someone who has not experienced said history. This is why Spungo said that a black teacher could not teach European history, because the vast majority of their history did not include blacks. So, understating that individual cultural histories are what make up a national history, a teacher cannot teach the national history without teaching the individual cultural histories. Following from the protesters logic, how could a black teacher teach American history, when American history includes many different cultural histories? If a prerequisite to teaching a cultural history is dependent on first-hand experience, then a black teacher could only teach the narrow subject of (African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies).

Because the point of cultural studies, as I understand it, is to "...raise awareness and combat social power imbalances and dominant ideology." from wikipedia. She said that whites couldn't really look at this theme objectively, when it's probably more the case that only many whites couldn't. They're probably all on anandtech, making posts objecting to the very idea of cultural studies or even the persistence of racial distinctions as an unrecognized necessity in studying the past and present problems. Waggy removed this important context when he started talking about, what was it again? Teaching european history or something?

This isn't to say that there isn't anything to this objection, but it should fall under skepticism for the social sciences generally, while acknowledging that as long as we talk about race or culture we're probably going to have to use these words and maintain these distinctions. And we probably are going to continue to talk about it. So just try to keep it real.

There was someone, maybe not karen, even admitting to being ignorant of the objective qualifications of this person. They're church people. They got to be uppity about something. What do i have to think to have made this statement?

Anyway, so because most whites are assholes, they probably just want to be safe. Just like how we treat blacks, as most are probably criminals. After this person found out that he seemed actually, quite good, they seemed to concede this point.

So it's if white then not qualified to teach these subjects because of this and this and this, blah blah, many whites can't empathize, etc, can't look critically at their role, blah blah, because of, i don't know, recognized ideas about maintaining objectivity and bias problems. I mean like, bias beyond the norm, what you mind find in a black teacher talking about being, I don't know, vietnamese cannon fodder. I suppose a black dude might be bitter and devote too much time to this fact in american history or something. Not really much of a concern though. They'd probably do an aiight job. Maybe they'd do a better job? Maybe whites aren't qualified to teach at all.

 

[realibrad]

Because the point of cultural studies, as I understand it, is to "...raise awareness and combat social power imbalances and dominant ideology." from wikipedia. She said that whites couldn't really look at this theme objectively, when it's probably more the case that only many whites couldn't. They're probably all on anandtech, making posts objecting to the very idea of cultural studies or even the persistence of racial distinctions as an unrecognized necessity in studying the past and present problems. Waggy removed this important context when he started talking about, what was it again? Teaching european history or something?

This isn't to say that there isn't anything to this objection, but it should fall under skepticism for the social sciences generally, while acknowledging that as long as we talk about race or culture we're probably going to have to use these words and maintain these distinctions. And we probably are going to continue to talk about it. So just try to keep it real.

There was someone, maybe not karen, even admitting to being ignorant of the objective qualifications of this person. They're church people. They got to be uppity about something. What do i have to think to have made this statement?

Anyway, so because most whites are assholes, they probably just want to be safe. Just like how we treat blacks, as most are probably criminals. After this person found out that he seemed actually, quite good, they seemed to concede this point.

So it's if white then not qualified to teach these subjects because of this and this and this, blah blah, many whites can't empathize, etc, can't look critically at their role, blah blah, because of, i don't know, recognized ideas about maintaining objectivity and bias problems. I mean like, bias beyond the norm, what you mind find in a black teacher talking about being, I don't know, vietnamese cannon fodder. I suppose a black dude might be bitter and devote too much time to this fact in american history or something. Not really much of a concern though. They'd probably do an aiight job. Maybe they'd do a better job? Maybe whites aren't qualified to teach at all.

Spungo was the one who brought up Europe. Waggy said that if whites couldnt teach black history, that blacks should not teach any other history than minority history as an extension of the logic.

Pretty much every thing we seem to agree on. Also, I like the Aiight comment, it was aiight.

 

[justoh]

Okay, please list everything you learned about Waggy from that post.

Just that post? Not much.

1. I guess he likes to use sarcasm.

2. Agrees with someone who uses/used dubious reasoning (in my humble opinion).

3. uses/used dubious reasoning of his own (in my humble opinion).

4. has generally the "right" opinion of the protestors.

 

[justoh]

Spungo was the one who brought up Europe. Waggy said that if whites couldnt teach black history, that blacks should not teach any other history than minority history as an extension of the logic.

Pretty much every thing we seem to agree on. Also, I like the Aiight comment, it was aiight.

aiight, well I maintain that europe and american history isn't cultural studies. don't they have separate categories for those two? Maybe american and euro history?

 

[dank69]

Just that post? Not much.

1. I guess he likes to use sarcasm.

2. Agrees with someone who uses/used dubious reasoning (in my humble opinion).

3. uses/used dubious reasoning of his own (in my humble opinion).

4. has generally the "right" opinion of the protestors.

Okay, so we have 4 possible primary points Waggy could have had for making that post:

1. To showcase his sarcasm skills
2. To agree with Spungo's point that the protesters are wrong
3. To showcase his reasoning skills
4. To explain what his opinion is of the protesters

I believe that his primary point was that he agreed with Spungo and wanted to explain why he agreed. I believe that the sarcasm and reasoning were tools he used to accomplish this goal, and not the primary reason for his post. Do you agree with my assessment? (Yes/No)

 

[realibrad]

aiight, well I maintain that europe and american history isn't cultural studies. don't they have separate categories for those two? Maybe american and euro history?

Well, one of the major downfalls of the Roman empire was a conflict between cultures. I would argue that Culture is a subset of national history. So any study of history should include culture right?

I mean, explaining the situation in the middle east is largely a discussion about the different cultures and the conflicts between.

 

[realibrad]

Okay, so we have 4 possible primary points Waggy could have had for making that post:

1. To showcase his sarcasm skills
2. To agree with Spungo's point that the protesters are wrong
3. To showcase his reasoning skills
4. To explain what his opinion is of the protesters

I believe that his primary point was that he agreed with Spungo and wanted to explain why he agreed. I believe that the sarcasm and reasoning were tools he used to accomplish this goal, and not the primary reason for his post. Do you agree with my assessment? (Yes/No)

Logical fallacy of there needing to be a primary point. There may very well be a primary, but the assumption that there is 1 is not inherent.

 

[justoh]

Well, one of the major downfalls of the Roman empire was a conflict between cultures. I would argue that Culture is a subset of national history. So any study of history should include culture right?

I mean, explaining the situation in the middle east is largely a discussion about the different cultures and the conflicts between.

Everything is everything? They organized shit in a specific way, and their concerns relate specifically to many members of the dominant society being unable to understand them, which is like a basic tenet of you american liberals. Lots of classes will include cultural content, but these 3 are that school's cultural studies classes, engineered, for better or worse, specifically to address this problem (or "exacerbate" it), not to be part of it (or to be part of it).

 

[dank69]

Logical fallacy of there needing to be a primary point. There may very well be a primary, but the assumption that there is 1 is not inherent.

Logical fallacy of there needing to be a primary point? I can't find that on my pocket handbook list of logical fallacies. A post can have one or more points. It can have more than one primary point if two or more points made are equally important. What is your issue here?

 

[justoh]

Okay, so we have 4 possible primary points Waggy could have had for making that post:

1. To showcase his sarcasm skills
2. To agree with Spungo's point that the protesters are wrong
3. To showcase his reasoning skills
4. To explain what his opinion is of the protesters

I believe that his primary point was that he agreed with Spungo and wanted to explain why he agreed. I believe that the sarcasm and reasoning were tools he used to accomplish this goal, and not the primary reason for his post. Do you agree with my assessment? (Yes/No)

We have the 4 points I've provided.

I don't know what his primary point was or what he intended.

I think that's an acceptable assessment. Sure, why not. Yes?