GlitchThief posted:

I can hardly believe that's a real article.

My children are acting like children!

Orange Devil posted:

*Literally Plato complaining about kids these days*

Geokinesis posted:

Opinion piece in Marie Claire about masculinity. Why the modern man is having an identity crisis.

Geokinesis posted:

Opinion piece in Marie Claire about masculinity. Why the modern man is having an identity crisis.

Geokinesis posted:

Opinion piece in Marie Claire about masculinity. Why the modern man is having an identity crisis.

quote:

Trapped in bodies barely changed since caveman days, we’re living through the most absurd and unchartered time to be a man – and that’s not just a ‘man’ problem, it’s everyone’s problem.

GlitchThief posted:

Is this supposed to be a threat? It sounds like the kind of thing I'd find in some school shooter's manifesto.

quote:

On an open house day at a private school in the area I once heard a teacher describe the course she taught as "Math With Numbers". Huh? It would have been a couple of minutes of real fun getting her to explain how you could do math without numbers but I didn’t have the energy for it. Progressives, especially Progressive educators (which most are) are blatherskites. They specialize in terms like "ability status" (unwarranted pride in getting a good mark) or confusing labels like "Sociolinguistics" (hint: another term for the same thing is "communicative competence".) They bang on and on about a fourth grader’s “portfolio” and write a 75,000-word thesis for their doctorate on the spacing of monkey bars.

There’s nothing, I’ve often reflected, that you’re going to learn from the way these people think in any language you’re going to understand and so, I don’t chat them up.

But I’ve always allowed that there was hope in their preoccupation with "critical thinking". Because while developing a child’s “critical thinking” skills always seemed to be the excuse for some absurdity in education I had always taken the term to mean an intellectual proficiency which helps one sift through available evidence until arriving at the truth of some matter.

But then I read an article in the Guardian online by Bobby Scott a black U.S. Congressman titled: “America's Schools Are Still Segregated by Race and Class.That Has To End”.

Scott’s argument is the really old and really weird one many Conservatives are familiar with, i.e.; that the government should do something about the fact that in some mostly black districts and/or neighborhoods there weren’t enough white students to go around. Implying of course, that black students cannot excel in school work without enough Whites faces in the classroom.

Silly.

But instead of laughing and moving on I found myself reading and rereading the following paragraph:

Thanks in large part to federal intervention in the decades following Brown, students experienced indisputable academic and social benefits inherent to racially and socioeconomically diverse learning environments. A recent report by the Century Foundation affirms that learning in diverse environments improves critical thinking and problem solving. But as time marched on, deliberate government action and meaningful federal oversight fell by the wayside in many communities.

Because the second sentence contained the term I had never heard a politician use before -- critical thinking. More than just that he was using the term as a substitute for what he should have been saying if he had any argument at all, i.e. that math scores improved, reading comprehension took a tick up, or that students had a better grasp of history or a foreign language with whites in the classroom. Some concrete measure of improvement.

Which got me thinking -- critically. Just what was "critical thinking"?

So I decided to do some research and found I had been flummoxed as Hercule Poirot would say, “by the simple cunning of vacant minds.” Critical thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual proficiency. Instead it’s the left’s means by which they shut out and shout down a procedure which should be both taught and encouraged in the young: the scientific method.

To recap: the scientific method is the process by which knowledge advances. One develops a hypothesis and then endeavors to prove it by carefully constructing an experiment which may be replicated by others, carries it out and tests the result. (I’m simplifying here.) For example, I posit that a pot of water when put over a flame will warm up. And so I put water in a pot, put it over the flame, and measure the change, if any, in temperature. Temperature goes up and voila -- if others get the same result my hypothesis is proved (again I’m simplifying).

But critical thinking asks something different of you. It asks if you want the temperature of the water in the pot to go up.

Think I’m kidding? Google it.

No explanation I could find focused on finding the truth and all agree the purpose of critical thinking is rather, for you to decide what to believe or do. One explanation, maybe the clearest, suggests that critical thinking is composed of five elements:

1. Suspending judgment to check the validity of a proposition or action

2. Taking into consideration multiple perspectives

3. Examining implications and consequences of a belief or action

4. Using reason and evidence to resolve disagreements

5. Re-evaluating a point of view in light of new information

Nothing about experiments or objective tests, just conflict resolution, taking other’s opinions into account and of course “examining [the] implications and consequences of a belief or action.

Let’s try a real world example. Since Lyndon B. Johnson’s War On Poverty began in the 1960s we have roughly spent an amount equal the national debt (20 trillion) on eliminating poverty and have not done so, indeed by some measures it’s gotten worse.

The scientific method would shut the thing down because the experiment has failed.

On the other hand, the application of critical thinking would provoke this reaction to the problem:

Don’t do anything rash. (suspend judgement) Other people have other opinions about whether or not it has failed. (Take into consideration multiple perspectives) Think about what happens to the people now getting checks and shouldn’t they have a voice in whether or not to shut the system down? (Examining implications and consequences of a belief or action) Isn’t it reasonable to assume that if you give people money that they must not be poor any longer. (Using reason and evidence to resolve disagreements) Maybe there’s some different way in which we can give this money away? (Re-evaluating a point of view in light of new information)

And so you’ll never shut down the system, as the scientific method tells you you should. Because no human being will ever clearly and conclusively resolve issues like these.

So there you have the answer to both the question of what critical thinking really is and why it’s so dear to the left-wing liberal heart. Because if that is the way people are taught to think they’ll never develop any understanding that left-wing policies are both moral and economic disasters.

Final point. The scientific method is the engine of Western progress these last three hundred years or so. If Western thought had been organized around the lines defined by the critical thinking now being taught our children, we’d still have horses pulling plows and would have to go to sleep when the sun went down, we’d still be dying of diseases long since conquered, and we certainly never would have landed on the moon.

And your children, my friends, belong on the moon.

quote:

"On an open house day at a private school in the area I once heard a teacher describe the course she taught as "Math With Numbers". Huh? It would have been a couple of minutes of real fun getting her to explain how you could do math without numbers but I didn’t have the energy for it."

quote:

"Scott’s argument is the really old and really weird one many Conservatives are familiar with, i.e.; that the government should do something about the fact that in some mostly black districts and/or neighborhoods there weren’t enough white students to go around. Implying of course, that black students cannot excel in school work without enough Whites faces in the classroom."

quote:

"So I decided to do some research and found I had been flummoxed as Hercule Poirot would say, “by the simple cunning of vacant minds.” Critical thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual proficiency. Instead it’s the left’s means by which they shut out and shout down a procedure which should be both taught and encouraged in the young: the scientific method."

quote:

"1. Suspending judgment to check the validity of a proposition or action
2. Taking into consideration multiple perspectives
3. Examining implications and consequences of a belief or action
4. Using reason and evidence to resolve disagreements
5. Re-evaluating a point of view in light of new information

Nothing about experiments or objective tests, just conflict resolution, taking other’s opinions into account and of course “examining [the] implications and consequences of a belief or action."

quote:

Let’s try a real world example. Since Lyndon B. Johnson’s War On Poverty began in the 1960s we have roughly spent an amount equal the national debt (20 trillion) on eliminating poverty and have not done so, indeed by some measures it’s gotten worse.

The scientific method would shut the thing down because the experiment has failed.

On the other hand, the application of critical thinking would provoke this reaction to the problem:

Don’t do anything rash. (suspend judgement) Other people have other opinions about whether or not it has failed. (Take into consideration multiple perspectives) Think about what happens to the people now getting checks and shouldn’t they have a voice in whether or not to shut the system down? (Examining implications and consequences of a belief or action) Isn’t it reasonable to assume that if you give people money that they must not be poor any longer. (Using reason and evidence to resolve disagreements) Maybe there’s some different way in which we can give this money away? (Re-evaluating a point of view in light of new information)

And so you’ll never shut down the system, as the scientific method tells you you should. Because no human being will ever clearly and conclusively resolve issues like these.

quote:

Put Tubman on bill, but don't berate Jackson
By Harold Jackson

I could be related to Andrew Jackson; that is if any of his relatives owned slaves in Alabama who might have been among my ancestors. But that’s not why I feel the need to defend “Old Hickory” in the wake of an onslaught of derisive commentary offered by proponents of a proposal to put a woman’s image on a higher denomination of U.S. currency.

Before going any further, let me assure you that I agree that a woman should be so honored. My personal preference would be abolitionist Harriet Tubman. However, I take exception to attacks on Jackson by those who believe his image on the $20 bill is the most dispensable. One proposal is to replace Alexander Hamilton’s image on the $10 bill. But some critics say that denomination is too low, and that Hamilton, the nation’s first treasurer, should be on its money.

Many of these bigger-bill seekers also suggest that Jackson never should have been on the $20 bill in the first place. Some note that Jackson wasn’t a proponent of paper money. Others point out that, as president, Jackson authorized the forced removal of Native Americans from their homelands. But Jackson was hardly alone in believing gold and silver should be our young country’s legal tender; some people still believe that today. Nor was Jackson the only president guilty of mistreatment of Native Americans; but if that should disqualify a person from having his image on currency, what about the slaveholders on our money?

The point is every person whose face is on a denomination of U.S. currency had faults that could be used to denigrate him. George Washington owned slaves while he was president. Benjamin Franklin’s affairs as ambassador to France weren’t limited to the political variety. Thomas Jefferson committed adultery with a slave. Hamilton was a hothead who got himself killed in a duel with Vice President Aaron Burr. Abraham Lincoln didn’t want to free the slaves when he was elected president. Ulysses Grant’s disinterest in the South after the Civil War opened the door to lynching and other racial intimidation.

A good case could be made for a woman to replace any of these men on their respective bills. But that doesn’t mean they never deserved to be on our money. Each was chosen for good reason. So was Jackson. What he did to preserve the Union 30 years prior to Lincoln’s presidency should never be forgotten, but the vastness of the Civil War has unfortunately relegated it to a footnote.

In 1832, Vice President John C. Calhoun argued vehemently in support of a law passed by his home state, South Carolina (yes, South Carolina again), which said it had a constitutional right to “nullify” any congressional act it didn’t like. The law included a provision for South Carolina to secede from the Union if it didn’t get its way. Jackson, who as a general won the Battle of New Orleans to culminate the War of 1812, fought the secessionists with brilliant rhetoric. In summation, he noted that while America was an amalgamation of many states, it was one people with one government.

Knowing the limitations of a good argument, Jackson then got Congress to pass the Force Act, which gave the president authority to employ state militia and federal troops to crush any rebellion. South Carolina subsequently backed down and repealed its nullification law. That battle was over tariffs, but Jackson predicted that the looming fight over slavery would be the true test of the Union’s strength.

Jackson overcame childhood poverty; at age 13, he fought in the Revolutionary War; and in the second British war, he became a military hero. A better president than most, Jackson was a populist credited with opening the White House to common folk, and, with Jefferson, is considered one of the founders of the Democratic Party. If Jackson loses his place on the $20 bill, so be it; but let no one say he never deserved to be on it.

Harold Jackson is editorial page editor for The Inquirer.

Homework Explainer posted:

quote:

A good case could be made for a woman to replace any of these men on their respective bills. But that doesn’t mean they never deserved to be on our money. Each was chosen for good reason. So was Jackson. 

quote:

Lately, some advocacy groups have been asking what we can do to “reduce the use of force by police.” Well …

1) Don’t be a thug and lead a life of crime so that you come into frequent contact with police.

2) Don’t rob people, don’t use or sell drugs, and don’t beat up your significant other.

3) Don’t hang out on the street after 2 a.m. Go home.

4) Don’t make furtive movements or keep your hands in your pockets if told to take them out.

5) Don’t flap your jaws when the police arrive. Don’t disobey the requests of the police at the time. If you think you are wrongfully treated, make the complaint later.

6) Don’t use the excuse of a lack of a job or education for why you assault, rob or kill.



I was born and raised on a farm, dirt-poor, with eight other kids. My grandpa served time in Stillwater State Prison. My dad only made it through eighth grade, and none of us nine kids has ever received a college degree. We didn’t use that as an excuse to turn to crime.

Here endeth the lesson. No charge.

State Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center

The writer is chair of the Minnesota House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Committee.

quote:

The writer is chair of the Minnesota House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Committee.

MaxxBot posted:

Here have some raging authoritarianism from MN's single worst legislator.

http://www.startribune.com/readers-...auer/382160361/


I guess this guy wants to criminalize working the night shift.

GlitchThief posted:

yikes

GlitchThief posted:

yikes

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:

Ratoslov posted:

If someone wrote a movie about criminal justice reform in Minnesota and this guy was the antagonist, critics would lambaste the film for making him look like a cartoon character.

quote:

A far better writer than I (Charles Dickens) once claimed, through a certain Mr Bumble, that the law was an rear end and recently I am inclined to agree.

I am not sure when the public’s respect for law and order started to wane but I am tempted to blame the demise on the humble sandal.

Growing up, I didn’t dare mess with my father, the local bobby or my headmaster, but a male teacher wearing a sandal, that was a very different kettle of fish with lentils.

My first experience of this strappy footed phenomenon occurred when I was about eight or nine and from that moment on, my temple of respect/fear, that had been painstakingly built up over the years, began to crumble. His dress and his “right on” attitude towards “the kids,” gave us the green light to abuse his good nature and exploit his worthy intentions; amidst the torrent of flying missiles and projectiles that awaited him every lesson, we knew that he cared more about our right to express ourselves, than he did about his own safety.

The same is true in today’s society, the sandal is the calling card of the do-gooder, people who mean well, but ultimately ruin everything with their good intentions.

Before the “happy clappy” brigade came along, freed our minds and reminded us about our various human rights and what benefits we were entitled to, respect for the law of the land was almost absolute.

The odd “bad un” would rob a train or steal a painting or two, but the majority stayed on the straight and narrow and if you didn’t, you knew the consequences.

Fast forward thirty years and many of the men in sandals are now politicians, with wide smiles and fake promises. Others have started organisations with strange acronyms, and regularly appear on our TV screens, to preach their message of tolerance and equality for all.
Which is a fine mantra to promote unless of course you are a criminal.

You can call me old fashioned if you like, but in my mind, as soon as you step over the line you have chosen to give up your rights and there should be no tolerance.

Unfortunately, the “sandalistas” have infiltrated society to such an extent that you would have to steal every car in your street, rob the whole of Queensgate and repeatedly beat the top “rozzer” in Cambridgeshire, with Timmy Mallet’s hammer, just to get a bit of “bird.”
Even then you would be out in six months and free to start the cycle all over again.

People are not worried about the consequences of their actions because in their mind they are not worth worrying about.

Why else does half of Cambridgeshire think it’s acceptable to drive about on the county’s roads, whilst chatting on their mobile phones? With police cutbacks you have more chance of seeing Lord Lucan riding Shergar, than you have of seeing a police car on the A14.
We have people attacking traffic wardens and breaking their legs, all because of a parking ticket; that warden will have to live with that for the rest of his life, his attacker will be free to attack somebody else in just nine months.

The lorry driver, who killed police officer, Sharon Garrett, whilst he was checking his phone, will be out in three years; her family have been handed a life sentence.

Danny Warby from King’s Lynn, had a list of driving convictions as long as your arm and if the law had been stronger, he would have been taken off the road and two children might still have a mummy.

It seems to me that we need far fewer rights and a lot more consequences, the pendulum has swung way too far. The sandal has a lot to answer for.

Geokinesis posted:

Also look at this awful loving picture of the guy that accompanies his stuff:

TomViolence posted:

I liek how the guy saw a poster for a Dreamworks kids' movie and thought "That's the expression I'll pull for my byline that'll get me taken seriously as a journalist."

Geokinesis posted:

Also look at this awful loving picture of the guy that accompanies his stuff:

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

I don't care what anyone says most of that is not English. Brits have the worst lingo holy poo poo.

The Vosgian Beast posted:

Jason"I honestly think Alec Baldwin's character in Glengarry Glen Ross is supposed to be a role model" Pargin weighs in on the Trump phenomena and pretends his take is unique http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

VideoTapir posted:

Did you actually read the whole thing?

quote:

Is political correctness and liberal orthodoxy infecting every aspect of government and society, at the expense of common sense? Just asking.

As someone who supported the new role of Police and Crime Commissioner several years ago, it is dispiriting to see the recent events reported in the PT concerning the current PCC.

This week, a collection of faceless bureaucrats (The PCC “Complaints Panel”) took it upon themselves to try to humiliate the elected Conservative Police Crime Commissioner Jason Ablewhite, over Facebook comments he made about travellers on his personal – yes personal - Facebook page no less than seven years ago. Well, I say faceless – one of the Complaints Committee members was Cllr Ed Murphy, defeated Labour candidate for PCC in 2012. Mr Ablewhite has been “ordered” to apologise (again) and “engage with members of the traveller community.”

And on what basis? The complainants – probably publicly funded Leftist layabout grievance merchants – hide under the cloak of anonymity whilst Mr Ablewhite is forced to prostrate himself before the great and the good, whose “investigation” has used up valuable time and money better deployed supporting our local police in tackling crime and criminals.

The complaint – such as it was - was already dismissed as too frivolous for the attentions of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The Panel would have been wise to have followed suit and handed out some firm and private advice but no, they had to exercise their share of “power” over a man with a strong mandate – having been elected by 82,000 local people earlier this year – because they could. The remarks were made long before he assumed office and admittedly were a bit silly and ill judged (banter is the generic term) and I wouldn’t have put them on my Facebook page but isn’t this a huge overreaction?

Apologies are important when we’ve made mistakes of course. But they shouldn’t be exclusive to public officials.

I wonder when we’ll see an apology from the minority of travellers who every summer disrupt the lives of local businesses and local residents in Peterborough? For violence, fly tipping, coercion, squatting, theft and criminal damage? Will we see an apology for council inaction and the delays in police response times in addressing these matters? I think we know the answer.

These kind of complaints are pernicious and insidious in that they attempt to destroy free speech and an honest exchange of views by delegitimising the sincere and justified complaints of the settled community, notwithstanding the foolish nature of this particular exchange. What they do is breed resentment and anger and a feeling of “one rule for them and another for us” which is bad for community relations.

I for one won’t accept such censorship and politically correct publicly funded nonsense. Were I Jason Ablewhite, I’d engage robustly with the Panel and tell them what they can do with their apology

Geokinesis posted:

Also look at this awful loving picture of the guy that accompanies his stuff: