Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
I actually wonder whether identity politics is good for the working class or it's rather a weapon against them in the class struggle. How the hell is the transgender issue so important in the Western hemisphere? :?:
Potemkin wrote:It's useful to the ruling class as a diversion tactic, Beren. It seems to be working, too.
mikema63 wrote:Cause they exist and some people care? I know a few trans people and think they should be treated with respect as human beings.
I think the right wings response to trans people of making a huge issue out of it is what made it such a big issue. Nobody would care if it weren't for the inordinate reaction against them.
Shepherd also apparently did not contextualise the video before playing it.
colliric wrote:Actually it sounds totally like she did.
"here is someone expressing an opposing view" is all she needed to say and from the video is what she apparently did say. That was warning enough for the students in the classroom.
That they are millenials and don't traditionally understand this to mean that there could "murky waters ahead" is their own fault for being snowflakes.
Even if she had of literally said "Warning: Controversial Content ahead" they sound like they are the exact type of individuals (Snowflake millenials) which would have bitched and complained anyway even with a more explicit warning and explanation of context.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, the professor of the class did not think she contextualised it, nor does one vague sentence qualify as good contextualising.
If she did say what you claim, then she did not explain what Peterson’s view opposes. Nor did she mention the code of ethics as supported by her school, or discuss transphobia, or talk about free speech, or tie this in to the actual course material.
Where did you get that they are millenials?
colliric wrote:Yes it does, she set the video up adequately.
Usually these situations go:
- here is a video which expresses an opposing view
- Explanation(including further contextualising and relationship to the course). This set can be skipped mostly though as the information will also be naturally covered by the final step as well.
Her intention was to do this the STANDARD WAY it is done in classrooms. Play the video with a brief intro, then TALK ABOUT IT.
Not talk about it totally then play it, as that is the incorrect educational order.
College students in the year 2017 were on average born around the year 1998. The first year age average in Australia for university students is 18-19. Which makes them Millenials.
Pants-of-dog wrote:If she did say what you claim, then she did not explain what Peterson’s view opposes. Nor did she mention the code of ethics as supported by her school, or discuss transphobia, or talk about free speech, or tie this in to the actual course material.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Was that supposed to be a reply to what I said?
colliric wrote:I hate how Sarcasm never translates well to text alone.
Obviously I was in Sarcasm mode and it was a response to you.
Teachers should be able to make choices and show videos that are educationally confrontational.
We watched "Playboy Presents Roman Polanski's Batshit insane getting over a Manson Murder version of Macbeth" with little to no warning at all... It didn't hurt us to see it, as it is the second most famous film adaptation of that play.
Pants-of-dog wrote:She was not the teacher. She ignored the teacher’s choices and inserted her personal beliefs instead.
Also, the point of the class was to work on writing skills. How does showing “educationally confrontational” videos about denying trans people’s rights help with that?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Shepherd also apparently did not contextualise the video before playing it.
That means she did not explain what the video was abput before playing it. She just put it on with no explanation.
God forbid students at a university should have to think for themselves about something rather than having the orthodox opinion explained to them beforehand.
Potemkin wrote:If the middle-class little darlings are forced to think for themselves, they actually complain about it, Decky. I can remember back when I was doing my MSc at Edinburgh Uni, the professor (a German Maoist) was presenting two conflicting points of view concerning some political conflict in the 1930s, without coming down on one side or the other. One of the students (who also happened to be German) asked him with a puzzled expression on her face: "But which is the correct viewpoint?" The professor had to carefully explain to her that, in real life, there is actually no 'correct' viewpoint, but are in fact multiple and mutually conflicting viewpoints which are incompatible and incommensurate, but none of which can be said to be objectively true or false. Even after he explained it to her, she still looked puzzled. Most people just want some authority figure to tell them what to believe, just like they did at kindergarten, so the little darlings don't have to go to all the trouble of actually thinking for themselves or having any beliefs of their own. And if it's not forthcoming, then they seem to feel cheated in some way. The professor should just have told her: "The Party is always right. The Party is your mother and your father, your guardian and your God. All hail the Party!" Lol.
I am an atheist. I am becoming discouraged. Most[…]
And what happens when the family want the body? […]
"A place for nuanced, respectfull deba...&quo[…]
Godstud wrote: Marrying someone you never had sex[…]