And, again, I have this to say: We have a disconnect when it seems to me that *ALL* of my obligations are met and you say that, no, not all of them are.
At that point I have to ask "which ones am I not meeting?"
Because it seems to me that the answer ceases to be "only you can know" quite quickly. Indeed, if it stayed "only you can know", we wouldn't be having any disagreement whatsoever.
You can see my questions and my responses feeling like my questions weren't answered and you can see stillwater explain that he has, in fact, answered my questions.
For the record "only you can know what you need to do" is not really a good answer when I'm asking, specifically, what obligations I am not happening to meet because, and this is important, it seems to me that I am, in fact, *MEETING* them.
I do not see a 1:1 overlap between "Team Red" and "Conservative".
I am fairly conservative. I am not Team Red.
If you go to Redstate, you will find a great deal of Team Red sentiment... you'll also find arguments for big government conservativism, neoconservative foreign policy, and an intermittent attitude that "deficits don't matter".
Now, if you want to argue that Conservativism (much like Marxism) ought be defined by self-defined conservatives IN PRACTICE, there's a lot of merit to that particular argument... it does leave some stuff out, though.
It's definitely a loosey-goosey term. I was more going for the "it has to have a discernable melody". Not necessarily one easy enough to hum... but "I know it when I see it" and John Cage and Slayer are both way the heck over there.
(Ironically, John Cage performed Water Walk on national television a year after the year in which this thought experiment is performed.)
It's not agreement on conclusion or even necessarily on process (I have some tribe members who aren't particularly self-reflective at all, for example... they don't read, they don't write, the internet is for pr0n, and they watch stuff like Deal or No Deal unironically. And I'd take a bullet for them.)
Why this one and not that one?
Surely it doesn't amount to a sense of humor... surely not.
"Conservative" strikes me as an inclination rather than a philosophy qua philosophy.
When faced with any given problem, the inclination to say "what has worked in the past? We should do what worked in the past" is a conservative response. It's fairly unsentimental... compared to the more progressive response of "the sky is the limit with the possibilities of solutions we could apply!"
But what was "progressive" yesterday is "conservative" tomorrow. It's not a philosophy as much as a time-dependent inclination when it comes to addressing issues.
Conservative positions today would have been seen as radical 100 years ago. In 100 years, progressive positions today will be seen as hubristic, or limited in scope, or excused as ignorant, the poor dears, because of how little they knew compared to what we know today.
Listen all! This is the truth of it. Fighting leads to killing, and killing gets to warring. And that was damn near the death of us all. Look at us now! Busted up, and everyone talking about hard rain! But we've learned, by the dust of them all... Bartertown learned. Now, when men get to fighting, it happens here! And it finishes here! Two men enter; one man leaves.
And, of course, Aunty said it better: Do you know who I was? Nobody. Except on the day after, I was still alive. This nobody had a chance to be somebody.
During one gaming night, whilst raiding the fridge, I walked through the room where my friend's wife was watching The Running Man. She had never seen it before (!). It happened to be the Buzzsaw scene.
I snarled "I LOVE THIS SAW. THIS SAW IS A PART OF ME. I'M GONNA MAKE IT PART OF YOU!"
Then, seconds later, Buzzsaw said something similar.
I digress. It was about corporations? Or something? Huh.
The best part about it is that it's a remake of Anabasis. I saw the movie before I knew about that... but, even so, it plays like a very, very old story even as it's set in "modern" America. Can you dig it?
(Also, The Furies terrified me when I was a little kid...)
If you allow the BoE to get into the schools’ business, the YEC people are going to take over the BoE (like what’s currently underway in Texas), because duh, when you aggregate power you aggregate the ability for that power to be take over and used by a different agenda.
If you have decentralized checks and balances, it’s very hard for a problem to become pervasive. That’s what we’re trying to achieve, here. Not stop all possibility of YEC loonies taking over anything to do with education. That’s an impossible goal, kind of like the war on drugs.
I agree with this so much that it seems excessive and it kinda creeps me out.
Isn't the problem *NOT* the "closet creationists" that might be hiding in the system but the "out and proud creationists" that are the ones with The Children that they are sending to the schools and demanding that their world views be treated respectfully?
If the price for getting buy-in from an additional 20% of parents out there is to allow an "ID" disclaimer taking up all of 3 minutes on the first day of Biology class, are we willing to pay that?
Would the ID disclaimer poison all of the children in the class and thus prevent us from having a new generation of doctors?
On the other end of the spectrum, I've got a friend who teaches math in Pennsylvania (the not-Philly, not-Pittsburgh part) and he told me that he has a lot of rules for his word problems that he has to give the students. He can't assume a rural setting, he can't assume an urban setting... and so this means he can't have "Billy" walk a certain number of blocks in an hour. He has some students that are low income and, as such, he can't give "Billy" a bike to ride. Lots of little rules dictating what he can and can't have "Billy" do in a word problem before we even get to the math part.
What price are we willing to pay to teach the things we want taught?
Are we willing to deal with the indignities of sure, maybe evolution is God's design?
Are we willing to inflict the indignities of "Billy" riding a bike and going 16 blocks in 8 minutes upon poor rural students?
I don't have kids and, as such, don't really have a dog in this fight outside of wanting the best education for the kids of my loved ones... but it seems to me that there are a lot of things we ask the schools to do that do not involve stuff like "teaching math or science" and it sometimes feels like those things are given a higher priority than "teaching math or science"... and, as such, we oughtn't be surprised when our children are slipping when it comes to math or science.
On “Fleshing out the University (Pt .4)”
(Taking a break)
And, again, I have this to say: We have a disconnect when it seems to me that *ALL* of my obligations are met and you say that, no, not all of them are.
At that point I have to ask "which ones am I not meeting?"
Because it seems to me that the answer ceases to be "only you can know" quite quickly. Indeed, if it stayed "only you can know", we wouldn't be having any disagreement whatsoever.
On ““September,” Earth, Wind, and Fire”
A confession.
I hate Dark Side of the Moon. With the hate of 1000 suns. I change the station if I even suspect I'll be forced to listen to "Time" or "Money".
On “Fleshing out the University (Pt .4)”
OH! And I didn't see you write back to my essay!
I'll respond tomorrow. I have a positive obligation to my houseguest that I am neglecting.
"
The thread starts here, by the way.
https://ordinary-times.com/blog/2011/03/04/incoherent-democracy-again/#comment-112850
You can see my questions and my responses feeling like my questions weren't answered and you can see stillwater explain that he has, in fact, answered my questions.
"
I asked for specifics. Again and again.
Do you want me to start quoting the generalities you gave in response to my questions asking for specifics?
"
For the record "only you can know what you need to do" is not really a good answer when I'm asking, specifically, what obligations I am not happening to meet because, and this is important, it seems to me that I am, in fact, *MEETING* them.
"
Sigh. It's Friday night and I can't talk. But, dude.
"
I do not see a 1:1 overlap between "Team Red" and "Conservative".
I am fairly conservative. I am not Team Red.
If you go to Redstate, you will find a great deal of Team Red sentiment... you'll also find arguments for big government conservativism, neoconservative foreign policy, and an intermittent attitude that "deficits don't matter".
Now, if you want to argue that Conservativism (much like Marxism) ought be defined by self-defined conservatives IN PRACTICE, there's a lot of merit to that particular argument... it does leave some stuff out, though.
On ““September,” Earth, Wind, and Fire”
It's definitely a loosey-goosey term. I was more going for the "it has to have a discernable melody". Not necessarily one easy enough to hum... but "I know it when I see it" and John Cage and Slayer are both way the heck over there.
(Ironically, John Cage performed Water Walk on national television a year after the year in which this thought experiment is performed.)
On “Labor Roundtable: The Labor Movement, Redistributive Justice, and Procedural Fairness”
As for email, come on over to Mindless Diversions and leave a real email in the email field with one of your comments there. (I won't give it out!)
"
"Tribe" is a perfect word for what I look for.
It's not agreement on conclusion or even necessarily on process (I have some tribe members who aren't particularly self-reflective at all, for example... they don't read, they don't write, the internet is for pr0n, and they watch stuff like Deal or No Deal unironically. And I'd take a bullet for them.)
Why this one and not that one?
Surely it doesn't amount to a sense of humor... surely not.
On “Fleshing out the University (Pt .4)”
you’re anti-intellectual assessment
Ain't it always the case that this stuff happens in the discussions of anti-intellectualism?
"
"Conservative" strikes me as an inclination rather than a philosophy qua philosophy.
When faced with any given problem, the inclination to say "what has worked in the past? We should do what worked in the past" is a conservative response. It's fairly unsentimental... compared to the more progressive response of "the sky is the limit with the possibilities of solutions we could apply!"
But what was "progressive" yesterday is "conservative" tomorrow. It's not a philosophy as much as a time-dependent inclination when it comes to addressing issues.
Conservative positions today would have been seen as radical 100 years ago. In 100 years, progressive positions today will be seen as hubristic, or limited in scope, or excused as ignorant, the poor dears, because of how little they knew compared to what we know today.
On “So, how do we walk away from Omelas?”
This joke has me in awe.
On “Cultural artifacts from the age of fear”
So... the best analogy to the problem that we are facing in education today is *NOT* the analogy that we have, of sorts, a tumor?
"
So... you're saying that we didn't need another hero?
"
By the *BEST* movie, you mean.
Listen all! This is the truth of it. Fighting leads to killing, and killing gets to warring. And that was damn near the death of us all. Look at us now! Busted up, and everyone talking about hard rain! But we've learned, by the dust of them all... Bartertown learned. Now, when men get to fighting, it happens here! And it finishes here! Two men enter; one man leaves.
And, of course, Aunty said it better: Do you know who I was? Nobody. Except on the day after, I was still alive. This nobody had a chance to be somebody.
"
During one gaming night, whilst raiding the fridge, I walked through the room where my friend's wife was watching The Running Man. She had never seen it before (!). It happened to be the Buzzsaw scene.
I snarled "I LOVE THIS SAW. THIS SAW IS A PART OF ME. I'M GONNA MAKE IT PART OF YOU!"
Then, seconds later, Buzzsaw said something similar.
I digress. It was about corporations? Or something? Huh.
"
"Is that a vintage coat?"
"No. It's a right now coat."
"
The best part about it is that it's a remake of Anabasis. I saw the movie before I knew about that... but, even so, it plays like a very, very old story even as it's set in "modern" America. Can you dig it?
(Also, The Furies terrified me when I was a little kid...)
On “Why does the Finnish public school system work?”
If you allow the BoE to get into the schools’ business, the YEC people are going to take over the BoE (like what’s currently underway in Texas), because duh, when you aggregate power you aggregate the ability for that power to be take over and used by a different agenda.
If you have decentralized checks and balances, it’s very hard for a problem to become pervasive. That’s what we’re trying to achieve, here. Not stop all possibility of YEC loonies taking over anything to do with education. That’s an impossible goal, kind of like the war on drugs.
I agree with this so much that it seems excessive and it kinda creeps me out.
"
"We're Present! Evolution is not pleasant! To it we do not assent! Get used to it!"
"
Isn't the problem *NOT* the "closet creationists" that might be hiding in the system but the "out and proud creationists" that are the ones with The Children that they are sending to the schools and demanding that their world views be treated respectfully?
"
What price are we willing to pay?
If the price for getting buy-in from an additional 20% of parents out there is to allow an "ID" disclaimer taking up all of 3 minutes on the first day of Biology class, are we willing to pay that?
Would the ID disclaimer poison all of the children in the class and thus prevent us from having a new generation of doctors?
On the other end of the spectrum, I've got a friend who teaches math in Pennsylvania (the not-Philly, not-Pittsburgh part) and he told me that he has a lot of rules for his word problems that he has to give the students. He can't assume a rural setting, he can't assume an urban setting... and so this means he can't have "Billy" walk a certain number of blocks in an hour. He has some students that are low income and, as such, he can't give "Billy" a bike to ride. Lots of little rules dictating what he can and can't have "Billy" do in a word problem before we even get to the math part.
What price are we willing to pay to teach the things we want taught?
Are we willing to deal with the indignities of sure, maybe evolution is God's design?
Are we willing to inflict the indignities of "Billy" riding a bike and going 16 blocks in 8 minutes upon poor rural students?
I don't have kids and, as such, don't really have a dog in this fight outside of wanting the best education for the kids of my loved ones... but it seems to me that there are a lot of things we ask the schools to do that do not involve stuff like "teaching math or science" and it sometimes feels like those things are given a higher priority than "teaching math or science"... and, as such, we oughtn't be surprised when our children are slipping when it comes to math or science.
"
"If you want Finland’s fruits, you must also accept its branches, trunk and roots."
Does that include the homogenous society thing?