The Atlantic: Why cant people hear what Jordan Peterson is saying?

[Destino]

1 hour ago, DC9 said:

I think that it's more "cultural" than it is "hard-wiring" if I'm being honest.

 

Plenty of European men aren't what I would call the pinnacle of manliness.  Same with several men in the middle east.  I never watched GOT before this past year, but I found it interesting how they portrayed the Dothraki (sorry if I've misspelled that) and how they follow the "strongest," until they show signs of weakness.  I couldn't agree more with that.  The amount of training we've given the Iraqi and Afghan security forces means nothing when they would run and hide and be disorganized at the first sign of trouble.  Though the Iraqi's, 10-15 years later, were VERY impressive this last go round in how they dealt with ISIS. 

 

I remember having a conversation with some mentors during my first tour in 2006 after interacting with the locals... I said there was no way we'd make a difference over there unless we were willing to make a generational comittment.  Those dudes needed to have freedom from tyranny for a while before they'd act the part of the proverbial man/defender.  Otherwise as soon as we leave they're going to be as non-confrontational as they were before and let cats run rough shot over them with an iron fist.

 

Just my opinion.

 

EDIT:  That also has me worried for the future of our country.  Security is a nasty business and we can't wait to focus the attention of our kids on some of the dumbest issues ever, like we're assuming that security will always be there.  It's scary. 

What you seem to be describing are gender roles that assign courage and a role as protector to males and masculinity.  Those things aren't really the same as relatively higher aggression and physical violence.  Some cultures can be more violent then others, and they can define masculinity differently, but I'm not certain a culture exists where men are the less physically aggressive or violent sex. 

[DC9]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

 

To me, it’s ultimately a problem created by the parents who come from gen x or even the baby boomer generation.  People love to **** on millenials be never lay blame on the generation(s) that raises them.

 

The policies make parenting very difficult these days.  And the focus of what's being taught in school isn't what we learned (I know every generation says this, but it's scary now).

 

It sounds like I'm a heathen by saying this, but how do you expect this next generation to close with and kill the enemies of this country when there is so much anti-American sentiment and schools are doing stuff like teaching more social awareness and less history and firing coaches for running up the score.  On this last year away I was with 24 dudes, I sent two of them to Special Operations Selection Courses when we got back.  That's an AWFUL ratio.  It's worrying. There's no desire to be better or work to be better.  They are certainly smarter but there is very little delayed gratification because of everything being so immediate.  There are certainly pluses and minuses.  I generally have a high opinion of the work product and the character of most of my youngins, but the approach is much different and I don't feel that the trust and bond is there that was there just 5-10 years ago.

[Springfield]

5 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

The policies make parenting very difficult these days.  And the focus of what's being taught in school isn't what we learned (I know every generation says this, but it's scary now).

 

It sounds like I'm a heathen by saying this, but how do you expect this next generation to close with and kill the enemies of this country when there is so much anti-American sentiment and schools are doing stuff like teaching more social awareness and less history and firing coaches for running up the score.  On this last year away I was with 24 dudes, I sent two of them to Special Operations Selection Courses when we got back.  That's an AWFUL ratio.  It's worrying. There's no desire to be better or work to be better.  They are certainly smarter but there is very little delayed gratification because of everything being so immediate.  There are certainly pluses and minuses.  I generally have a high opinion of the work product and the character of most of my youngins, but the approach is much different and I don't feel that the trust and bond is there that was there just 5-10 years ago.

 

I feel that too.  The lack of trust and bond.  I always felt that it was a age gap thing though.  Of course, I’m not dealing with soldiers, just random uninspired high school and college kids.

[DC9]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

What you seem to be describing are gender roles that assign courage and a role as protector to males and masculinity.  Those things aren't really the same as relatively higher aggression and physical violence.  Some cultures can be more violent then others, and they can define masculinity differently, but I'm not certain a culture exists where men are the less physically aggressive or violent sex. 

 

I'm not even sure it's that deep.  Certainly our military courage is assigned to the uniform, not to any specific gender.  The culture in our military is conducive to that, even though society is making it more difficult to find folks who want to or more importantly CAN do it.

 

It's not like that everywhere.  Of course I'm more talking about civilians, but the typical American civilian is more sure about themselves than the Euro or Middle Easterner based on my experience, as of now.  I'm not sure this next generation will keep that going and it's because "academia" is full of folks who can wait to emasculate them. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

I feel that too.  The lack of trust and bond.  I always felt that it was a age gap thing though.  Of course, I’m not dealing with soldiers, just random uninspired high school and college kids.

 

It's that walking on egg shells, bro.  You're a year older than me.  I'm sure we are seeing the exact same stuff.

[No Excuses]

On 1/26/2018 at 8:52 AM, grego said:

no excuses- 

 

it interesting to me that you say you like (iirc) sam harris. harris has been very critical of the left on topics like identity politics, 'campus craziness' and recently retweeted this article about the gender pay gap. https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/10/economist-explains-12

 

not saying you cant disagree with someone on issues- we all obviously dont agree on everything. its just interesting that you seem to be at opposite ends of this very polarizing issue

 

There are a few things to unpack here.

 

Despite enjoying his podcast, and most of his books, I find him a little out of touch on some issues.

 

1. Identity politics: I find criticisms of identity politics really tiresome. The entire history of the US has been heavily influenced by identity politics at every step of the way, from slavery to the KKK and Jim Crow, to the cold war, to women's suffrage and the waves of feminist movements. 

 

It is really just a pointless exercise to whine about it. It's embedded in our history, it's part of our culture and it's practiced by leftists, conservatives, and even people on the fringes. 

 

I think he, along with Jordan Peterson, have an axe to grind against intersectional theory, rather than identity politics. I have my own views on intersectional theory and I do not think Peterson, Harris and even someone like Dave Rubin are honest in their characterization of it. If there is one aspect of intersectionalism that I do think can be improved upon, is that it doesn't contemplate the role of class and poverty in white communities enough to be more inclusive towards the struggles of poor white Americans, and especially poor white women.

 

2. Campus craziness: there are so many academic institutions in this country, and anytime there is a flare up at one, it is magnified to exhibit a problem that really doesn't exist in any meaningful way nationwide. Student bodies are quite diverse across the entire country, some schools attract more left-leaning students, where as others don't. But come and observe a campus, on a day-to-day basis and this hardly an issue on anyone's mind but a select group of right wing agitators and people in the atheist community who aren't given free reign to religion-bash across academia.

 

3. Gender pay gap: I actually agree with most of what is in the economist article. It is also the same conclusion feminist economists reach. My partner is one of the people working on this issue, and she regularly collaborates with people from places like American University who have gender-focused economics research wings. There findings are pretty much in line with this.

 

Of course, for Jordan Peterson, he will not seek out people in academic circles, who work on these issues, to have meaningful debates. He seeks weak, misinformed targets who he can get in front of, flex his academic muscles and crown himself the King of Logic and Reasoning. 

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

2. Campus craziness: there are so many academic institutions in this country, and anytime there is a flare up at one, it is magnified to exhibit a problem that really doesn't exist in any meaningful way nationwide. Student bodies are quite diverse across the entire country, some schools attract more left-leaning students, where as others don't. But come and observe a campus, on a day-to-day basis and this hardly an issue on anyone's mind but a select group of right wing agitators and people in the atheist community who aren't given free reign to religion-bash across academia.

 

 

 

Shenanigans on college campuses tend to always be over-reported and over emphasized as if they represent some larger issue than they really do.  They are usually taking place at big universities, yet the % of students involved vs the rest of the student body who pretty much is going to class every day like normal and has no idea about any of this stuff doesn't get much emphasis.  College campuses in general have always been the birthplace and breeding grounds for ideas and theories much more extreme than the every day world.  This isn't some new phenomenon.  Once the students graduate and enter the real world, they assimilate for the most part.  

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

Of course, for Jordan Peterson, he will not seek out people in academic circles, who work on these issues, to have meaningful debates. He seeks weak, misinformed targets who he can get in front of, flex his academic muscles and crown himself the King of Logic and Reasoning. 

 

Of course. It's why guys like him & Milo, & Ben Shapiro like to frequent their time touring college campuses to talk in front of mostly white males to tell them what huge victims they are. 

[DC9]

49 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Of course. It's why guys like him & Milo, & Ben Shapiro like to frequent their time touring college campuses to talk in front of mostly white males to tell them what huge victims they are. 

 

How can you say that about Ben Shapiro?  He's usually pretty even about what he says other than Israel, but it's just the subjects that he talks about cause everyone to get into a tissy.

 

Milo is trash, I've never liked him outside of some funny snippets, but he's a trash dude.

 

I know next to nothing about Jordan Peterson.

 

I think we've lost the ability to comparmentalize when having discussions.  If you support X then it's automatically assumed that you're Y, Z, and LMNOP. 

[NoCalMike]

7 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

How can you say that about Ben Shapiro?  He's usually pretty even about what he says other than Israel, but it's just the subjects that he talks about cause everyone to get into a tissy.

 

 

This sums it up nicely.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/opinion/ben-shapiro.html

 

Quote

Ben Shapiro, the conservative writer, prides himself on speaking bold truths to liberal power. His shtick goes something like this: Set up a speech in a progressive bastion, ideally a college campus full of coastal elites who have never left their bubble. Spar with snowflakes who are offended by something he says about race or gender and perhaps even believe he never should have been invited in the first place. Post the exchange on the internet and use it as proof that the cultural consensus is stacked dramatically against conservatives. As Mr. Shapiro has put it: “The left has run out of aggressors to target; instead, they’ve become the aggressors, self-righteous morality police dedicated to wiping out dissenting thought.”

 

What Mr. Shapiro does on campus is shadow boxing meant to pander to his conservative fans whose values dominate mainstream American culture. If he wanted to be genuinely brave, he’d challenge some of the wrongheaded ideas held by his right-wing fans. Instead, he uses his megaphone — the website The Daily Wire — to reinforce what they already believe.

 

[DC9]

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

This sums it up nicely.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/opinion/ben-shapiro.html

 

 

 

Isn't this thread all about getting on each other's level and communicating? 

 

Why do YOU say that?

 

And what is wrong with "mainstream American values?"  Shapiro's biggest platform is "Equality of opportunity not equality of outcome." 

[NoCalMike]

Is he really for equal opportunity? What policies does he support that would back that up, or is "Equal opportunity, not equal outcome" just a hipster neo-conservative tagline. 

 

If he is for equal opportunity, then that puts him at odds with most of his peers, not to mention the crowds he speaks to. 

[DC9]

10 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Is he really for equal opportunity? What policies does he support that would back that up, or is "Equal opportunity, not equal outcome" just a hipster neo-conservative tagline. 

 

If he is for equal opportunity, then that puts him at odds with most of his peers, not to mention the crowds he speaks to. 

 

So this tells me you haven't listened to him.  Which is okay.  I think the only dude on the left I listen to with any kind of regularity are Sam Harris.  I really don't listen to anyone on the right except Shapiro, but I consider he and Harris more center mass than anything.  Which is why I guess I listen to them. 

 

Shapiro is not a Trump guy.  He didn't vote for President because neither candidate earned his vote.  Basically he doesn't see the need for government policy and restrictions on businesses because of your identity.  And I agree with that largely. 

[PeterMP]

Equality of opportunity is a red hearing because there is essentially no way to measure equality of opportunity.

 

You have studies that show things like given students that are equal in math based on any actually quantitative metric, elementary teachers will indicate the male is superior in math (on average).

 

Given subtle things like that, how do you determine or measure if opportunity is equal?  Does somebody whose elementary teachers decided they were not as good at a subject as some other person based on non-intentional discrimination based on race/sex actually have equal opportunity?

 

It amazes me the number of people that work in quantitative STEM fields that seem to be happy with the idea that we should aim for equality of opportunity without bothering to express how they are going to know if we are actually coming closer to equality of opportunity given the complexity involved.

 

In any other situation, they'd claim that in order to determine if two things are becoming (more) equal they need some sort of measure of the two things.  But in this case, they are more than happy to talk about equality of opportunity without defining what that means or how it is being measured.

 

(I'm not necessarily a fan of equality of out come either though.)

 

We should just admit that we are making it up as we go along based on what seems right to us.

[NoCalMike]

10 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

So this tells me you haven't listened to him.  Which is okay.  I think the only dude on the left I listen to with any kind of regularity are Sam Harris.  I really don't listen to anyone on the right except Shapiro, but I consider he and Harris more center mass than anything.  Which is why I guess I listen to them. 

 

Shapiro is not a Trump guy.  He didn't vote for President because neither candidate earned his vote.  Basically he doesn't see the need for government policy and restrictions on businesses because of your identity.  And I agree with that largely. 

 

I wouldn't say I "listen to Ben Shapiro" with any regularity, but I have heard him before in debates and speaking to college kids on whatever forums. I listen to Sam Harris some. Agree with him some, disagree otherwise.  I am mostly concerned with the statement that Shapiro believes in equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes.  Not sure of anyone on the "mainstream" spectrum left or right that believes in equal outcomes.  I don't, however buy that a lot of the people who claim they are for equal opportunity actually believe it since a lot of them believe merely being born in America means they have won the equal opportunity lottery.  Their idea of equal opportunity usually is a new hip way of saying "the market will solve it" 

And as far as "Not a Trump guy, well that sets a low bar.  

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I wouldn't say I "listen to Ben Shapiro" with any regularity, but I have heard him before in debates and speaking to college kids on whatever forums. I listen to Sam Harris some. Agree with him some, disagree otherwise.  I am mostly concerned with the statement that Shapiro believes in equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes.  Not sure of anyone on the "mainstream" spectrum left or right that believes in equal outcomes.  I don't, however buy that a lot of the people who claim they are for equal opportunity actually believe it since a lot of them believe merely being born in America means they have won the equal opportunity lottery.  Their idea of equal opportunity usually is a new hip way of saying "the market will solve it" 

And as far as "Not a Trump guy, well that sets a low bar.  

 

People that claim they are for equality of opportunity have decided that we've done (nearly) enough to counter act clear, known, and intentional historical bias, have no real idea if they are right (have no metric to determine if that's the case), and want to paint (at least most) other people as wanting to obtain something that most of us would consider stupid so they can argue against a straw man.

 

(Is there anybody out there actually arguing for equality of out come with respect to football, basketball, etc?)

[DC9]

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I wouldn't say I "listen to Ben Shapiro" with any regularity, but I have heard him before in debates and speaking to college kids on whatever forums. I listen to Sam Harris some. Agree with him some, disagree otherwise.  I am mostly concerned with the statement that Shapiro believes in equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes.  Not sure of anyone on the "mainstream" spectrum left or right that believes in equal outcomes.  I don't, however buy that a lot of the people who claim they are for equal opportunity actually believe it since a lot of them believe merely being born in America means they have won the equal opportunity lottery.  Their idea of equal opportunity usually is a new hip way of saying "the market will solve it"

 

I also don't agree with everything either Ben Shapiro or Sam Harris say, but for me they are the most center of what is out there and available.  No one should just blindly agree with anyone, I think that spells trouble. 

 

I'll disagree with you on much of the policy goals of the left is clearly centered on equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity.

 

What else bugs you about Shapiro?  You clearly had a preconceived opinion prior to me giving you that one-liner he had.

 

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

And as far as "Not a Trump guy, well that sets a low bar.  

 

That was in response to your "Peers" comment.  I wanted to make sure that we could at least agree on what he was not, haha.

[Destino]

11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Equality of opportunity is a red hearing because there is essentially no way to measure equality of opportunity.

I disagree.  Equal opportunity can be quantified and measured.  This happens all the time.  We know which schools are failing, and we know what they lack compared to superior programs.  We've seen how changing the way something is taught can increase the success rate of certain groups.  The problem isn't identifying the road blocks, the hard part is removing them. 

 

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You have studies that show things like given students that are equal in math based on any actually quantitative metric, elementary teachers will indicate the male is superior in math (on average).

Given subtle things like that, how do you determine or measure if opportunity is equal?  Does somebody whose elementary teachers decided they were not as good at a subject as some other person based on non-intentional discrimination based on race/sex actually have equal opportunity?

 By basing decisions regarding student on quantitative metrics? 

 

 

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

It amazes me the number of people that work in quantitative STEM fields that seem to be happy with the idea that we should aim for equality of opportunity without bothering to express how they are going to know if we are actually coming closer to equality of opportunity given the complexity involved.

How is anyone deciding what the correct percentage of STEM students and employees should be?  What should the gender break down be for teaching, accounting, law, and journalism?  Where are any of these numbers coming from?  Fighting for people to be as free as possible to achieve their potential seems a lot more rational (and less tyrannical) than deciding exactly what demographics for a given career should be.   

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Destino said:

How is anyone deciding what the correct percentage of STEM students and employees should be?  What should the gender break down be for teaching, accounting, law, and journalism?  Where are any of these numbers coming from?  Fighting for people to be as free as possible to achieve their potential seems a lot more rational (and less tyrannical) than deciding exactly what demographics for a given career should be. 

 

I'm not talking about the level of schools failing and that's not normally what this conversation is about. I'm talking about individual differences between students.

 

(Though, I think you are wrong there too.  Maybe the schools that are failing are failing simply because the students are not as good.  By demanding that all schools be successful aren't you in fact arguing for equality of out comes.)

 

But you can't base teacher attitudes on quantitative metrics.  In a classroom setting, there is never going to be away to dictate whether Mrs. Smith spends more time with little, Bobby, Sue, or Jose based on quantitative measures.  If little Bobby doesn't understand a concept perfectly, Mrs. Smith may spend more time explaining it to him simply because she has a belief that he should understand better.  But that then affects little Bobby's ability to perform (quantitatively) on the next assessment.

 

(And in fact that runs counter to what most people would think would be good educational philosophy.  Your argument extended would mean that since 1st grade Bobby gets the best math scores that he should get the most time Mrs. Smith.  What we historically have done and what most people in education would argue we should do is give the weaker student more time with Mrs Smith?  But again, that's a result of trying to obtain equality of processes).

 

3 hours ago, Destino said:

How is anyone deciding what the correct percentage of STEM students and employees should be?  What should the gender break down be for teaching, accounting, law, and journalism?  Where are any of these numbers coming from?  Fighting for people to be as free as possible to achieve their potential seems a lot more rational (and less tyrannical) than deciding exactly what demographics for a given career should be. 

 

I've clearly said that I don't think equality of opportunity makes much sense.  I even gave some examples so I'm not sure why you are addressing that to me.

 

But at least you could make up some numbers and have some measures of whether you are reaching things.

 

Your idea of free and achieving potential sounds good, but it is just a talking point.  Schools (things designed to help other people reach their potential) by necessity limit the freedom of others  (based on how much money they have.  I'd like to take more vacations, but there is an issue of having to pay my property taxes).

 

You wouldn't argue that we should eliminate the public education system, would you?  It limits freedom based on the idea of helping large numbers of people reach their potential.

 

And you have no real measure of how much we are helping people reach their potential (how do we measure what somebody's potential is to know how close they are to reaching their potential) or how much are you limiting somebody's freedom (How much freedom is $1 worth?  Is it worth the same to somebody living at poverty vs. a billionare?).

 

We're making it up based on what we think seems best/right.  We may as while admit it rather than stand behind slogans that sound like they have some mathematical/logical basis (e.g. equality of opportunity).

[zoony]

5 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

This sums it up nicely.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/opinion/ben-shapiro.html

 

 

 

 I enjoyed this.  Shapiro is a raging narcissistic douchebag.  

[Destino]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I'm not talking about the level of schools failing and that's not normally what this conversation is about. I'm talking about individual differences between students.

Are you defining equal opportunity as requiring a custom tailored program that fits each students specific individual needs?  

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

But you can't base teacher attitudes on quantitative metrics.  In a classroom setting, there is never going to be away to dictate whether Mrs. Smith spends more time with little, Bobby, Sue, or Jose based on quantitative measures.  If little Bobby doesn't understand a concept perfectly, Mrs. Smith may spend more time explaining it to him simply because she has a belief that he should understand better.  But that then affects little Bobby's ability to perform (quantitatively) on the next assessment.

We're back to impossible standards again.  Equal opportunity doesn't require robot teachers that treat everybody exactly the same.  It doesn't even require that teachers believe every student to be the same. We can use quantitative metrics to determine which students need additional help and which need more challenging work.  We do not need to rely on the teacher opinion.

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I've clearly said that I don't think equality of opportunity makes much sense.  I even gave some examples so I'm not sure why you are addressing that to me.

Because that's what aiming for equal results looks like.  

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Your idea of free and achieving potential sounds good, but it is just a talking point.  Schools (things designed to help other people reach their potential) by necessity limit the freedom of others  (based on how much money they have.  I'd like to take more vacations, but there is an issue of having to pay my property taxes).

 

You wouldn't argue that we should eliminate the public education system, would you?  It limits freedom based on the idea of helping large numbers of people reach their potential.

" free as possible"  You seem to have gotten a bit carried away. 

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

And you have no real measure of how much we are helping people reach their potential (how do we measure what somebody's potential is to know how close they are to reaching their potential) or how much are you limiting somebody's freedom (How much freedom is $1 worth?  Is it worth the same to somebody living at poverty vs. a billionare?).

 

We're making it up based on what we think seems best/right.  We may as while admit it rather than stand behind slogans that sound like they have some mathematical/logical basis (e.g. equality of opportunity).

You leave achievement to them obviously, and concern yourself with identifying relevant obstacles.

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, Destino said:

Are you defining equal opportunity as requiring a custom tailored program that fits each students specific individual needs?  

 

We're back to impossible standards again.  Equal opportunity doesn't require robot teachers that treat everybody exactly the same.  It doesn't even require that teachers believe every student to be the same. We can use quantitative metrics to determine which students need additional help and which need more challenging work.  We do not need to rely on the teacher opinion.

 

 

Because that's what aiming for equal results looks like.  

 

 

" free as possible"  You seem to have gotten a bit carried away. 

 

 

You leave achievement to them obviously, and concern yourself with identifying relevant obstacles.

 

1.  If I have two students that are equal and I put them in the same classroom and one consistently gets more attention and positive re-enforcement, studies show (and most everybody that I know accept) that the student that gets more attention and more positive re-enforcement is going to pull ahead of the other student (based on quantitative assessments).  If the more attention and positive re-enforcement is based on nothing more than a bias by the teacher, then I don't know how you can say they actually had equal opportunities.  The one student was put at a disadvantage as a result of something they have no control over and that disadvantage is going to eventually limit their opportunities if it is continued through their educational experience (and if you go to heterogeneous class rooms based on assessments early on, it can put them on a track that is most likely going to lead to unequal opportunity early on).  That's mostly what the debate is about today. 

 

How much subtle bias/discrimination is there in society and how does that affect outcomes/opportunities?

 

Many people (essentially everybody that I know that actually thinks much about this) acknowledges such subtle (and many times unintentional) biases are obstacles to peoples achievement and practically they are very hard if not impossible to remove.  How would you suggest that we remove them?

 

2.  But again, even at the level of different schools, you seem to want to support equal out comes.  You want every school to be successful.  Maybe the schools that aren't successful aren't successful because of the kids in the school?

 

3.  As I stated, I'm not for equality of outcomes, and I don't know anybody that is.  As  I stated, I don't know anybody that is arguing that the NBA, NFL etc need to have an equal number of female and male players.

 

4.  Okay, where do you draw the line for "as possible" and why is the line drawn there?  Certainly, we are capable of instituting quotas for minorities for medical school.  Many medical schools were doing it for years before the Supreme Court found them unconstitutional.  The flip of that is, we are certainly capable of massively defunding the public school system.  Other than political will (because at least currently most people think it would be a bad idea), nothing is preventing it and a good chunk of the Republican party wants to do it.  There is no physical law that is preventing the federal government from eliminating the Department of Education and the support and funding it gives to the public education system.

 

Brain transplants aren't possible (currently).  When it comes to quotas and the support and funding for public education, a whole lot of things seem possible to me from there being none to us doing a lot more of those things.  The idea that it is not possible to eliminate the public education system doesn't make much sense to me.  Sure, it is possible.  It might be a really bad idea, but that doesn't make it impossible.

 

It seems to me that you have a general philosophy that advocates for doing something that you actually think is a really bad idea, and rather than reconcile the two, you simply deemed the really bad idea not possible.  While in reality, it is completely possible (but just a really bad).

[NoCalMike]

I can give a clear and easy example in a more broad sense.  My daughter just started kindergarten. (Well, she is half way done now).  She attended pre-school for a little over two years beforehand. Between preschool & kindergarten we moved one zipcode over into a different district. A lot of the her classmates did not attend any kind of preschool before Kindergarten.  I'd assume it was due to the cost of it. (I was lucky, my parents offered to pay half the tuition, because no joke it is ridiculously expensive).  

 

Because of this, my daughter is ahead of 90% of her class.  Not because she is super smart and has superior intelligence. (although as parents you'd like to think so, right?) it is because she was better prepared to start K-6 than a lot of the other students in this zipcode.  The teacher is working with my daughter and a couple other students on 1st grade prep already because they need the challenge, while other students are barely keeping up with the actual Kindergarten curriculum.  Not due to their intelligence level but all sorts of factors, especially it being their first exposure to a "school" environment.

 

The cost of pre-school is a HUGE barrier that puts some children behind the 8-ball from the get-go.  Now, because we are just talking pre-school/Kindergarten level, the hope is the other kids will be caught up and ready regardless, and I am sure most of them will be, but there will definitely be a handful of them that will struggle and lag behind. 

 

I am not sure what preparatory programs are available in the area for pre-school-like education since luckily, we didn't have to look into it, but I'd assume it's underfunded and fills up the max size allowed within 10 mins of it being available for signups. 

[Gamebreaker]

The biggest issues with failing schools is a lack of support from their homes, and oversized classrooms. Poorly educated parents don't consistently put the effort in working with their children at home, or work too many jobs to have the time to put the effort in, on making sure their children are not falling behind in class and doing homework/studying. It puts the onus solely on the child and the overburdened teacher to keep the child on track, where better schools rarely see these issues. I've had a discussion with a good friend of mine. His sister-in-law is living with him. His sister-in-law has a ten year old daughter. Her daughter is struggling in math and because her mother is also extremely weak in math, she often gets frustrated trying to help her and lashes out at her to pay better attention in class while she storms off. My friend has resorted to tutoring her now instead of allowing a her mother to become further frustrated and the child fall further behind. Most children don't have any support from home in this regard, and no intervention happens. 

 

The oversized classrooms are an even bigger problem. My mother, aunt, and three of my cousins are/were educators and I hear them speak of this often. My cousin is a Kindergarten teacher in DCPS. One year she had 42 students in her class, with no aide. Forty-two. She didn't have enough desk for all the kids, so they would have to rotate some days SITTING ON THE FLOOR and trying to do assignments she gave them on the floor. As in any classroom, you have some who understand easily, most who need a little instruction to get it, and some who need more attention. In a 42 student class room, the "some who need more attention" is much larger and in a poor neighborhood, children who come to school unkempt and hungry are not even thinking about learning. They just want to avoid getting picked on and want to eat lunch(for some, the only meal they'll get that day). An ideal classroom where a teacher can be most effective needs to be under 20, and IMO, somewhere in the range of 12-15 students. But you will find often the kind of situations my cousin was in happening in inner city schools that underperform. And the penalty for underperforming is less resources for the school, which only makes the situation worse and doesn't solve the issues at all. 

 

For some to say maybe they simply aren't as good students, is a simplistic view, devoid of facts or understanding to the whys and hows these schools are underperforming.  

[mcsluggo]

20 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Is he really for equal opportunity? What policies does he support that would back that up, or is "Equal opportunity, not equal outcome" just a hipster neo-conservative tagline. 

 

If he is for equal opportunity, then that puts him at odds with most of his peers, not to mention the crowds he speaks to. 

 

This^^^ times 100.

 

if you honestly believe in the "equal opportunity" mantra, then you should be all over yourself to level the playing field... this means working for education opportunities, working for child care for families that WANT to be working families, working for access to healthcare, supporting ideas like the earned income tax credit,  fighting for a strong justice system attack on individuals/institutions that thwart justice/equality....  and the list goes on..and on...and on.... 

 

You don't have to agree with EVERYTHING that could improve "equal opportunity", but in AT LEAST 85% of the cases someone saying they are for "Equal opportunity, not equal outcome" is simply a restatement of "I want to do NOTHING, and i am tired of you whining about it"  ... 

 

If you say you are for equal opportunity, then you have to do SOMETHING to actually support that, or you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.   

 

 

[mcsluggo]

20 hours ago, DC9 said:

 

So this tells me you haven't listened to him.  Which is okay.  I think the only dude on the left I listen to with any kind of regularity are Sam Harris.  I really don't listen to anyone on the right except Shapiro, but I consider he and Harris more center mass than anything.  Which is why I guess I listen to them. 

 

Shapiro is not a Trump guy.  He didn't vote for President because neither candidate earned his vote.  Basically he doesn't see the need for government policy and restrictions on businesses because of your identity.  And I agree with that largely. 

 

 

yes, fine.  He doesn't support government policy and regulations because of identity politics.   Check.    

 

what DOES he support to actually increase "equal opportunity"  ???

 

 

 

i believe his "equal opportunity" could be boiled down to   "I am colorblind when i choose who to hire and who to do business with.. so everything should be fine, right?"    

 

which is to say changing from belief in:

--"Equal opportunity, not equal outcome" 

to 

--- "there is no difference in opportunity, so stop whining about differences in outcome"

 

These are not the same ****ing thing.