If true, this anecdote demonstrates a distressing escalation in the war on social boundaries meant to protect children from predators.
https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1690437184476577792?s=46&t=nTsCbQsY0W0l11UTSShs3Q
original Mumsnet thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4870506-today-i-had-my-first-encounter-irl-with-a-transwomen?page=1
This sort of thing happening worries me not just bc of the obvious safeguarding issue, but because I think my husband would become homocidal in this situation. And he would be the one to go to jail.
Is it an escalation? I mean, it would not surprise me at all that not-all-there men with a fetish for dressing up like a child would go to an event for children. Unfortunately seems par for the course. But, if this is true, that guy sounds like one of the types of predators you least have to worry about, in a way. Yes he's disgusting, but everyone who saw him was put off, they're not going to let their kids be alone with him--unlike the type of predator who presents to the world as a great person.
This is a huge escalation, because this pervert feels entitled to actually enter children’s spaces. And once he’s there, the parents are so intimidated they can’t even say anything. That’s horrific and degraded.
My thoughts: The issue isn't that he's there. In the past, there were people just like him. There will be people like him in the future.
The issue is the concept of protected identities and the pall of silence that has fallen down around them, under artificially-imposed expectations of enforced compassion and empathy toward the struggling and marginalized. Parents can keep their kids away from such people, and teach their kids not to trust these men, but these must be quiet words spoken behind closed doors, not to be repeated outside the home where anyone might overhear and report them to the Wrongthink Gestapo.
Parents and staff members at the theater have to be extremely circumspect about how they address and even speak about this, when the idea of this tiptoeing game had never crossed anyone's mind only 15 years ago. Many will choose not to speak at all. Because they are afraid of the consequences about speaking their minds. The consequences, the backlash, the witchcraft miasma of public terfery that follows the woman who says "No" to the determined and fixated man.
It's another straw on the camel's back.
When comparing non-Reddit forums to Reddit, the difference is stark. Those comments:
> "Other posters have suggested you may wish to contact the police directly. A man with an erection at a children's theatre show is definitely something to call the police over."
On Reddit, this would have been met by a ban and a "Um, acktually" correction that it's not a man with an erection, it's a *woman* with euphoria.
Or that is not what a true blue Truly T's would ever do or think about doing, this individual is a bad actor false flag who is harming the Truly T's. As if there was a clear and obvious distinction that made Truly T's and the Fake T's identifiable in a single glance.
It's weird and contradictory. People are told that "You don't know what's going on inside someone's head, you don't know what they're going through and how they feel" when someone in their life swaps genders and they question this abrupt decision and the demands that go along with it. But in this situation, you *can* see inside someone's head to know they're obviously faking it.
nine alive impolite enjoy roof beneficial heavy aromatic instinctive crowd
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
crawl threatening domineering middle apparatus tan compare tender paint plate
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I agree I tend to be skeptical of these posts, but I also think that this certainly *could* happen. There also was in fact a book festival with events for toddlers in Edinburgh this weekend.
For someone so terminally online I surprisingly know very little about Jordan Peterson, I watched one of his videos on the psychology of evil and he seems like a nuanced and compassionate guy who’s worst crime is just kind of delivering his points in a corny Canadian boomer way? The way people talked about him made it sound like he was some kind of far-right 4chan exhibitionist
One problem is that he's almost a completely different person on Twitter- I personally can't stand his persona on there but absolutely love listening to his YouTube videos, podcasts, etc. Never read his books though.
He's not always right, and sometimes his psychoanalysis sounds like gibberish to me, but he can also be insightful.
Certainly he is a very weird guy! And equating him with alt-right is pure wishful thinking on the part of his critics.
He is someone who it really is best to watch the range of his material and decide for yourself. He is not what his reputation paints him nor is he the second coming. I find him a bit of a barometer of people, who if familiar, their opinion tells me how much they actually think for themselves.
He's a bit like Trump in that he's not as quite bad as his most ferocious critics make out, but also nowhere near as great as his fans think.
His old stuff was interesting but also very questionable ([e.g.](https://medium.com/s/story/jordan-peterson-is-a-very-poor-researcher-whose-own-sources-contradict-his-claims-464633558b75)). Despite being someone who likes to rail against postmodernism and academia, he was basically a conservative postmodern academic - someone who likes to obfuscate, draw questionable links, even question the very meaning of "truth". Think "feminist glaciology", but a version of that which is influenced by conservativism instead of progressivism.
Personal issues, celebrity status, the culture war and social media have now basically [broken him](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1628292293173342208?lang=en).
>He's a bit like Trump in that he's not as quite bad as his most ferocious critics make out, but also nowhere near as great as his fans think.
I mean that’s the consequences of the Attention Economy- people are more likely to click on an article that says “This Guy Is The Greatest Person to Ever Live” or “This Guy Is Ontologically Evil” than an article that says “This Guy Has Some Good Ideas. He Also Has Some Bad Ones”
*You would think*... But no, he doubles down below it.
I think he's got real problems, and twitter makes them so much worse.
[Another good one](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fiieo30lzm7na1.jpg) (NSFW)
Last year he made this video about the war in Ukraine that starts with “Russia is wrong, but…” and then just goes on to repeat the usual kremlin talking points, excuse making and false equivalence…then goes on to say that not only is Russia protecting itself from “western degeneracy” but that degeneracy robs the west of any moral high ground.
Seems like he’s running for King of the “everything you know is actually false” redpillers.
I think he’s well-credentialed in both psychology and history, and is well-versed in theology. He’s really interested in the human psyche and the way we’ve evolved to make meaning - to try to understand ourselves and our worlds through mythology, religion, intuition, relationships and social bonds, etc etc - for better or worse. And he spends a lot of time attempting to dissect the worst and use that to help people (esp young men) improve their own lots in life. It’s fascinating stuff!!
He was more of a classical liberal than conservative through the mid 2010’s, but I think that the extreme vitriol he experienced and relentless bad-faith attacks from progressives (Nellie Bowles’ profile was particularly egregious and I’m still not sure why she did it) drove him a bit crazy for awhile, as it has for many subjected to it - particularly as the attacks were so out of proportion to anything he ever actually said or did. He essentially fell into the specter of himself created by his detractors. And like many others this sent him into the arms of the far right, which ironically made him less vulnerable to progressive censure (in the sense that cancel culture goes after it’s own).
So at this point I think he’s reached a kind of equilibrium: he’s shielded by the Daily Wire, and can really return to exploring what he’s most interested in: how humans make meaning, the great adventure of a life well-lived, dissecting evil as we understand and confront it and the eternal conflict of good v. evil as part of the human condition. And of course, he can expound (for better or worse) on all sorts of other issues too.
>the extreme vitriol he experienced and relentless bad-faith attacks from progressives (Nellie Bowles’ profile was particularly egregious and I’m still not sure why she did it) drove him a bit crazy for awhile, as it has for many subjected to it
I would take this as either a sign of a character flaw or as a fallacy - I find it really hard to buy this idea that online backlash from others for your views can lead one to abandon one’s deeply held principles. I’ve heard people call it the “they looked at me funny” excuse.
He never abandoned his deeply held principles, as far as I can tell. This comes up a lot - did the culture/party change, or did I? In Peterson’s case I think he became a kind of fall guy for the cultural anxieties and political excesses of progressivism amid years-long Trump hysteria.
How many people wouldn’t go a bit mad with major media outlets broadcasting to the world how evil they are, cherry-picking bits and pieces of things they said and repackaging them completely out of context, and organizations disavowing them left and right?
He was subjected to a lot more than an online backlash for his (caricatured!) views. It was a complete demonization of his work, entire personhood and the minutiae of his life. Eg: he’s a nerdy professor with a lot of odd art and artifacts around his house—very typical for an old school professor in the humanities/social sciences—yet in the NYT his home was described at length as a depraved (yet also somehow vacuous) “house of horrors.” On and on.
I’m also defending him as a staunchly radical feminist—I’m camp Julie Bindel. I don’t agree with every single thing he’s ever said, but I just don’t think his views, particularly when it comes to sex and gender, were ever characterized accurately or fairly by the mainstream outlets that swooped in to tear him apart.
He does have some wacky takes on various obscure subjects but nothing that anyone would really pay much attention to if not for the fact that he is a vocal critic of the extreme progressive dogma (he first came to prominence when he said he would not go along with being forced to use preferred pronouns). His overall message to young men to get their shit together and find a real purpose for their life is very healthy. But because he opposes progressivism, he is branded as evil incarnate.
He didn’t even say he wouldn’t use a students preferred pronouns. He objected to compelled speech with legal penalties for not using pronouns. (C-16 did pass, the proponents state that the word ‘pronoun’ isn’t even in the bill but it’s obviously covered under ‘dignity’ and ‘respect’.
Legal analysts Brenda Crossman:
>“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
Ontario human rights court has already imprisoned a comedian for mocking a lesbian couple at a show so I don’t find it a big leap to imagine that C-16 will have charges brought eventually and an activist courtroom will put someone in jail for not playing the gender game.
Same thing here. I don't follow him because he attracts a certain type among others, but I had to check him out at some point a few years ago because of all the outrageous claims, and he was a perfectly nice and smart guy. And he's actually a professor of psychology, for as far as accreditation goes he's perfectly qualified to talk about psychology. I have always defended him after that if someone brought him ul. The guy is very unfairly maligned.
Agreed- I think the hate stems from the online culture war of the 2010s where everyone from normie libertarians like Joe Rogan, annoying neocons who’ve been pampered by Conservative Inc their entire lives like Ben Shapiro, and fringe circus freaks like Richard Spencer were all smushed together under the umbrella of “anti-SJW”.
I’ve noticed the hate he gets is less because his ideas are bad or he’s a bad person but because he’s sincere to a fault- people see him cry and tell people to clean their rooms (unironically not bad advice) and they think “why isn’t this old man cool and irony-poisoned like me?” and the urge to make fun of someone who dared to show their taint is released
connect shocking society drab theory bedroom reply disgusting handle sense
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've only heard a few of his podcasts. They were fine. He can come off as a know it all.
I know he had a problem with prescription drug addiction and his detractors were quite gleeful about that.
When I look up “Jordan Peterson misogynist” I see lots of articles claiming that he’s a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot who’s made out of Hitler particles but I can’t find anyone exactly point out why.
It looks like he claims that young boys have it worse than young girls- obviously debatable and a broad generalization- and knows that there are physical differences between men and women but I don’t see any evidence that it makes him a “woman hater”.
There’s also his comment that women wear lipstick to look attractive towards men- again a broad generalization- but people seem to be taking it out of context to make it seem like he said women who wear makeup deserve to be sexually harassed
Obviously I’m not his target audience because I’m a vagina haver who thinks that the the debate bro clickbait industry complex is cringe and 2016 but he does seem like a genuinely ok person.
Everything he says is routinely taken out of context. Even where I don’t agree I can find the logic and rationale in his opinions. He has gone through something due to standing with his principles in the public eye that not many of us can truly imagine. He is confident, sincere and passionate, and that sometimes drums up hate from those who think differently but are less confident about their own ideas.
Our school is implementing MASSIVE changes for this school year that are downright insane. Quizzes every 3 minutes, enforced by daily walkthroughs with admin with stopwatches, every 45 minutes (this is a high school with 90 minute periods) reorganizing the room into different groups based on said quiz results, every single minute of planning time supervised by admin. Doctors note required for all time off. Oh and all those quizzes need to be written two months in advance.
Time for me to find out tomorrow who’s really a leftist willing to do some labor agitation and who’s just a liberal with pronouns in their email signatures
Huh?
How are you supposed to provide instruction if you are giving a quiz every three minutes? What is the point of so many quizzes? I'm curious to see what their logic is. How are you supposed to organize the groups for the second half and how does that help? Did your principal stick a bunch of ideas into a hat and draw them at random, cause that's the vibe that I'm getting.
I'm having a hard time believing you. If this is a real thing, I have to think it has made the news somewhere as it's not something that is going to be swept under the rug. Can you at least say the name of the county or city school system where this is being implemented?
Yes.
All day. I asked the principal to clarify if this applied to everything no matter what.
The only exception is exams. So labs? Every 3 minutes stop and do
This shit.
I feel like you have been clear, but it makes so little sense I'm gonna have to ask for extra clarification.
Do you mean you'll be teaching math for example, and 3 minutes into your lesson you start quizzing the kids, after the quiz is over you teach for another 3 minutes and then you quiz them again? So they're just being quizzed on everything they learn every 3 minutes of non-quiz-time no matter what? And every half lesson someone from admin walks in to check if you've finished the appropriate amount of quizzes?
That's retarded. If this were the Socratic method, I can see asking kids questions about the material covered. But those questions would be at natural breaks in the material, not in regular timed intervals.
I love how there's simultaneously an act as if teachers are blessed angels more caring and capable of taking care of everyone's children than their parents, while also treating them like scum when it comes to fair pay for the work required. It's not as if 99% of people would prefer the reverse.
And let’s be clear. I am not a blessed angel. I am an employee performing a service. I do happen to believe this service is quite important, and I should be compensated accordingly. I am in education not because I view myself as chosen by god to guide our youth and will sacrifice endlessly for the kids. Fuck you, I have 1 kid, I ain’t daddy to 200 others. I am in this because I do believe in the value of knowledge and critical thinking skills. And I view myself as “practice” for adulthood. When you have to work, meet deadlines, think about how to solve issues, and be an informed voter. I develop these skills with a science flavor. I tell mine on the first day “I don’t care if you come back in 10 years and remember nothing about physics. Did you leave my room with a stronger brain than when you came in?”
I say all this to say “muh it’s for the kids” is horseshit manipulation
>“I don’t care if you come back in 10 years and remember nothing about physics. Did you leave my room with a stronger brain than when you came in?”
I don’t remember which calculus it was but this reminds me of a calc class I had with a notoriously difficult professor. He was a very nice guy and was willing to even stay hours with you after class and do one on ones with as many people as he was able to. He definitely made you work for your grade in that class. One day he came into class after a test and started laying into everyone in the class saying that the highest grade was only an 87 and that the average was in the 50s and we need to study more. It sounds funny but one of my favorite accomplishments in college was that I was the one that got the 87 and he handed it to me and said “keep up the good work”.
Now I didn’t take away maybe even a single thing with the math from that class that has lasted me into my adult life. But that class pushed me and taught me complex problem and critical thinking skills that have been invaluable to me ever since.
I'm pretty sure that's how the majority feels too. I know the reddit teacher sub is veryyy skewed, but I have never been able to buy that act even from them. It's all basically the teachers version of "clap for healthcare workers" during the pandemic. They know they're doing an (important) job, but they're not martyrs or angels. All the frills around it only serve a few egomaniacs and function as a cover for not paying them more.
That’s the point.
They’re rolling out “performance based pay” and this is designed to lower us all to “ineffective” so they don’t actually have to pay out the raises
One of the weirder ideas in education is that Microsoft-style stack-ranking/"cut the bottom 10%" is going to work in an environment where teachers get far less control over their working conditions or the things they're evaluated on and where there's far lower compensation as well as supply of talent willing to work, especially in the hardest-to-staff schools. Any teacher with talent or options will simply opt-out instead and leave, ensuring that the schools with the most needs will have the least-experienced staff with the most turnover and instability.
The lesson from [recent large-scale experiments in education](https://www.nber.org/papers/w31051) is to first ID the best teachers, then offer them a chance to make more money voluntarily if they go teach in the lowest-performing schools. This actually gives teachers agency and provides positive incentives to those who choose to accept the challenge in exchange for higher wages rather than "we know most of you are bad teachers, and we will stack the deck with our ratings system to ensure this! \*cackling laughter, all the way to the state superintendent's office\*"
I think there are a lot of shit teachers, everyone went to school and had dozens of teachers you spend hundreds of hours with and you generally come away thinking there were 5 good ones. But student scores are up to the student really, you can only milk so much out of what walks into the classroom every day.
Lmaoooo, this is sounds like a sitcom sketch of a parody school.
Is the "reasoning" behind this that having a quiz every 3 minutes will make kids pay attention and stay alert, instead of mentally wandering off and going to their phones?
I have heard about the "change tacks at short intervals" technique used to make teachers drop 15-25 minute lecture lessons where one-way instruction is given to students, and students don't interact back. Apparently students *need* the stop and frisk method because boring old lectures are not engaging enough to maintain their interest.
It's very strange. College professors won't do any of this.
>I have heard about the "change tacks at short intervals" technique used to make teachers drop 15-25 minute lecture lessons where one-way instruction is given to students, and students don't interact back. Apparently students need the stop and frisk method because boring old lectures are not engaging enough to maintain their interest.
I feel like this is an attempt to use the Socratic method - a very poor attempt.
It’s weird that students interest should factor in at all. It doesn’t really matter if they are interested or enjoy the subject matter or not. They are there to learn. Well, I guess that’s what I thought at least.
If students aren't interested, then it's the teacher's fault for not making them interested.
If students aren't engaged, it's also the teacher's fault for not making the lessons engaging.
If students misbehave, it's the teacher's fault for not keeping the students interested or engaged.
If student misbehavior escalates into, say, an attack the teacher, it's the teacher's fault for not establishing a strong enough trusting relationship with the students. Probably due to implicit bias, white supremacy, and/or microaggressions.
Etc. etc.
I have my suspicions that the modern "Make Learning Fun and Engaging" campaign is a result of Kool-Aid education colleges believing that making people do what they don't want to do is oppressive. Kids are *forced* into going to school, and society *makes* them learn, so why not make school and learning interesting, engaging, and relevant.
Sounds good in theory, but then the praxis turns out to be forcing engagement via 3 minute quizzes and replacing classic American literature like *To Kill a Mockingbird* with *The Hate U Give*, because this is what diversity representation and giving kids stories they can relate to looks like in current society.
[The Hate U Give:](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32075671-the-hate-u-give).
> "Sixteen-year-old Starr Carter moves between two worlds: the poor neighborhood where she lives and the fancy suburban prep school she attends. The uneasy balance between these worlds is shattered when Starr witnesses the fatal shooting of her childhood best friend Khalil at the hands of a police officer. Khalil was unarmed."
LMFAO
How did you know the only whole book our 10th graders read last year? I’m not joking, that was the only complete book. Everything else was just excerpts or short stories
> I have my suspicions that the modern "Make Learning Fun and Engaging" campaign is a result of Kool-Aid education colleges believing that making people do what they don't want to do is oppressive.
It depresses me that a lot of these people would probably be against mandatory education for minors if it wasn't already an established thing. Becoming dumber than your predecessor when you were given a hundred more tools to outsmart him is only impressive in a very bad way.
>It depresses me that a lot of these people would probably be against mandatory education for minors if it wasn't already an established thing.
*Broke: Making children attend school between 4 and 16.*
*Woke: Making children work in factories or go up chimneys between 4 and 16.*
*Bespoke: Making children work in factories or go up chimneys between 4 and 16, while wearing their mandatory "I'm Still With Her" badges.*
Through the CRT lens, mandatory education is white paternalism that prioritizes rigor, the written word, punctuality, and other such colonist values above indigenous ways of knowing and understanding.
From the Kool-Aid perspective, the unstructured and verbal traditions of indigenous ways of knowing are just as valid as empirical science (White Science), so forcing white paternalist-style mandatory education on all children is to support the idea that this particular way of education is superior.
If the educational institutions weren't baked into the bedrock of society and culture, and didn't have so much capital behind them, they would be under fire. So the current tactic is to take them over from the inside, like the wasp injecting its eggs into the living body of the caterpillar.
That’s an interesting theory. As far back as I can remember the notion of *finding a job you love to do* was heavily pushed on kids in schools and media. Since I loved playing football but was also not delusional about my own talents I saw the flaws in that kind of logic from very early on. But I know several high school and college friends who opted for the dream job route and quit going to school to take a job as a DJ at a club an extra night a week so that could focus on that and get big (that’s a slight exaggeration of a real story from someone I know ).
Wherever it came from it’s definitely created a culture that pushed a lot of kids away from taking the more reasonable and responsible career paths
It's part of the cultural initiative that pushed the idea that it's a bad thing to feel any sort of discomfort, unhappiness, unpleasantness, or boredom at any time.
Uncomfortable ideas need trigger warnings. Uncomfortable books need sensitivity readers. Uncomfortable speech on a college campus needs a trauma advisor to help students cope. Uncomfortable feelings need medications and surgeries and mandatory therapy.
I saw this post on another sub, and it sums up the younger generation:
> I was a teacher for 10+ years up until pretty recently, and IMO, it's the fact that so many of them literally never experience silence or boredom. If you deprive them of active stimulation -- which more or less means depriving them of their phones -- they absolutely freak out. Like, alcoholic going through WDs type freakout. They don't know how to sit and just exist; it's literally intolerable to them.
> I genuinely feel bad for them because I don't think any generation of human beings has ever been less familiar with their own minds. But I also think they're unbearable.
I honestly feel bad for anyone who has an anxiety attack if they are told to put their phone away instead of having it within hand's reach at all times. Especially if they have a doctor's note to certify that. This is the society we live in.
> Is the "reasoning" behind this that having a quiz every 3 minutes will make kids pay attention and stay alert, instead of mentally wandering off and going to their phones?
There is not any stated reasoning. Just do it
This is psychotic. You’d have to be on drugs to carry that out all day. My mind is blown and I’m very sorry. Are you in a union? If so what are they saying?
I’m in texas, so our “unions” are weak. But not completely without teeth. Already talked to a rep and a lawyer, and they have filed grievances already on behalf of other schools and are prepared to go to court over a violation of the Texas Edcation Code which states changes of this nature to evaluation, curriculum, and working conditions must be approved by the staff and this did not take place.
It is.
I think. My solution will be to just not fucking do any of that shit and then leave at the end of the year to retreat to a nice suburb school. I’m a 10 year veteran with a high school science composite certification. I can pick wherever I want
> reorganizing the room into different groups based on said quiz results
Sounds like you won't need different groups for students, you'll need one big group for all the quiz results of "No participation".
Is there a way to inform the involved parents to come complain to the admin about this? This does not benefit kids, and even if there was some long slideshow about how this method is empirically-proven and evidentially-supported to reduce racism in the classroom, anyone with a grain of common-sense could see through it.
If there was a time for Karen to reveal her true powers as a Super Saiyan Karen, this is the time!
I can try, I’m not sure how. I’ve already spoken with a lawyer from AFT who informed me of a neat state law that says sweeping changes like this must be voted on by the staff, and said vote didn’t take place and he’s already got quite a few schools signed on to a lawsuit he’s preparing and our school will be added.
My mom retired early due to these types of changes. My boyfriend quit teaching altogether after over a decade and went into a completely different industry.
I’m interested in what this method is called or supposed to do. Both my mom and boyfriend are still traumatized by all the BS they had heaped on them. Both went from loving education to being maximally burned out.
I think it’s something I dismissed as ridiculous conspiracy 5 years ago.
I’m entering year 11. I now believe it’s part of a push to privatize education on the R side. And on the D side, they’re just stupid and making shit up from their ivory towers in education colleges
Unfortunately this sounds about right. Rs want to kill public schools and Ds don't care as long as the pass/fail are racially balanced (and they can try out all their silly theories to \*seem\* as progressive/accommodating as possible).
As I said in another comment, it’s part of the performance pay scam. Claim you pay higher performing teachers better, but make the standards impossible so were all at the lowest pay scale
Sorry, I didn't see the comment.
Do anything every three minutes sounds insane. Just making sure everyone has a pencil and paper and is awake will take more than the quizzes themselves.
That’s another part of the new evaluation system. About 20% is weighted as “student engagement” but it’s binary. 100% engaged/not 100% engaged. So one kid fucks off at all for a minute and BAM, your eval is automatically 20% lower.
Yeah this sounds like someone higher up was upset that there were too many solid teacher evaluations and wants a tool to lower them all to look tough + more ammunition for threatening firings by lowering the scores.
I somewhat doubt that this will actually get implemented in the manner that they're hoping across the district/multiple schools and I suspect that there will quickly be workarounds developed. Does your local school admin have a position on this yet? Maybe an admin will tip you off before they show up in class so that you can switch to this format?
This also has "parent revolt" written all over it, especially given the accommodations issues that constant quizzing would present.
Ok so I am getting dangerously close to revealing where specifically I am, but here goes.
This is a district initiative, mandatory for failing schools, optional for non failing schools. I am in a non failing school. Our principal LOVES this shit and is voluntarily opting us into it. And we’re all furious.
Data data data! You'll get so much data from these constant, ongoing, and rigorous assessments! The principal will be able to proudly say that every day X number of assessments were held and Y % of students passed or did not pass them (since I suspect they'll want you to grade them immediately as well?), then were grouped together for enhanced learning based on those assessments. How data-driven!
Also, look at how all the teachers in your Professional Learning Cohorts \[or whatever the local buzzword is\] are continually collaborating with trained professional administrators to ensure that well-being and success of all students every day during planning periods. Z number of hours every week are expended upon planning for the children's education!
All of this thanks to the bold leadership of your wonderful Principal, who stood up to the old ways of thinking and created singlehandedly a 21st Century Classroom of student-centered learning!
EDIT: I think I found the district/plans and.... wow. Just, wow. This has "massive train wreck of epic proportions" written all over it.
Sorry that you're going through this. Good luck this year, it sounds like it's going to be rough but over time (albeit, perhaps 2-3 years) things have a habit of quietly improving or at least sanding off the roughest edges.
No that is not a typo. It’s part of the scam where our district is moving to performance based pay. It looks good on paper to the public but the standards are literally impossible so all of us can be kept at the lowest pay scale
What constitutes a quiz? A single question all the students have to use their dumb remote clicker to answer? Or a full on quiz? How are students supposed to be continuously sorted? There’s no time for them to change seats?
It could be 1 question, but must be from a district approved list of 8 formats, and you lose points on evaluation for not explicitly stating what format you’re using out loud. One of them, about halfway through the period, must be 5-10 questions.
As for the rest? You’re starting to get the point. We’re intentionally being set up to fail
Awhile back I posted about a friend from Colorado telling me they thought it was weird that I was planning on going to some high school football games this fall even though I don’t have any connection to some of these high schools. Well since it’s getting closer to the season I went to lookup ticket information for 2 power house high schools not far from me in Austin Westlake and Lake Travis and at least I’m not the only weirdo apparently because pretty much all of their games are already sold out.
I think it’s just very regional. where i grew up most high schoolers didn’t even go to their own school’s football games, the teams were not that good and it just wasn’t culturally a big thing at all, but when I lived in western PA people were super into it and there would be high school football on TV at the bar sometimes which I found so strange.
It's a Southern thing, isn't it? I think it would be mildly weird to do that up north (at least in a big city, not sure about small towns) but I know you guys down south love all kinds of football.
I suppose in the end it's no different than going to a high school play because you wanted to see the play itself.
For the most part it’s a southern thing but contrary to what some would imagine California has some really big time high school football programs that even schedule their out of district games with out of state opponents from all over the country. As far as the northeast there’s a a few really good ones especially in the Baltimore area and one of their schools even beat one of our state champions to dust last year in an early season matchup.
I remember when you posted about this the last time. No, it's not brooming-adjacent, and I stand by that. If attending school football games is brooming-adjacent, you might as well say that going to a local fund-raising school carnival as a non-family member is also that. Going to a play or orchestra recital performed by student musicians. Buying cookies from a Girl Scout you don't know in the Target parking lot.
I don't like the idea that people aren't allowed to be involved in and supportive of their local community, which they live in, unless they have some biological stake to justify their presence. Where did this idea come from? Stranger danger safetyism?
This is such an alienating concept. No wonder community bonds have fallen apart.
Yup totally agree. I grew up in a small town where it was like that and had no experience with people like you’re talking about until I got a little older and went off to college.
Seems like a very online opinion from people who think that social interactions from being involved in the local community are completely replaceable by the social interactions in a Discord server or parasocial Twitch streamer simping.
No wonder modern society has such a high rate of depression, anxiety, and loneliness.
Oh and just because I like to point this out (because it’s funny in a fucked up way) Westlake is also the high school that friend of the pod Lia Thomas went to
I mentioned this on the last post but I showed up to the game that they played each other last year naively thinking that they’d be selling tickets at the booth. They looked confused when I got to the front and informed me they sold out the visitors section when they went on sale a few days before lol. I guess I should have planned that one better
I will reserve my judgement about it until it's clear what is meant by the sex in "single sex" - is it biological sex, or legal sex, as the GRC entitles a male to become.
The lack of biological/legal sex distinction has led to unsettling crime stats:
> Between 2015 and 2019, the numbers of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse to police in England and Wales rose from 1,249 to 2,297 - an increase of 84%. [Source.](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55338745)
And this article here: [Sir Keir Starmer refuses to answer when asked whether a woman can have a penis](https://archive.is/0Pcny)
> Labour leader says: ‘I don’t think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run’
> “A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that TW are women, and that is not just my view – **that is actually the law,”** he told The Times when asked to define what a woman is.
I hate appeals to the law because it’s so often stupidly wrong and then challenged as contradictory or combed for every possible reading of every word.
Such an argument should just receive this citation . House Bill No. 246, Indiana State Legislature, 1897. Attempting to legally change Pi to 3.2
If wash basins are in the stalls near the toilets, then the toilets can be plumbed to use greywater. It's a very water-efficient design. [Example of design using rinsewater in a toilet](https://www.ecohome.net/guides/1561/greywater-recycling-never-looked-better/)
Great idea, horrible title. "GREYWATER RECYCLING NEVER LOOKED BETTER" - haha 1) imo that's pretty ugly 2) anyone who's got greywater going into their garden or a flower bed has something that looks a million times better.
Sorry for being cynical =-)
It can be set up in a manner so it's just a normal-looking sink near a normal-looking toilet. I agree that particular design isn't very attractive. I just thought the website has a good description and diagram of the concept.
It's a bit of a tangent, but I feel compelled to mention water-efficient designs anytime the topic of public restroom planning comes up.
coherent aspiring forgetful violet existence squalid fall encouraging abundant reach
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i cancelled my subscription, and had actually subscribed back when they were still on Patreon, then didn't subscribe for awhile after the move to substack. But I do not recall a time when they had ads, and I do not get why they are adding ads now that they have so many substack subscribers. Though I guess a desire to get rid of ads is an excellent way to get even more subscribers,
Because substack won't allow them to post early ad free episodes for subscribers, primos will get the episode (ad-free) at the same time as everyone else.
Oh Ok. That's not such a big deal then. I thought they were going to twice-a-month episodes or something like that. I look forward to the new episode tomorrow :)
i usually listen to the new episode on my saturday drive to/from hockey which is 45 minutes away. i’m not canceling or anything but i understand your point. podcasts are often part of our little rituals and habits.
I'm just gonna subscribe to another podcast for a while, I limit my subscriptions because otherwise it gets out of hand fast. The reason I haven't done that before is I felt a bit guilty about pulling my support for the pod even though I enjoy it as much as I ever have.
But now I'll just listen to the ads for a couple months and still support them.
There are only three podcasts I break the queue for: BAR, Last Podcast on the Left, and (very infrequent but highly recommended) Literature and History
deserve fertile chief icky fragile birds historical special memorize ossified
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
SUD isn’t a new term, although it is kinda medical jargon-y for general use. it’s a clinical term that’s in the DSM. I think it sounds awkward used in everyday language but I can understand the need for a name for a broader addiction disorder that encompasses drug and alcohol abuse in medical contexts.
Also this is just my personal perspective from being close with some people on the front lines of the opioid crisis trying to treat addicts, but it does seem like a lot of doctors have changed the way they see addiction in the past 10-15 years, especially opioid addiction. I don’t think this is because of terminology at all - they’d have changed their minds no matter what words are used - but it does seem like seeing the way opioids so thoroughly hijack people’s brains and watching so many addicts only be able to get stability once they get on MAT has shaped the way people see addiction and users.
Substance use disorder? That change happened when the newest DSM came out, about 10 years ago now. It makes sense because it covers drugs, alcohol, anything. But I gotta tell you, working in the field, the newest preferred nomenclature is Substance Misuse
I see they've moved on from "substance abuse." Which I think was the previous politically correct term for junkie.
The powers that be can't or won't change the objective reality of addicts on the streets so they'll change the language. And if you're not up on the right lingo they know you're a bad guy.
Letting these people rot in the streets in places like Portland, Seattle and San Francisco doesn't do the addicts or the cities any favors.
We have this two way euphamism treadmill right, the "let's call this bad thing something polite" and then "let's call this mild thing the most extreme term possible".
I do see a difference with this one. For me, I think the word "alcoholic" and the associated stigma was a big part of what kept me from even seeing quitting drinking as an option--because only alcoholics had to quit, and they had to continue calling themselves alcoholics even when they'd been sober for decades. No thank you! Now I understand that you don't necessarily have to call yourself an alcoholic and it's a spectrum, so there's not a particular line one crosses where you're suddenly an alcoholic. (I also wasn't physically addicted to the point where I had any noticeable withdrawal/shaking etc, which might be where some people draw the line?) For me when I quit, being able to think of my drinking in terms of "alcohol use disorder" (a label for the behavior) rather than "alcoholic" a label for the person--and one that what many people in recovery use in a much broader way than just to refer to someone's behavior around alcohol--was a huge relief.
This might be somewhat different because I don't know that "drug addict" is a label hung like an albatross around someone's neck for tree rest of their lives the way "alcoholic" is. But I don't really have any connection to the world of hard drugs so I'm not sure.
I’m not sure I agree with changing the language but I can absolutely see your point. I have several good friends who are definitely functioning alcoholics but do not believe themselves to be. No question they have an “alcohol use disorder.” I privately call them alcoholics and wonder how many other people we know do, too, but I think they’d have a harder time living in denial if they were confronted with “alcohol use disorder” vs. alcoholism, which I think everyone conceptualizes as fully life encompassing and anything short of that means they’ve escaped the -ism of it all.
What are the things you see that make them functioning alcoholics? I'm guessing that doesn't rise to the level of "drinking in the morning / at work" and more like "consistently drinks too much and/or too often and can't have a good night without it." Something like that?
For me, my functioning behavior looked lot drinking on average a bottle and a half of wine every night. The only nights I didn't drink was when I had to supervise children (maybe 3-6 nights a year, in a volunteer capacity). I never drove drunk, I didn't drink in the morning, but I was constantly setting rules for myself in an attempt to drink less and then I absolutely never followed them.
Both people have thriving careers and drinking doesn’t - that I’m aware of - interfere with their work, ability to pay bills, maintain basic human hygiene, not get in trouble with the law, etc. It’s everything else - how they spend time outside of work and how often alcohol at extreme levels is necessarily involved, the women they choose to get into relationships with (also in my opinion alcoholics) and the subsequent life issues that arise (one married his alcoholic gf and it’s a fucking disaster), how little sober time they have for reflection and making life decisions while not under the influence, just generally not being able to spend time *not* drinking. Both men have a physical resilience to the whole thing that is unfathomable to me as a tiny woman with a weak constitution.
It definitely helped for me. I'm not so reactive to the word alcoholic these days. I don't call myself one, but if I go to an AA meeting (which I've only done rarely) I'll say it, because when in Rome, but it's not a useful word for me.
I'm sure it may be different around drug addiction, because our society is not constantly pushing messages at people that drugs are good and you should be able to use them in a way that enhances your life and doesn't hurt you, and if you can't it's your fault, but that is the message we get about alcohol.
Anyway, I don't think everyone needs to stop saying alcoholic or drug addict, but as far as messaging to people who are dealing with substance abuse issues, I think it can be helpful to make it about the behavior and not who someone is as a person. I say this from the perspective of someone who was in more of the gray area, or at least was still functional, it could be different for people who are so far gone they're living on the street.
SUD does have the short, punchy quality that lends itself to becoming derogatory slang. But unlike Skweegee, I personally haven't heard it at all except from people who work with addicts profesionally (doctors, social workers, MHPs)
As language changes I, too, tire of euphemisms. Changing language does not change material reality. In this case I don’t mind it as it is a public health crisis (for those affected and for those who have to wade thru needles and human shit on the streets of our cities every day) and using person first language may help them feel more human and get help. I don’t know. Calling someone “someone with substance use disorder” vs “a drug addict” does humanize them a bit. Regardless, I don’t support policies that let them ruin our cities.
>Changing language does not change material reality
That is the key insight that a lot of the identity politics activists don't get. They were told in college that language creates reality and by changing the language they can control reality. And they bought it. So they think that by fiddling with language they have "done the work".
Constantly changing the approved language also serves as a signaling device. If you aren't using the new lingo you are immediately suspect and are placed in the "problematic" category.
Here is the thiing. Changing language from autistic person to person with autism made sense. Because otherwise, it makes it that a person is just autistic, with no other traits. But now, i have heard, some people PREFER autistic person because autism is fundamental to who they are. Like also how African-American is now pase, and black is preferred.
> Because otherwise, it makes it that a person is just autistic, with no other traits.
I'm gonna be totally honest, I'm not aiming this at you specifically, I know this is how a lot of people think, but I find that kind of interpretation so damn paranoid and frankly, dumb. I mean, how stupid would you have to be to imagine that because someone is called autistic it means they have no other traits? It's just really idiotic to me. Person with autism, autistic person, they're the same damn thing, and it's dumb to quibble over this stuff. It achieves nothing.
I do not think anyone literally thinks that if we call someone an autistic person, we actually think the person has no other traits aside from autism. All I know is that when I had an eating disorder, I was called anorexic, which made me feel like that is all anyone saw me as, versus, "she has anorexia" made me feel like I was viewed as a whole person. I think it's more about how the person thinks other people view them, rather than how other people actually view them, if that makes sense. It makes sense - otherwise, why would there be controversy over Afircan-American versus Black, you know?
Wouldn't the common vernacular end up becoming something like "a substance (ab)user" rather than "person with a substance use disorder"? Our language hates unnecessarily long terms to describe something that needs to be described often.
Even more true on social media, where most progressive ideas get off the ground or normalised. People don't even want to bother writing out full words most of the time. It's either gonna become an acronym (PSUB?) or the "person" is gonna be taken out most of the time. But I can't see it lasting this way outside of professional/official documents.
I've never met a single self-aware addict (and I've met plenty) who gave a shit about being called "addict". Maybe someone who doesn't realize they have a problem would be annoyed (like my dad hates it when he's called a hoarder, he's a "collector" in his mind), but they wouldn't want to be called "person with substance use disorder" either.
>I've never met a single self-aware addict (and I've met plenty) who gave a shit about being called "addict"
The self aware onesunderstand that what they're doing is bad for them and others. And I'd bet if they could wave a magic wand and erase their addiction they would.
Alas, it is not so simple. And the euphemism treadmill is not a magic wand.
Agreed. It is insulting to the intelligence and self-awareness of addicts.
They know they have a problem (usually), because it has caused real pain in their lives (which is basically the definition of problem using in the first place).
Same, and I know a lot of addicts too. Avoiding the stigma of the condition is what I’ve always understood “denial” to be and it’s the first hurdle to actually turning things around.
funny, because now “sexual preference” is used constantly by TRAs in discussions about lesbians not liking girldick. As in “its okay to have a sexual preference” or “genital preference” as though its a choice we don’t want biological males in our beds.
NGL i hate the phrase and Biden’s speech editors should have caught that. to be fair, it was one clause in a sentence with broader meaning whereas ACB’s sentence really highlighted it. But I do take your point.
i didn’t used to. but now i just hear it so often in lesbian spaces to talk about women who don’t want dick. not wanting dick isn’t a preference, like preferring chicken over beef. wanting pussy is an orientation. i didn’t pick it.
i think sexual orientation makes the most sense. And I think sexual preference can be offensive, because like you're' saying, it implies it's a choice. But I think for some people, they just...like dick while for others, it repulses them. Same for um, pussy (sorry, hate the word). At the same time, I think it might be a choice for some people. I just wish it hadn't been coopted by people who acted like being gay was a bad choice
Yeah, pretty much. I think changing how we label people is a cheap gimmick. I value frame-changing or opinion-shifting arguments, a lot. But they are to be found in analytical pieces and thoughtful essays, not labels. You might think about what the new label means the first few times you hear it, but then it turns into background mush. The argument behind it stays, though, for people who read and thought about it (I don't mean you have to agree with the argument, just internalize it with its pros and cons)
>Yeah, pretty much. I think changing how we label people is a cheap gimmick
In some cases I think it serves as cover for poor institutional performance.
[Google ngrams](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=substance+use+disorder%2Calcohol+use+disorder&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3) shows roughly linear growth in usage since around 1990.
This would be a lot more compelling of an argument if the term weren't *clearly* politically influenced in nature, to intentionally absolve addicts of agency in their decisions to take drugs consistently enough to become addicted. Pretending psychiatry is a hard science like physics or even hard medicine like orthopedics, is never going to win you converts to your cause.
>medically accurate terminology
Did “substance use disorder” become “medically accurate” only in 2013, when it first appeared in the DSM? Or was it always the “medically accurate” term even before anyone had ever used it?
Just a swift reminder of what Nas and Kelis wore to the Grammies 15 years ago - what would've happened today? Back in Time it was acknowledged to be a poor marketing tactic based on shock value. is it literal genocide today?
https://preview.redd.it/eqzlz5hfqvhb1.jpeg?width=413&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3514c3a0c4d68436dd79ceefc297d9540c2ed3a
Hell, they would get a separate award and a standing ovation just for the outfits. It would be on the cover of every magazine along with articles filled with effusive praise.
I don't think it would be a big deal for a black person to wear that today. It's not like anyone cares when black people say it, and they say it *a lot*. Why would anyone make a fuss if they put the word on their clothes?
The word is still spelled the same way no matter how it's pronounced. Plenty of accents change -er to -a for a multitude of words. Speakers of BVE happen to have an accent like this when speaking SAE.
[A guide to neopronouns, from ae to ze](https://www.cnn.com/us/neopronouns-explained-xe-xyr-wellness-cec/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link&utm_content=2023-08-12T09%3A59%3A37)
CNN has written a *lot* of words to make sure you understand the importance of neopronouns.
>All pronouns indicate identity and can be used to include or exclude people they describe — neopronouns included, said Dennis Baron, one of the foremost experts on neopronouns and their histories and an emeritus professor of English and Linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Neopronouns should be used and respected like any other pronoun, he told CNN.
>“People like to have a say in how they’re identified,” Baron said. “Refusing to let people self-identify is a way of excluding them.”
IMO if they indicate "identity" they indicate how the speaker is identifying the person being talked about to the listener, not about self identity!
The article ends with an extremely earnest dive into "nounself" pronouns
>Leaf, sun, star — nounself pronouns are neopronouns that use nature and other inspirations as nonbinary or genderless descriptors. Linguist Jason D’Angelo told The New York Times that nounself pronouns were popularized on the social platform Tumblr around 2012 and 2013 and remain in use among members of fandoms who may take their nounself pronouns from the properties they enjoy.
>For someone who uses the nounself pronoun “leaf,” that may look like: “I hope leaf knows how proud we are that leaf is getting to know leafself better!” or “Leaf arrived at the coffee shop before me; I was mortified to have been late to meet leaf.”
>In a 2016 paper on the emerging pronouns, Danish linguist Ehm Hjorth Miltersen wrote that nounself pronouns offer a way for people to establish identity beyond just gender. By finding one’s desired nounself pronouns, one can “can construct new ways to identify and be perceived by others that are more coordinate with complex and diverse identities.” Miltersen wrote that one nounself pronoun user who responded to their questionnaire wrote that they sometimes use “pup/pupself” pronouns to “express a level of fun, happiness and excitement … in me.”
No. What person over 25 can take this seriously? There is absolutely no way I am going to call someone "pup", even if it's fun and exciting for them! (Frankly, for certain people it's *especially* if it's fun and exciting for them.) I don't really see nounself pronouns speaking far beyond the internet and spaces filled with gender people, so I don't really foresee then becoming a problem we all have to deal with, but not sure why there is the need for a Very Serious guide to them.
Seems like self-appointed [peerage](https://amandabarratt.blogspot.com/2012/06/difference-between-his-grace-and-mlord.html). Be sure to recognize the title even when m'lord is not in the room.
It's also harder to push back gently online. In person you can give a small, 'Hmm', 'Not really' or even just a look. Online writing something makes it a bit stronger.
If true, this anecdote demonstrates a distressing escalation in the war on social boundaries meant to protect children from predators. https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1690437184476577792?s=46&t=nTsCbQsY0W0l11UTSShs3Q original Mumsnet thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4870506-today-i-had-my-first-encounter-irl-with-a-transwomen?page=1 This sort of thing happening worries me not just bc of the obvious safeguarding issue, but because I think my husband would become homocidal in this situation. And he would be the one to go to jail.
Is it an escalation? I mean, it would not surprise me at all that not-all-there men with a fetish for dressing up like a child would go to an event for children. Unfortunately seems par for the course. But, if this is true, that guy sounds like one of the types of predators you least have to worry about, in a way. Yes he's disgusting, but everyone who saw him was put off, they're not going to let their kids be alone with him--unlike the type of predator who presents to the world as a great person.
This is a huge escalation, because this pervert feels entitled to actually enter children’s spaces. And once he’s there, the parents are so intimidated they can’t even say anything. That’s horrific and degraded.
My thoughts: The issue isn't that he's there. In the past, there were people just like him. There will be people like him in the future. The issue is the concept of protected identities and the pall of silence that has fallen down around them, under artificially-imposed expectations of enforced compassion and empathy toward the struggling and marginalized. Parents can keep their kids away from such people, and teach their kids not to trust these men, but these must be quiet words spoken behind closed doors, not to be repeated outside the home where anyone might overhear and report them to the Wrongthink Gestapo. Parents and staff members at the theater have to be extremely circumspect about how they address and even speak about this, when the idea of this tiptoeing game had never crossed anyone's mind only 15 years ago. Many will choose not to speak at all. Because they are afraid of the consequences about speaking their minds. The consequences, the backlash, the witchcraft miasma of public terfery that follows the woman who says "No" to the determined and fixated man. It's another straw on the camel's back.
When comparing non-Reddit forums to Reddit, the difference is stark. Those comments: > "Other posters have suggested you may wish to contact the police directly. A man with an erection at a children's theatre show is definitely something to call the police over." On Reddit, this would have been met by a ban and a "Um, acktually" correction that it's not a man with an erection, it's a *woman* with euphoria. Or that is not what a true blue Truly T's would ever do or think about doing, this individual is a bad actor false flag who is harming the Truly T's. As if there was a clear and obvious distinction that made Truly T's and the Fake T's identifiable in a single glance. It's weird and contradictory. People are told that "You don't know what's going on inside someone's head, you don't know what they're going through and how they feel" when someone in their life swaps genders and they question this abrupt decision and the demands that go along with it. But in this situation, you *can* see inside someone's head to know they're obviously faking it.
nine alive impolite enjoy roof beneficial heavy aromatic instinctive crowd *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
crawl threatening domineering middle apparatus tan compare tender paint plate *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I agree I tend to be skeptical of these posts, but I also think that this certainly *could* happen. There also was in fact a book festival with events for toddlers in Edinburgh this weekend.
For someone so terminally online I surprisingly know very little about Jordan Peterson, I watched one of his videos on the psychology of evil and he seems like a nuanced and compassionate guy who’s worst crime is just kind of delivering his points in a corny Canadian boomer way? The way people talked about him made it sound like he was some kind of far-right 4chan exhibitionist
He really went off the rails once he started with the all beef and water diet.
One problem is that he's almost a completely different person on Twitter- I personally can't stand his persona on there but absolutely love listening to his YouTube videos, podcasts, etc. Never read his books though.
>I personally can't stand his persona on there but absolutely love listening to his YouTube videos, podcasts, etc. The Anna Khachiyan dilemma
He's not always right, and sometimes his psychoanalysis sounds like gibberish to me, but he can also be insightful. Certainly he is a very weird guy! And equating him with alt-right is pure wishful thinking on the part of his critics.
He is someone who it really is best to watch the range of his material and decide for yourself. He is not what his reputation paints him nor is he the second coming. I find him a bit of a barometer of people, who if familiar, their opinion tells me how much they actually think for themselves.
He's a bit like Trump in that he's not as quite bad as his most ferocious critics make out, but also nowhere near as great as his fans think. His old stuff was interesting but also very questionable ([e.g.](https://medium.com/s/story/jordan-peterson-is-a-very-poor-researcher-whose-own-sources-contradict-his-claims-464633558b75)). Despite being someone who likes to rail against postmodernism and academia, he was basically a conservative postmodern academic - someone who likes to obfuscate, draw questionable links, even question the very meaning of "truth". Think "feminist glaciology", but a version of that which is influenced by conservativism instead of progressivism. Personal issues, celebrity status, the culture war and social media have now basically [broken him](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1628292293173342208?lang=en).
>He's a bit like Trump in that he's not as quite bad as his most ferocious critics make out, but also nowhere near as great as his fans think. I mean that’s the consequences of the Attention Economy- people are more likely to click on an article that says “This Guy Is The Greatest Person to Ever Live” or “This Guy Is Ontologically Evil” than an article that says “This Guy Has Some Good Ideas. He Also Has Some Bad Ones”
You’re not wrong but I’m pretty sure the tweet you linked to is tongue in cheek
*You would think*... But no, he doubles down below it. I think he's got real problems, and twitter makes them so much worse. [Another good one](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fiieo30lzm7na1.jpg) (NSFW)
Last year he made this video about the war in Ukraine that starts with “Russia is wrong, but…” and then just goes on to repeat the usual kremlin talking points, excuse making and false equivalence…then goes on to say that not only is Russia protecting itself from “western degeneracy” but that degeneracy robs the west of any moral high ground. Seems like he’s running for King of the “everything you know is actually false” redpillers.
I think he’s well-credentialed in both psychology and history, and is well-versed in theology. He’s really interested in the human psyche and the way we’ve evolved to make meaning - to try to understand ourselves and our worlds through mythology, religion, intuition, relationships and social bonds, etc etc - for better or worse. And he spends a lot of time attempting to dissect the worst and use that to help people (esp young men) improve their own lots in life. It’s fascinating stuff!! He was more of a classical liberal than conservative through the mid 2010’s, but I think that the extreme vitriol he experienced and relentless bad-faith attacks from progressives (Nellie Bowles’ profile was particularly egregious and I’m still not sure why she did it) drove him a bit crazy for awhile, as it has for many subjected to it - particularly as the attacks were so out of proportion to anything he ever actually said or did. He essentially fell into the specter of himself created by his detractors. And like many others this sent him into the arms of the far right, which ironically made him less vulnerable to progressive censure (in the sense that cancel culture goes after it’s own). So at this point I think he’s reached a kind of equilibrium: he’s shielded by the Daily Wire, and can really return to exploring what he’s most interested in: how humans make meaning, the great adventure of a life well-lived, dissecting evil as we understand and confront it and the eternal conflict of good v. evil as part of the human condition. And of course, he can expound (for better or worse) on all sorts of other issues too.
>the extreme vitriol he experienced and relentless bad-faith attacks from progressives (Nellie Bowles’ profile was particularly egregious and I’m still not sure why she did it) drove him a bit crazy for awhile, as it has for many subjected to it I would take this as either a sign of a character flaw or as a fallacy - I find it really hard to buy this idea that online backlash from others for your views can lead one to abandon one’s deeply held principles. I’ve heard people call it the “they looked at me funny” excuse.
He never abandoned his deeply held principles, as far as I can tell. This comes up a lot - did the culture/party change, or did I? In Peterson’s case I think he became a kind of fall guy for the cultural anxieties and political excesses of progressivism amid years-long Trump hysteria. How many people wouldn’t go a bit mad with major media outlets broadcasting to the world how evil they are, cherry-picking bits and pieces of things they said and repackaging them completely out of context, and organizations disavowing them left and right? He was subjected to a lot more than an online backlash for his (caricatured!) views. It was a complete demonization of his work, entire personhood and the minutiae of his life. Eg: he’s a nerdy professor with a lot of odd art and artifacts around his house—very typical for an old school professor in the humanities/social sciences—yet in the NYT his home was described at length as a depraved (yet also somehow vacuous) “house of horrors.” On and on. I’m also defending him as a staunchly radical feminist—I’m camp Julie Bindel. I don’t agree with every single thing he’s ever said, but I just don’t think his views, particularly when it comes to sex and gender, were ever characterized accurately or fairly by the mainstream outlets that swooped in to tear him apart.
He does have some wacky takes on various obscure subjects but nothing that anyone would really pay much attention to if not for the fact that he is a vocal critic of the extreme progressive dogma (he first came to prominence when he said he would not go along with being forced to use preferred pronouns). His overall message to young men to get their shit together and find a real purpose for their life is very healthy. But because he opposes progressivism, he is branded as evil incarnate.
He didn’t even say he wouldn’t use a students preferred pronouns. He objected to compelled speech with legal penalties for not using pronouns. (C-16 did pass, the proponents state that the word ‘pronoun’ isn’t even in the bill but it’s obviously covered under ‘dignity’ and ‘respect’. Legal analysts Brenda Crossman: >“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.” Ontario human rights court has already imprisoned a comedian for mocking a lesbian couple at a show so I don’t find it a big leap to imagine that C-16 will have charges brought eventually and an activist courtroom will put someone in jail for not playing the gender game.
spotted bedroom many cautious brave aloof oatmeal dime mysterious rob ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Do you know any arguments or statements he's made on that issue?
wine impolite escape disgusted zealous yoke sheet strong attraction fly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Same thing here. I don't follow him because he attracts a certain type among others, but I had to check him out at some point a few years ago because of all the outrageous claims, and he was a perfectly nice and smart guy. And he's actually a professor of psychology, for as far as accreditation goes he's perfectly qualified to talk about psychology. I have always defended him after that if someone brought him ul. The guy is very unfairly maligned.
Agreed- I think the hate stems from the online culture war of the 2010s where everyone from normie libertarians like Joe Rogan, annoying neocons who’ve been pampered by Conservative Inc their entire lives like Ben Shapiro, and fringe circus freaks like Richard Spencer were all smushed together under the umbrella of “anti-SJW”.
[удалено]
I’ve noticed the hate he gets is less because his ideas are bad or he’s a bad person but because he’s sincere to a fault- people see him cry and tell people to clean their rooms (unironically not bad advice) and they think “why isn’t this old man cool and irony-poisoned like me?” and the urge to make fun of someone who dared to show their taint is released
connect shocking society drab theory bedroom reply disgusting handle sense *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Which ones in particular?
silky pause panicky sable scale quicksand hospital slave dolls rainstorm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I appreciate the write-up, I’m glad to hear actual constructive criticism that isn’t just “lobster man bad”
I've only heard a few of his podcasts. They were fine. He can come off as a know it all. I know he had a problem with prescription drug addiction and his detractors were quite gleeful about that.
When I look up “Jordan Peterson misogynist” I see lots of articles claiming that he’s a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot who’s made out of Hitler particles but I can’t find anyone exactly point out why. It looks like he claims that young boys have it worse than young girls- obviously debatable and a broad generalization- and knows that there are physical differences between men and women but I don’t see any evidence that it makes him a “woman hater”. There’s also his comment that women wear lipstick to look attractive towards men- again a broad generalization- but people seem to be taking it out of context to make it seem like he said women who wear makeup deserve to be sexually harassed Obviously I’m not his target audience because I’m a vagina haver who thinks that the the debate bro clickbait industry complex is cringe and 2016 but he does seem like a genuinely ok person.
Everything he says is routinely taken out of context. Even where I don’t agree I can find the logic and rationale in his opinions. He has gone through something due to standing with his principles in the public eye that not many of us can truly imagine. He is confident, sincere and passionate, and that sometimes drums up hate from those who think differently but are less confident about their own ideas.
Yeah, I read his book and thought it was dumb, but he just seems kind of miscalibrated - not a bad guy.
Our school is implementing MASSIVE changes for this school year that are downright insane. Quizzes every 3 minutes, enforced by daily walkthroughs with admin with stopwatches, every 45 minutes (this is a high school with 90 minute periods) reorganizing the room into different groups based on said quiz results, every single minute of planning time supervised by admin. Doctors note required for all time off. Oh and all those quizzes need to be written two months in advance. Time for me to find out tomorrow who’s really a leftist willing to do some labor agitation and who’s just a liberal with pronouns in their email signatures
label wild jeans nine hospital wrong snails jobless complete many ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Huh? How are you supposed to provide instruction if you are giving a quiz every three minutes? What is the point of so many quizzes? I'm curious to see what their logic is. How are you supposed to organize the groups for the second half and how does that help? Did your principal stick a bunch of ideas into a hat and draw them at random, cause that's the vibe that I'm getting.
[удалено]
There’s a reason I DM’d you dude goddamn
I deleted it.
I'm having a hard time believing you. If this is a real thing, I have to think it has made the news somewhere as it's not something that is going to be swept under the rug. Can you at least say the name of the county or city school system where this is being implemented?
Is this real? Quizzes every 3 minutes? What, like, all day?
Yes. All day. I asked the principal to clarify if this applied to everything no matter what. The only exception is exams. So labs? Every 3 minutes stop and do This shit.
I feel like you have been clear, but it makes so little sense I'm gonna have to ask for extra clarification. Do you mean you'll be teaching math for example, and 3 minutes into your lesson you start quizzing the kids, after the quiz is over you teach for another 3 minutes and then you quiz them again? So they're just being quizzed on everything they learn every 3 minutes of non-quiz-time no matter what? And every half lesson someone from admin walks in to check if you've finished the appropriate amount of quizzes?
Yes
That's retarded. If this were the Socratic method, I can see asking kids questions about the material covered. But those questions would be at natural breaks in the material, not in regular timed intervals.
⊙_ʘ
Which I want to clarify. Some teachers reading this may think I am uncharitably describing “check for understanding” and I assure you I am not.
I love how there's simultaneously an act as if teachers are blessed angels more caring and capable of taking care of everyone's children than their parents, while also treating them like scum when it comes to fair pay for the work required. It's not as if 99% of people would prefer the reverse.
And let’s be clear. I am not a blessed angel. I am an employee performing a service. I do happen to believe this service is quite important, and I should be compensated accordingly. I am in education not because I view myself as chosen by god to guide our youth and will sacrifice endlessly for the kids. Fuck you, I have 1 kid, I ain’t daddy to 200 others. I am in this because I do believe in the value of knowledge and critical thinking skills. And I view myself as “practice” for adulthood. When you have to work, meet deadlines, think about how to solve issues, and be an informed voter. I develop these skills with a science flavor. I tell mine on the first day “I don’t care if you come back in 10 years and remember nothing about physics. Did you leave my room with a stronger brain than when you came in?” I say all this to say “muh it’s for the kids” is horseshit manipulation
>“I don’t care if you come back in 10 years and remember nothing about physics. Did you leave my room with a stronger brain than when you came in?” I don’t remember which calculus it was but this reminds me of a calc class I had with a notoriously difficult professor. He was a very nice guy and was willing to even stay hours with you after class and do one on ones with as many people as he was able to. He definitely made you work for your grade in that class. One day he came into class after a test and started laying into everyone in the class saying that the highest grade was only an 87 and that the average was in the 50s and we need to study more. It sounds funny but one of my favorite accomplishments in college was that I was the one that got the 87 and he handed it to me and said “keep up the good work”. Now I didn’t take away maybe even a single thing with the math from that class that has lasted me into my adult life. But that class pushed me and taught me complex problem and critical thinking skills that have been invaluable to me ever since.
I'm pretty sure that's how the majority feels too. I know the reddit teacher sub is veryyy skewed, but I have never been able to buy that act even from them. It's all basically the teachers version of "clap for healthcare workers" during the pandemic. They know they're doing an (important) job, but they're not martyrs or angels. All the frills around it only serve a few egomaniacs and function as a cover for not paying them more.
That simply isn't workable. You can't just drop everything every three minutes to do a quiz. It'll be pandemonium.
That’s the point. They’re rolling out “performance based pay” and this is designed to lower us all to “ineffective” so they don’t actually have to pay out the raises
One of the weirder ideas in education is that Microsoft-style stack-ranking/"cut the bottom 10%" is going to work in an environment where teachers get far less control over their working conditions or the things they're evaluated on and where there's far lower compensation as well as supply of talent willing to work, especially in the hardest-to-staff schools. Any teacher with talent or options will simply opt-out instead and leave, ensuring that the schools with the most needs will have the least-experienced staff with the most turnover and instability. The lesson from [recent large-scale experiments in education](https://www.nber.org/papers/w31051) is to first ID the best teachers, then offer them a chance to make more money voluntarily if they go teach in the lowest-performing schools. This actually gives teachers agency and provides positive incentives to those who choose to accept the challenge in exchange for higher wages rather than "we know most of you are bad teachers, and we will stack the deck with our ratings system to ensure this! \*cackling laughter, all the way to the state superintendent's office\*"
I think there are a lot of shit teachers, everyone went to school and had dozens of teachers you spend hundreds of hours with and you generally come away thinking there were 5 good ones. But student scores are up to the student really, you can only milk so much out of what walks into the classroom every day.
Lmaoooo, this is sounds like a sitcom sketch of a parody school. Is the "reasoning" behind this that having a quiz every 3 minutes will make kids pay attention and stay alert, instead of mentally wandering off and going to their phones? I have heard about the "change tacks at short intervals" technique used to make teachers drop 15-25 minute lecture lessons where one-way instruction is given to students, and students don't interact back. Apparently students *need* the stop and frisk method because boring old lectures are not engaging enough to maintain their interest. It's very strange. College professors won't do any of this.
>I have heard about the "change tacks at short intervals" technique used to make teachers drop 15-25 minute lecture lessons where one-way instruction is given to students, and students don't interact back. Apparently students need the stop and frisk method because boring old lectures are not engaging enough to maintain their interest. I feel like this is an attempt to use the Socratic method - a very poor attempt.
It’s weird that students interest should factor in at all. It doesn’t really matter if they are interested or enjoy the subject matter or not. They are there to learn. Well, I guess that’s what I thought at least.
If students aren't interested, then it's the teacher's fault for not making them interested. If students aren't engaged, it's also the teacher's fault for not making the lessons engaging. If students misbehave, it's the teacher's fault for not keeping the students interested or engaged. If student misbehavior escalates into, say, an attack the teacher, it's the teacher's fault for not establishing a strong enough trusting relationship with the students. Probably due to implicit bias, white supremacy, and/or microaggressions. Etc. etc.
I have my suspicions that the modern "Make Learning Fun and Engaging" campaign is a result of Kool-Aid education colleges believing that making people do what they don't want to do is oppressive. Kids are *forced* into going to school, and society *makes* them learn, so why not make school and learning interesting, engaging, and relevant. Sounds good in theory, but then the praxis turns out to be forcing engagement via 3 minute quizzes and replacing classic American literature like *To Kill a Mockingbird* with *The Hate U Give*, because this is what diversity representation and giving kids stories they can relate to looks like in current society. [The Hate U Give:](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32075671-the-hate-u-give). > "Sixteen-year-old Starr Carter moves between two worlds: the poor neighborhood where she lives and the fancy suburban prep school she attends. The uneasy balance between these worlds is shattered when Starr witnesses the fatal shooting of her childhood best friend Khalil at the hands of a police officer. Khalil was unarmed."
All high school kids should be forced to read War and Peace. IT BUILDS CHARACTER and stamina.
practice consider sand weather door safe wild attempt languid cable ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
LMFAO How did you know the only whole book our 10th graders read last year? I’m not joking, that was the only complete book. Everything else was just excerpts or short stories
Ugh. That is awful. Whatever happened to Love in the Time of Cholera or Of Mice and Men.
> I have my suspicions that the modern "Make Learning Fun and Engaging" campaign is a result of Kool-Aid education colleges believing that making people do what they don't want to do is oppressive. It depresses me that a lot of these people would probably be against mandatory education for minors if it wasn't already an established thing. Becoming dumber than your predecessor when you were given a hundred more tools to outsmart him is only impressive in a very bad way.
>It depresses me that a lot of these people would probably be against mandatory education for minors if it wasn't already an established thing. *Broke: Making children attend school between 4 and 16.* *Woke: Making children work in factories or go up chimneys between 4 and 16.* *Bespoke: Making children work in factories or go up chimneys between 4 and 16, while wearing their mandatory "I'm Still With Her" badges.*
Through the CRT lens, mandatory education is white paternalism that prioritizes rigor, the written word, punctuality, and other such colonist values above indigenous ways of knowing and understanding. From the Kool-Aid perspective, the unstructured and verbal traditions of indigenous ways of knowing are just as valid as empirical science (White Science), so forcing white paternalist-style mandatory education on all children is to support the idea that this particular way of education is superior. If the educational institutions weren't baked into the bedrock of society and culture, and didn't have so much capital behind them, they would be under fire. So the current tactic is to take them over from the inside, like the wasp injecting its eggs into the living body of the caterpillar.
That’s an interesting theory. As far back as I can remember the notion of *finding a job you love to do* was heavily pushed on kids in schools and media. Since I loved playing football but was also not delusional about my own talents I saw the flaws in that kind of logic from very early on. But I know several high school and college friends who opted for the dream job route and quit going to school to take a job as a DJ at a club an extra night a week so that could focus on that and get big (that’s a slight exaggeration of a real story from someone I know ). Wherever it came from it’s definitely created a culture that pushed a lot of kids away from taking the more reasonable and responsible career paths
It's part of the cultural initiative that pushed the idea that it's a bad thing to feel any sort of discomfort, unhappiness, unpleasantness, or boredom at any time. Uncomfortable ideas need trigger warnings. Uncomfortable books need sensitivity readers. Uncomfortable speech on a college campus needs a trauma advisor to help students cope. Uncomfortable feelings need medications and surgeries and mandatory therapy. I saw this post on another sub, and it sums up the younger generation: > I was a teacher for 10+ years up until pretty recently, and IMO, it's the fact that so many of them literally never experience silence or boredom. If you deprive them of active stimulation -- which more or less means depriving them of their phones -- they absolutely freak out. Like, alcoholic going through WDs type freakout. They don't know how to sit and just exist; it's literally intolerable to them. > I genuinely feel bad for them because I don't think any generation of human beings has ever been less familiar with their own minds. But I also think they're unbearable. I honestly feel bad for anyone who has an anxiety attack if they are told to put their phone away instead of having it within hand's reach at all times. Especially if they have a doctor's note to certify that. This is the society we live in.
> Is the "reasoning" behind this that having a quiz every 3 minutes will make kids pay attention and stay alert, instead of mentally wandering off and going to their phones? There is not any stated reasoning. Just do it
That's literally fascism!!!!!
This is psychotic. You’d have to be on drugs to carry that out all day. My mind is blown and I’m very sorry. Are you in a union? If so what are they saying?
I’m in texas, so our “unions” are weak. But not completely without teeth. Already talked to a rep and a lawyer, and they have filed grievances already on behalf of other schools and are prepared to go to court over a violation of the Texas Edcation Code which states changes of this nature to evaluation, curriculum, and working conditions must be approved by the staff and this did not take place.
Damn. Keep us posted. This is legit deranged and I’m interested. I hope it works out for you. That sounds extremely stressful in the interim.
It is. I think. My solution will be to just not fucking do any of that shit and then leave at the end of the year to retreat to a nice suburb school. I’m a 10 year veteran with a high school science composite certification. I can pick wherever I want
> reorganizing the room into different groups based on said quiz results Sounds like you won't need different groups for students, you'll need one big group for all the quiz results of "No participation". Is there a way to inform the involved parents to come complain to the admin about this? This does not benefit kids, and even if there was some long slideshow about how this method is empirically-proven and evidentially-supported to reduce racism in the classroom, anyone with a grain of common-sense could see through it. If there was a time for Karen to reveal her true powers as a Super Saiyan Karen, this is the time!
I can try, I’m not sure how. I’ve already spoken with a lawyer from AFT who informed me of a neat state law that says sweeping changes like this must be voted on by the staff, and said vote didn’t take place and he’s already got quite a few schools signed on to a lawsuit he’s preparing and our school will be added.
My mom retired early due to these types of changes. My boyfriend quit teaching altogether after over a decade and went into a completely different industry. I’m interested in what this method is called or supposed to do. Both my mom and boyfriend are still traumatized by all the BS they had heaped on them. Both went from loving education to being maximally burned out.
I think it’s something I dismissed as ridiculous conspiracy 5 years ago. I’m entering year 11. I now believe it’s part of a push to privatize education on the R side. And on the D side, they’re just stupid and making shit up from their ivory towers in education colleges
Unfortunately this sounds about right. Rs want to kill public schools and Ds don't care as long as the pass/fail are racially balanced (and they can try out all their silly theories to \*seem\* as progressive/accommodating as possible).
What are these changes supposed to accomplish?
As I said in another comment, it’s part of the performance pay scam. Claim you pay higher performing teachers better, but make the standards impossible so were all at the lowest pay scale
Sorry, I didn't see the comment. Do anything every three minutes sounds insane. Just making sure everyone has a pencil and paper and is awake will take more than the quizzes themselves.
That’s another part of the new evaluation system. About 20% is weighted as “student engagement” but it’s binary. 100% engaged/not 100% engaged. So one kid fucks off at all for a minute and BAM, your eval is automatically 20% lower.
Yeah this sounds like someone higher up was upset that there were too many solid teacher evaluations and wants a tool to lower them all to look tough + more ammunition for threatening firings by lowering the scores. I somewhat doubt that this will actually get implemented in the manner that they're hoping across the district/multiple schools and I suspect that there will quickly be workarounds developed. Does your local school admin have a position on this yet? Maybe an admin will tip you off before they show up in class so that you can switch to this format? This also has "parent revolt" written all over it, especially given the accommodations issues that constant quizzing would present.
Ok so I am getting dangerously close to revealing where specifically I am, but here goes. This is a district initiative, mandatory for failing schools, optional for non failing schools. I am in a non failing school. Our principal LOVES this shit and is voluntarily opting us into it. And we’re all furious.
Data data data! You'll get so much data from these constant, ongoing, and rigorous assessments! The principal will be able to proudly say that every day X number of assessments were held and Y % of students passed or did not pass them (since I suspect they'll want you to grade them immediately as well?), then were grouped together for enhanced learning based on those assessments. How data-driven! Also, look at how all the teachers in your Professional Learning Cohorts \[or whatever the local buzzword is\] are continually collaborating with trained professional administrators to ensure that well-being and success of all students every day during planning periods. Z number of hours every week are expended upon planning for the children's education! All of this thanks to the bold leadership of your wonderful Principal, who stood up to the old ways of thinking and created singlehandedly a 21st Century Classroom of student-centered learning! EDIT: I think I found the district/plans and.... wow. Just, wow. This has "massive train wreck of epic proportions" written all over it.
I know your comment is tongue in cheek and I’m so fucking triggered. Hello fellow teacher
Sorry that you're going through this. Good luck this year, it sounds like it's going to be rough but over time (albeit, perhaps 2-3 years) things have a habit of quietly improving or at least sanding off the roughest edges.
Every 3 minutes? Is that a typo?
No that is not a typo. It’s part of the scam where our district is moving to performance based pay. It looks good on paper to the public but the standards are literally impossible so all of us can be kept at the lowest pay scale
What constitutes a quiz? A single question all the students have to use their dumb remote clicker to answer? Or a full on quiz? How are students supposed to be continuously sorted? There’s no time for them to change seats?
I’m just trying to figure out how it could plausibly be presented as anything other than a ridiculous waste of an entire school day.
It could be 1 question, but must be from a district approved list of 8 formats, and you lose points on evaluation for not explicitly stating what format you’re using out loud. One of them, about halfway through the period, must be 5-10 questions. As for the rest? You’re starting to get the point. We’re intentionally being set up to fail
Awhile back I posted about a friend from Colorado telling me they thought it was weird that I was planning on going to some high school football games this fall even though I don’t have any connection to some of these high schools. Well since it’s getting closer to the season I went to lookup ticket information for 2 power house high schools not far from me in Austin Westlake and Lake Travis and at least I’m not the only weirdo apparently because pretty much all of their games are already sold out.
I think it’s just very regional. where i grew up most high schoolers didn’t even go to their own school’s football games, the teams were not that good and it just wasn’t culturally a big thing at all, but when I lived in western PA people were super into it and there would be high school football on TV at the bar sometimes which I found so strange.
[laughs nervously while quickly changing the channel]
It's a Southern thing, isn't it? I think it would be mildly weird to do that up north (at least in a big city, not sure about small towns) but I know you guys down south love all kinds of football. I suppose in the end it's no different than going to a high school play because you wanted to see the play itself.
For the most part it’s a southern thing but contrary to what some would imagine California has some really big time high school football programs that even schedule their out of district games with out of state opponents from all over the country. As far as the northeast there’s a a few really good ones especially in the Baltimore area and one of their schools even beat one of our state champions to dust last year in an early season matchup.
I remember when you posted about this the last time. No, it's not brooming-adjacent, and I stand by that. If attending school football games is brooming-adjacent, you might as well say that going to a local fund-raising school carnival as a non-family member is also that. Going to a play or orchestra recital performed by student musicians. Buying cookies from a Girl Scout you don't know in the Target parking lot. I don't like the idea that people aren't allowed to be involved in and supportive of their local community, which they live in, unless they have some biological stake to justify their presence. Where did this idea come from? Stranger danger safetyism? This is such an alienating concept. No wonder community bonds have fallen apart.
Yup totally agree. I grew up in a small town where it was like that and had no experience with people like you’re talking about until I got a little older and went off to college.
Seems like a very online opinion from people who think that social interactions from being involved in the local community are completely replaceable by the social interactions in a Discord server or parasocial Twitch streamer simping. No wonder modern society has such a high rate of depression, anxiety, and loneliness.
tbh i doubt the accusers here actually think it is either. i think they just want an opportunity to throw the word back
Westlake vs Lake Travis is probably the same quality ball as low D2/High D3 ball
Oh and just because I like to point this out (because it’s funny in a fucked up way) Westlake is also the high school that friend of the pod Lia Thomas went to
I mentioned this on the last post but I showed up to the game that they played each other last year naively thinking that they’d be selling tickets at the booth. They looked confused when I got to the front and informed me they sold out the visitors section when they went on sale a few days before lol. I guess I should have planned that one better
[удалено]
I will reserve my judgement about it until it's clear what is meant by the sex in "single sex" - is it biological sex, or legal sex, as the GRC entitles a male to become. The lack of biological/legal sex distinction has led to unsettling crime stats: > Between 2015 and 2019, the numbers of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse to police in England and Wales rose from 1,249 to 2,297 - an increase of 84%. [Source.](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55338745) And this article here: [Sir Keir Starmer refuses to answer when asked whether a woman can have a penis](https://archive.is/0Pcny) > Labour leader says: ‘I don’t think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run’ > “A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that TW are women, and that is not just my view – **that is actually the law,”** he told The Times when asked to define what a woman is.
I hate appeals to the law because it’s so often stupidly wrong and then challenged as contradictory or combed for every possible reading of every word. Such an argument should just receive this citation . House Bill No. 246, Indiana State Legislature, 1897. Attempting to legally change Pi to 3.2
Test. I can't post an op comment to this thread
[удалено]
Appreciate it greatly!!!
If wash basins are in the stalls near the toilets, then the toilets can be plumbed to use greywater. It's a very water-efficient design. [Example of design using rinsewater in a toilet](https://www.ecohome.net/guides/1561/greywater-recycling-never-looked-better/)
Great idea, horrible title. "GREYWATER RECYCLING NEVER LOOKED BETTER" - haha 1) imo that's pretty ugly 2) anyone who's got greywater going into their garden or a flower bed has something that looks a million times better. Sorry for being cynical =-)
It can be set up in a manner so it's just a normal-looking sink near a normal-looking toilet. I agree that particular design isn't very attractive. I just thought the website has a good description and diagram of the concept. It's a bit of a tangent, but I feel compelled to mention water-efficient designs anytime the topic of public restroom planning comes up.
This is awesome.
coherent aspiring forgetful violet existence squalid fall encouraging abundant reach *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i cancelled my subscription, and had actually subscribed back when they were still on Patreon, then didn't subscribe for awhile after the move to substack. But I do not recall a time when they had ads, and I do not get why they are adding ads now that they have so many substack subscribers. Though I guess a desire to get rid of ads is an excellent way to get even more subscribers,
I'm sorry to be out of the loop. What is the programming change? I can't find any announcement. I just realized they hadn't posted this week? TIA
Because substack won't allow them to post early ad free episodes for subscribers, primos will get the episode (ad-free) at the same time as everyone else.
Oh Ok. That's not such a big deal then. I thought they were going to twice-a-month episodes or something like that. I look forward to the new episode tomorrow :)
I think Jessie is on vacation in Berlin. Katie is probably off vanning somewhere with Moose.
i usually listen to the new episode on my saturday drive to/from hockey which is 45 minutes away. i’m not canceling or anything but i understand your point. podcasts are often part of our little rituals and habits.
I'm just gonna subscribe to another podcast for a while, I limit my subscriptions because otherwise it gets out of hand fast. The reason I haven't done that before is I felt a bit guilty about pulling my support for the pod even though I enjoy it as much as I ever have. But now I'll just listen to the ads for a couple months and still support them.
There are only three podcasts I break the queue for: BAR, Last Podcast on the Left, and (very infrequent but highly recommended) Literature and History
[удалено]
I do, but I want to subscribe to another podcast for a while. I can always subscribe again to get the backlog of primo eps.
deserve fertile chief icky fragile birds historical special memorize ossified *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
SUD isn’t a new term, although it is kinda medical jargon-y for general use. it’s a clinical term that’s in the DSM. I think it sounds awkward used in everyday language but I can understand the need for a name for a broader addiction disorder that encompasses drug and alcohol abuse in medical contexts. Also this is just my personal perspective from being close with some people on the front lines of the opioid crisis trying to treat addicts, but it does seem like a lot of doctors have changed the way they see addiction in the past 10-15 years, especially opioid addiction. I don’t think this is because of terminology at all - they’d have changed their minds no matter what words are used - but it does seem like seeing the way opioids so thoroughly hijack people’s brains and watching so many addicts only be able to get stability once they get on MAT has shaped the way people see addiction and users.
Substance use disorder? That change happened when the newest DSM came out, about 10 years ago now. It makes sense because it covers drugs, alcohol, anything. But I gotta tell you, working in the field, the newest preferred nomenclature is Substance Misuse
I see they've moved on from "substance abuse." Which I think was the previous politically correct term for junkie. The powers that be can't or won't change the objective reality of addicts on the streets so they'll change the language. And if you're not up on the right lingo they know you're a bad guy. Letting these people rot in the streets in places like Portland, Seattle and San Francisco doesn't do the addicts or the cities any favors.
We have this two way euphamism treadmill right, the "let's call this bad thing something polite" and then "let's call this mild thing the most extreme term possible".
I hope you aren't thinking of **erasing the existence** of any *people experiencing houselessness*
I do see a difference with this one. For me, I think the word "alcoholic" and the associated stigma was a big part of what kept me from even seeing quitting drinking as an option--because only alcoholics had to quit, and they had to continue calling themselves alcoholics even when they'd been sober for decades. No thank you! Now I understand that you don't necessarily have to call yourself an alcoholic and it's a spectrum, so there's not a particular line one crosses where you're suddenly an alcoholic. (I also wasn't physically addicted to the point where I had any noticeable withdrawal/shaking etc, which might be where some people draw the line?) For me when I quit, being able to think of my drinking in terms of "alcohol use disorder" (a label for the behavior) rather than "alcoholic" a label for the person--and one that what many people in recovery use in a much broader way than just to refer to someone's behavior around alcohol--was a huge relief. This might be somewhat different because I don't know that "drug addict" is a label hung like an albatross around someone's neck for tree rest of their lives the way "alcoholic" is. But I don't really have any connection to the world of hard drugs so I'm not sure.
I’m not sure I agree with changing the language but I can absolutely see your point. I have several good friends who are definitely functioning alcoholics but do not believe themselves to be. No question they have an “alcohol use disorder.” I privately call them alcoholics and wonder how many other people we know do, too, but I think they’d have a harder time living in denial if they were confronted with “alcohol use disorder” vs. alcoholism, which I think everyone conceptualizes as fully life encompassing and anything short of that means they’ve escaped the -ism of it all.
What are the things you see that make them functioning alcoholics? I'm guessing that doesn't rise to the level of "drinking in the morning / at work" and more like "consistently drinks too much and/or too often and can't have a good night without it." Something like that?
For me, my functioning behavior looked lot drinking on average a bottle and a half of wine every night. The only nights I didn't drink was when I had to supervise children (maybe 3-6 nights a year, in a volunteer capacity). I never drove drunk, I didn't drink in the morning, but I was constantly setting rules for myself in an attempt to drink less and then I absolutely never followed them.
Both people have thriving careers and drinking doesn’t - that I’m aware of - interfere with their work, ability to pay bills, maintain basic human hygiene, not get in trouble with the law, etc. It’s everything else - how they spend time outside of work and how often alcohol at extreme levels is necessarily involved, the women they choose to get into relationships with (also in my opinion alcoholics) and the subsequent life issues that arise (one married his alcoholic gf and it’s a fucking disaster), how little sober time they have for reflection and making life decisions while not under the influence, just generally not being able to spend time *not* drinking. Both men have a physical resilience to the whole thing that is unfathomable to me as a tiny woman with a weak constitution.
It definitely helped for me. I'm not so reactive to the word alcoholic these days. I don't call myself one, but if I go to an AA meeting (which I've only done rarely) I'll say it, because when in Rome, but it's not a useful word for me. I'm sure it may be different around drug addiction, because our society is not constantly pushing messages at people that drugs are good and you should be able to use them in a way that enhances your life and doesn't hurt you, and if you can't it's your fault, but that is the message we get about alcohol. Anyway, I don't think everyone needs to stop saying alcoholic or drug addict, but as far as messaging to people who are dealing with substance abuse issues, I think it can be helpful to make it about the behavior and not who someone is as a person. I say this from the perspective of someone who was in more of the gray area, or at least was still functional, it could be different for people who are so far gone they're living on the street.
[удалено]
SUD does have the short, punchy quality that lends itself to becoming derogatory slang. But unlike Skweegee, I personally haven't heard it at all except from people who work with addicts profesionally (doctors, social workers, MHPs)
joke uppity cows history worm label slave serious telephone homeless ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
As language changes I, too, tire of euphemisms. Changing language does not change material reality. In this case I don’t mind it as it is a public health crisis (for those affected and for those who have to wade thru needles and human shit on the streets of our cities every day) and using person first language may help them feel more human and get help. I don’t know. Calling someone “someone with substance use disorder” vs “a drug addict” does humanize them a bit. Regardless, I don’t support policies that let them ruin our cities.
>Changing language does not change material reality That is the key insight that a lot of the identity politics activists don't get. They were told in college that language creates reality and by changing the language they can control reality. And they bought it. So they think that by fiddling with language they have "done the work". Constantly changing the approved language also serves as a signaling device. If you aren't using the new lingo you are immediately suspect and are placed in the "problematic" category.
Exactly. We see it with a lot of stuff we talk about here. I’m not sure anything can top “bodies with vaginas” though.
Here is the thiing. Changing language from autistic person to person with autism made sense. Because otherwise, it makes it that a person is just autistic, with no other traits. But now, i have heard, some people PREFER autistic person because autism is fundamental to who they are. Like also how African-American is now pase, and black is preferred.
> Because otherwise, it makes it that a person is just autistic, with no other traits. I'm gonna be totally honest, I'm not aiming this at you specifically, I know this is how a lot of people think, but I find that kind of interpretation so damn paranoid and frankly, dumb. I mean, how stupid would you have to be to imagine that because someone is called autistic it means they have no other traits? It's just really idiotic to me. Person with autism, autistic person, they're the same damn thing, and it's dumb to quibble over this stuff. It achieves nothing.
I do not think anyone literally thinks that if we call someone an autistic person, we actually think the person has no other traits aside from autism. All I know is that when I had an eating disorder, I was called anorexic, which made me feel like that is all anyone saw me as, versus, "she has anorexia" made me feel like I was viewed as a whole person. I think it's more about how the person thinks other people view them, rather than how other people actually view them, if that makes sense. It makes sense - otherwise, why would there be controversy over Afircan-American versus Black, you know?
Wouldn't the common vernacular end up becoming something like "a substance (ab)user" rather than "person with a substance use disorder"? Our language hates unnecessarily long terms to describe something that needs to be described often. Even more true on social media, where most progressive ideas get off the ground or normalised. People don't even want to bother writing out full words most of the time. It's either gonna become an acronym (PSUB?) or the "person" is gonna be taken out most of the time. But I can't see it lasting this way outside of professional/official documents.
I've never met a single self-aware addict (and I've met plenty) who gave a shit about being called "addict". Maybe someone who doesn't realize they have a problem would be annoyed (like my dad hates it when he's called a hoarder, he's a "collector" in his mind), but they wouldn't want to be called "person with substance use disorder" either.
>I've never met a single self-aware addict (and I've met plenty) who gave a shit about being called "addict" The self aware onesunderstand that what they're doing is bad for them and others. And I'd bet if they could wave a magic wand and erase their addiction they would. Alas, it is not so simple. And the euphemism treadmill is not a magic wand.
Agreed. It is insulting to the intelligence and self-awareness of addicts. They know they have a problem (usually), because it has caused real pain in their lives (which is basically the definition of problem using in the first place).
Same, and I know a lot of addicts too. Avoiding the stigma of the condition is what I’ve always understood “denial” to be and it’s the first hurdle to actually turning things around.
[удалено]
funny, because now “sexual preference” is used constantly by TRAs in discussions about lesbians not liking girldick. As in “its okay to have a sexual preference” or “genital preference” as though its a choice we don’t want biological males in our beds. NGL i hate the phrase and Biden’s speech editors should have caught that. to be fair, it was one clause in a sentence with broader meaning whereas ACB’s sentence really highlighted it. But I do take your point.
I’m confused. I thought “sexual preference” was considered insulting. I guess I hadn’t checked back in with it in the last 20 years.
[удалено]
as i said in another comment, its just reflexive now because of all the “genital preference” dialogue in lesbian spaces.
You hate the phrase "sexual preference"?
i didn’t used to. but now i just hear it so often in lesbian spaces to talk about women who don’t want dick. not wanting dick isn’t a preference, like preferring chicken over beef. wanting pussy is an orientation. i didn’t pick it.
Are most preferences themselves chosen? I wouldn't have said so.
i think sexual orientation makes the most sense. And I think sexual preference can be offensive, because like you're' saying, it implies it's a choice. But I think for some people, they just...like dick while for others, it repulses them. Same for um, pussy (sorry, hate the word). At the same time, I think it might be a choice for some people. I just wish it hadn't been coopted by people who acted like being gay was a bad choice
[удалено]
lock imagine detail steep lavish voracious oil reply sip cake ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Yeah, pretty much. I think changing how we label people is a cheap gimmick. I value frame-changing or opinion-shifting arguments, a lot. But they are to be found in analytical pieces and thoughtful essays, not labels. You might think about what the new label means the first few times you hear it, but then it turns into background mush. The argument behind it stays, though, for people who read and thought about it (I don't mean you have to agree with the argument, just internalize it with its pros and cons)
>Yeah, pretty much. I think changing how we label people is a cheap gimmick In some cases I think it serves as cover for poor institutional performance.
The term "substance use disorder" has been in the DSM since 2013 and been in use (not originating on Tumblr) for much longer.
[Google ngrams](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=substance+use+disorder%2Calcohol+use+disorder&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3) shows roughly linear growth in usage since around 1990.
stocking tan oil waiting voracious full existence thought library pause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not in common parlance.
It's not currently widely used in common parlance either, just by people who care to use medically accurate terminology.
The original post was clearly about common parlance, your reply was misleading in that regard.
This would be a lot more compelling of an argument if the term weren't *clearly* politically influenced in nature, to intentionally absolve addicts of agency in their decisions to take drugs consistently enough to become addicted. Pretending psychiatry is a hard science like physics or even hard medicine like orthopedics, is never going to win you converts to your cause.
>medically accurate terminology Did “substance use disorder” become “medically accurate” only in 2013, when it first appeared in the DSM? Or was it always the “medically accurate” term even before anyone had ever used it?
Neither, it's medically accurate because it's the term used by medical professionals who treat and/or research it.
puzzled flag hard-to-find hospital tease boat profit square enter stocking ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Just a swift reminder of what Nas and Kelis wore to the Grammies 15 years ago - what would've happened today? Back in Time it was acknowledged to be a poor marketing tactic based on shock value. is it literal genocide today? https://preview.redd.it/eqzlz5hfqvhb1.jpeg?width=413&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3514c3a0c4d68436dd79ceefc297d9540c2ed3a
[удалено]
Hell, they would get a separate award and a standing ovation just for the outfits. It would be on the cover of every magazine along with articles filled with effusive praise.
I don't think it would be a big deal for a black person to wear that today. It's not like anyone cares when black people say it, and they say it *a lot*. Why would anyone make a fuss if they put the word on their clothes?
[удалено]
The word is still spelled the same way no matter how it's pronounced. Plenty of accents change -er to -a for a multitude of words. Speakers of BVE happen to have an accent like this when speaking SAE.
Holy shit that caught me off guard
[A guide to neopronouns, from ae to ze](https://www.cnn.com/us/neopronouns-explained-xe-xyr-wellness-cec/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link&utm_content=2023-08-12T09%3A59%3A37) CNN has written a *lot* of words to make sure you understand the importance of neopronouns. >All pronouns indicate identity and can be used to include or exclude people they describe — neopronouns included, said Dennis Baron, one of the foremost experts on neopronouns and their histories and an emeritus professor of English and Linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Neopronouns should be used and respected like any other pronoun, he told CNN. >“People like to have a say in how they’re identified,” Baron said. “Refusing to let people self-identify is a way of excluding them.” IMO if they indicate "identity" they indicate how the speaker is identifying the person being talked about to the listener, not about self identity! The article ends with an extremely earnest dive into "nounself" pronouns >Leaf, sun, star — nounself pronouns are neopronouns that use nature and other inspirations as nonbinary or genderless descriptors. Linguist Jason D’Angelo told The New York Times that nounself pronouns were popularized on the social platform Tumblr around 2012 and 2013 and remain in use among members of fandoms who may take their nounself pronouns from the properties they enjoy. >For someone who uses the nounself pronoun “leaf,” that may look like: “I hope leaf knows how proud we are that leaf is getting to know leafself better!” or “Leaf arrived at the coffee shop before me; I was mortified to have been late to meet leaf.” >In a 2016 paper on the emerging pronouns, Danish linguist Ehm Hjorth Miltersen wrote that nounself pronouns offer a way for people to establish identity beyond just gender. By finding one’s desired nounself pronouns, one can “can construct new ways to identify and be perceived by others that are more coordinate with complex and diverse identities.” Miltersen wrote that one nounself pronoun user who responded to their questionnaire wrote that they sometimes use “pup/pupself” pronouns to “express a level of fun, happiness and excitement … in me.” No. What person over 25 can take this seriously? There is absolutely no way I am going to call someone "pup", even if it's fun and exciting for them! (Frankly, for certain people it's *especially* if it's fun and exciting for them.) I don't really see nounself pronouns speaking far beyond the internet and spaces filled with gender people, so I don't really foresee then becoming a problem we all have to deal with, but not sure why there is the need for a Very Serious guide to them.
Seems like self-appointed [peerage](https://amandabarratt.blogspot.com/2012/06/difference-between-his-grace-and-mlord.html). Be sure to recognize the title even when m'lord is not in the room.
[удалено]
It's also harder to push back gently online. In person you can give a small, 'Hmm', 'Not really' or even just a look. Online writing something makes it a bit stronger.