Tik Tok school violence “threat”

[jakelafortParticipant]

The proper subject matter of posting begs the question what is the nature and purpose of Atheist Zone.

We may differ in how we answer that question. For me it is  to be informed, learn, challenge each other in our ideas and to be entertained. I suppose it is hoped that theists will begin to question their beliefs. I have certainly observed how some of you are patient in engaging theists. It is not for me if there is too much rigidity in requirements of posting.

In terms of deviating from the topic i am fine with it. That is how life is. That is how our thoughts meander. That is consistent with informing and entertaining.  Moreover digression is the oxygen of intelligence. One track minds are intractable. On the other hand if the originator of the topic is not ok with it i am fine playing by her rules.

I don’t think Enco meant to derail the topic. However i am reminded of a discussion here about fallacies. I am not minimizing their importance-spotting em that is. On the other hand that skill is insufficient in the quest to think well. I won’t elaborate because i have promises to keep and miles to go before i sleep.

[—Participant]

My issue isn’t derailment, which can happen through tangents and drift naturally over the course of conversation. We are actually derailing this thread right now. My issue is the why.

In my case, my ‘why’ is that Enco’s derail was presented irrationally. Whether there was rational thought behind it or not, the actual post wasn’t presented rationally. Worse, it wasn’t presented in a way that rational conversation could easily stem from it.

It lacked relevance: How do we tie it into the conversation at hand when it has only a specious connection to words used elsewhere in the conversation? As the audience for the post, how do we contextualize it when it doesn’t stem from anything in the conversation neither does it lead back to anything in the conversation? It’s not even really analogous to anything relevant.

It wasn’t coherent: It jumped from one thing to the next with no clear relationship between those things.

It was politically charged: ‘Woke’, ‘CRT’, and ‘antisemitism’ have all be topics thrown around in highly politicized contexts. And by that I do not mean these are inherently political topics. I mean these terms are often through around as fodder in political polarization despite their more legitimate uses.

It was inflammatory.

It was vague and unsubstantiated: Claims are made about ‘Wokeism’ and critical race theory regarding their relationship to antisemitism, but they aren’t actually supported in any way. No argument is made on behalf of the statement which is not self-evident nor self-explanatory. Not only that, but ‘Wokeism’ is a vague concept to begin with, and critical race theory is a body of critical analysis and reason developed over half a century that has too much breadth and depth to easily discuss in such broad strokes. It leaves the audience to guess what the speaker is getting at.

So the question I put forward is what rational conversation is likely to stem from that post?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Rational conversation has stemmed from that post of Enco’s.  But was it rational in the first place?  In a sense.  But is it sound?  Possibly not.

[—Participant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Rational conversation has stemmed from that post of Enco’s.

It hasn’t yet. It has stemmed from a tangent which didn’t directly address his content save for to ask why it was posted.

But was it rational in the first place? In a sense.

I’m not sure what you mean. There may have been rational thought behind it, but the final presentation doesn’t accord with reason and logic. We can’t pull logical argument from the post without putting in effort to construct those arguments almost entirely ourselves with the bits and pieces of content strewn about the post.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I can’t disagree with your opinions.  In what ways do you think that Enco’s post was in error?  Politically, or logically?

[—Participant]

In terms of content, logically.

The idea that the thread is about school violence is reductionist. That becomes the basis for an awkward segue to an unrelated incident under the rationale that the unrelated incident is a reason to withdraw children from “Gummint Skoolz, or indeed any school where something like the incident below would ever occur.” No evidence or argument supports this claim.

This makes an irrational jump to a request for us to imagine how that “teacher” who perpetrated the incident would teach about critical race theory and ‘Wokeism’ when neither of those things are relevant to the cited incident, and there is no evidence that “teacher” teaches these things.

That in turn makes a jump to connecting ‘Wokeism” and critical racism with “New Antisemitism” which is allegedly common in “Far Left academia”, also not substantiated and of no clear relevance.

From here we jump to a vague and unsettling notion that the sort of abuse in the cited incident could have gone unchecked were it not for students telling their parents about their teacher. But this is factually incorrect. It was the library who perpetrated the incident. The students reported the incident to their homeroom teacher. The school took action against the librarian.

N.B. Not all claims need substantiation in conversation, but when we’re talking about things that are controversial, not self-evident and not self-explanatory—especially when being used to support one’s position—then yes, things have to be backed up. While it’s possible Enco can do so, it has not thus far been done and thus the points raised lend nothing to logical argument even if a logical argument had been formed in the first place.

In terms of context, politically:

Critical race theory and ‘wokeism’ in schools have become dog whistles from what I have seen. Rather than a firm disagreement, this is the root of heavy skepticism on my part. It was very contrived introducing either of them into the thread, and in the end it contributed nothing to the topic at hand nor the topic Enco himself introduced, yet it did seem to poison the well.

Apart from that, critical race theory emerged as an analysis of predominately anti-Black public policy and ideology. For instance, it provided an analytical and critical framework for practices such as redlining. I am not well-versed enough in what is an extensive subject matter to know how much it touches on antisemitism, but there is not necessarily any implication if it doesn’t address bigotry against Jewish people.

[DavisModerator]

Simon, Enco didn’t actually make much of a sound conclusion. He insinuated connections between miseducation, wokeism, CRT, left-wing-reeducation, antisemitism…all from a couple examples of a few possibly over-the-top educators and a use of these terms in a nebulous way that one might conclude these are all scary things which have a negative impact on education, ‘Merica and whatever. It’s just a hodgepodge of cliche talking points, none fully developed.

One example of Enco’s dismissive language is his vague criticism of CRT. Criticism of something that isn’t overwhelmingly discredited should be more than just talking about it “in a bad light”. As in: ugh…CRT…ugh. What about it is bad? How is descriptors of systemic racism, law and politics a bad thing? How is teaching the more empirical side of CRT (undeniable statistics of unfavourable treatment under the law) a bad thing? Why would you not want to educate a new generation that there are many things which limit core American values such as equality, justice and freedom? If you are critical of some of the more wonky theories in CRT (which I am), then yeah, address that. There won’t be much controversy there. But there is nothing wrong with the general aims of teaching CRT.

That is one example.

 

[jakelafortParticipant]

Maybe Enco is mirroring the propaganda that supports his ideology.

In any event it is not pig pile on Enco day.

[—Participant]

jakelafort wrote:

In any event it is not pig pile on Enco day.

Correct. This started yesterday, so we’re already past just one day. We’ll have to make it a weeklong occasion now.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

I often have a really hard time maintaining objectivity in these times. Responses to this topic seem to illustrate part of the difficulty that many people have, not to mention how it illustrates the difficulty in helping children understand and/or adapt to these times. Congrats to Ivy for finding success, in this case. It’s not easy!

I had to tell myself to “step away from the claims” that don’t directly address Ivy’s observations and distress, but at the same time I think I’m seeing part of the problem actually illustrated here. Confusion, mixed bags of claims about “what’s wrong with our world today”, and again I wonder, how can we help kids grasp enough wisdom to invent new solutions and carry them into the future?

Donald Trump is the only person in my life I’ve ever hated. He’s a calculating cult leader, who knows how to push people’s buttons, including positive nods to Qanon, marching to the capitol on Jan 6 to “stop the steal” (which is now his permanent big lie that’s taken hold across the country), selling the idea that only he can provide truth and that all other dissenters cannot be trusted… and other disruptive strategies. This is the real conspiracy, which has ripened not just because of Trump, but because a huge segment of society was/is desperately looking for drastic measures to “fix” what they think is wrong with America. Anti-science, anti-vax, even anti-mask movements are themselves also part of our social disease; how can kids be expected to make sense out of these times? While politicians find profit in promoting these divisions.

There, I just showed my political bias and likely added division to the broader discussion on reasonable remedies. However, it seems to me, again, parts of this thread illustrate how prone we are to drawing desperate conclusions, at the cost of trying really, really hard to find common ground… and then finding ways to pass empathy, wisdom, and confidence onto our kids, without constantly waving hands and screaming how “the sky is falling”. (The sky is falling, but panic, division, nationalism, and evilizing each other are not going to fix that.)

I apologize if this post seems to be off-topic. It’s my “bigger picture” attempt, and I promise not to say any more about it!

[jakelafortParticipant]

I wonder if it is a common theme as an empire is about to crumble that the citizenry feeling threatened is less rational and more prone to cults and anti-government movements and all manner of lunacy. It sure feels like a substantial majority of the USA is chock full of nuts.

The greater existential crises are i fear insurmountable unless there is an unexpected occurrence such as aliens who are benevolent or AI that awakens with super intelligence and good intentions to humanity.  I would call those possibilities extremely remote. I don’t have any idea what would keep civilization from its destiny-extinction. So why not sit back and enjoy the play when there is nothing any of us can do about our trajectory?

 

 

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

PopeBeanie,

Donald Trump is the only person in my life I’ve ever hated.

Trump’s the only person in your life you’ve ever hated? Oh, you poor, deprived, sheltered waif! You don’t get out much do you? 😉

You need a career like in retail to pump up your palette of pique, venture to new vistas of venom, and hyperexpand your horizons of hate!

Mind you, this does NOT mean hatred of people for their immutable traits and conditions of birth. That kind of hatred is stupid, lazy, scatter-gun, and scatter-brained.

I mean a more thoughtful, focused, refined kind of hatred for people’s aquired, chosen, normative traits.

If you focus on that and look widely enough, you’ll find plenty of people to legitimately hate for a lifetime without targeting the undeserved!

To laser-focus this back on the original topics, you could direct hatred at people who expose children to threats of violence, who encourage children to mimic initiation of violence, and who teach children that they bear guilt of any kind by virtue of being born, but in particular guilt for historical acts of violence long before the children were even a thought in their parent’s minds.

Anybody who does any of that to children is very worthy of hatred and shouldn’t be within a mile of anything to do with children!

To parphrase The Moody Bĺues: “Face miles of trials with piles and biles!”

• This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: I hate myself for misspelling so much on this dinky keyboard

[Author]

Posts