getting fired for saying "all lives matter"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That’s one of the most delusional statements I’ve ever seen.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

amusing coming from you

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That’s one of the most delusional statements I’ve ever seen.
Just keep living in your lily white world, where all the Stepford wives are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then why do democrats never try anything different in our cities? why in gods name oppose school choice?

democrats have created modern day plantations in our cities, places where 90% of the residents vote democrat. the democrats have a real vested interest in expanding that, not in fixing it.

so liberals enact policies that result in an explosion of fatherlessness, which guarantee that almost none of those people will ever escape the cycle of poverty.

very easy to call me delusional. try something harder, try providing some evidence, any evidence, that i’m wrong.

how about this...during the state if the union, when the republicans were celebrating lowest black unemployment ever, why were the democrats so miserable? you could literally see the dismay on their faces. Why?

Answer - prosperity is not their plan for people in the cities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i notice that liberals oppose all the things that would help blacks
get ahead - in tact nuclear families, having dads, school choice, jobs over welfare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I feel compelled to step in here and encourage you to take these viewpoints and discuss them with a more diverse group of friend, colleagues, or whomever you associate with who has a background, racial composition and/or set of beliefs different from your own.

There are multiple dimensions to this post that are troubling to me personally, and I think you’d benefit from diving into the preconceived notions you clearly hold which led you to post it. No one here is going to be able to shift your perspective on these things, needs to be people from your circle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
i notice that liberals oppose all the things that would help blacks
get ahead - in tact nuclear families, having dads, school choice, jobs over welfare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Ian

I feel compelled to step in here and encourage you to take these viewpoints and discuss them with a more diverse group of friend, colleagues, or whomever you associate with who has a background, racial composition and/or set of beliefs different from your own.

There are multiple dimensions to this post that are troubling to me personally, and I think you’d benefit from diving into the preconceived notions you clearly hold which led you to post it. No one here is going to be able to shift your perspective on these things, needs to be people from your circle.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ian, just explain to him how liberals support school choice, the traditional family unit and jobs over welfare particularly in the minority communities that they've run for decades and decades and decades

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
i notice that liberals oppose all the things that would help blacks
get ahead - in tact nuclear families, having dads, school choice, jobs over welfare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device





Ian, just explain to him how liberals support school choice, the traditional family unit and jobs over welfare particularly in the minority communities that they've run for decades and decades and decades

obviously he knows he can’t claim that with a straight face. so instead he calls me a racist. it’s really something. id like i try to implement the policies which social science make crystal clear would help. democrats ignore that science and double down on the same exact failed policies that brought us here. and by his logic, that makes me the racist.

can’t make that up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Ian

I feel compelled to step in here and encourage you to take these viewpoints and discuss them with a more diverse group of friend, colleagues, or whomever you associate with who has a background, racial composition and/or set of beliefs different from your own.

There are multiple dimensions to this post that are troubling to me personally, and I think you’d benefit from diving into the preconceived notions you clearly hold which led you to post it. No one here is going to be able to shift your perspective on these things, needs to be people from your circle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Liberals are anti dad. Don’t you get that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Liberals are anti dad. Don’t you get that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so liberals don’t mock the traditional family, they don’t mock religion, and claim that masculinity is toxic? they don’t claim that it’s healthy for women to dedicate as much energy to working as they do to raising children? i’m making all that up?

spence, do democrats oppose school choice? did they sit on their hands during the SOTU when republicans were celebrating lowest black unemployment ever?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Liberals are anti dad. Don’t you get that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in the 1950s ( when widespread brutal racism still existed) around 25% of black kids were born without a dad. today it’s about 75%.

Please tell us how you think that happened.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

I feel compelled to step in here and encourage you to take these viewpoints and discuss them with a more diverse group of friend, colleagues, or whomever you associate with who has a background, racial composition and/or set of beliefs different from your own.

There are multiple dimensions to this post that are troubling to me personally, and I think you’d benefit from diving into the preconceived notions you clearly hold which led you to post it. No one here is going to be able to shift your perspective on these things, needs to be people from your circle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure where you get off assuming that my world
consists of people
only like me. again, why do democrats turn their backs on parents in cities who are begging for school choice? if there are available seats in good schools, by what possible logic would
you reject school choice?

on this issue, it’s the people
in the cities i’m listening to. they desperately want school
choice. liberals, who like to call themselves pro-choice, deny them.

so who needs to listen to others? i am the one who is listening to others.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not sure where you get off assuming that my world
consists of people
only like me. again, why do democrats turn their backs on parents in cities who are begging for school choice? if there are available seats in good schools, by what possible logic would
you reject school choice?

on this issue, it’s the people
in the cities i’m listening to. they desperately want school
choice. liberals, who like to call themselves pro-choice, deny them.

so who needs to listen to others? i am the one who is listening to others.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said go talk to your friends who are diverse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

I feel compelled to step in here and encourage you to take these viewpoints and discuss them with a more diverse group of friend, colleagues, or whomever you associate with who has a background, racial composition and/or set of beliefs different from your own.

There are multiple dimensions to this post that are troubling to me personally, and I think you’d benefit from diving into the preconceived notions you clearly hold which led you to post it. No one here is going to be able to shift your perspective on these things, needs to be people from your circle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for god’s sake, tell
me what troubling pre conceived notions i have?

i think we are failing our citizens who are stuck in cities, and i advocate for policies which will actually help them. tell
me what’s racist about that, jackass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

for god’s sake, tell
me what troubling pre conceived notions i have?

i think we are failing our citizens who are stuck in cities, and i advocate for policies which will actually help them. tell
me what’s racist about that, jackass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice name calling... that devolved quickly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

for god’s sake, tell
me what troubling pre conceived notions i have?

i think we are failing our citizens who are stuck in cities, and i advocate for policies which will actually help them. tell
me what’s racist about that, jackass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To put a finer point together in response to this... comment...

You said the following:

“ notice that liberals oppose all the things that would help blacks
get ahead - in tact nuclear families, having dads, school choice, jobs over welfare.”

Based on the above quote, it seems that the preconceived notions you have are that you believe that “blacks” would “get ahead” if they only focused on intact nuclear families, having dads, exercising their right to the school choice they are demanding and choosing to work over claiming welfare.

That comment insinuates you believe people of color don’t care about nuclear families, father figures in their lives and working. I’m not 100% sure I even need to include the school choice thing here to move forward with my point.

The above is troubling, at least to me. Not to you maybe, but I think if the people you associate with are truly as diverse as you claim them to be when you asked me where I “get off” assuming you hang out with only people like you (after I clearly hadn’t done so), then I encourage you to debate the quoted line with them in the context you chose to apply it on this forum.

If your quoted post was not what you intended, maybe you just need to revise your point, but as stated, it’s a head scratcher that you’re calling me the jackass...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Some people would wonder why if all it takes for blacks to thrive is school choice that they would protest against systemic racism.
Life in your world is so simple
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is idiotically simple minded to reduce the fate of blacks to systemic racism. Some people would think that if blacks predominantly live in democrat run localities, and there is such a thing as systemic racism in those communities and in the agencies run by those communities, that Democrats would hold a great proportion of responsibility for such systemic racism.

And that if in education (which Democrats so overwhelmingly attribute to personal outcomes) there was a choice to opt out of the schools that fail them (which are predominantly run by Democrats and the leftist unions and left leaning college classrooms that taught their teachers) it would be more than welcome rather than so strenuously resisted.

[wdmso]

THE PROS OF SCHOOL CHOICE AND VOUCHERS
The primary benefit of school choice is that it gives parents the power to make choices for their children, based on their needs, interests and learning styles.
School choice encourages competition among area schools, which has resulted in raising the standard of education throughout all schools.
In areas with failing public schools, students have a chance at a better education when their parents have options for their schooling. The voucher program in Washington, D.C. increased student graduation rates by 21 percent overall and parents reported high levels of satisfaction with the schools.
Vouchers eliminate the need for parents to pay twice for their children's education: once with tax dollars and then again in private school tuition.
Many parents feel that it is not the government's responsibility to tell them where their children should be educated. School choice allows them to enroll their child in a school that better fits their religious, cultural or racial background.
A study shows that school choice and the school voucher program in Louisiana has resulted in reduced racial segregation. Many families have used vouchers to avoid the "school-to-prison pipeline" by getting their children out of racist or gang-dominated schools.
THE CONS OF SCHOOL CHOICE AND VOUCHER PROGRAMS
The voucher program takes money away from the public school system. The lower student population may not offset the decreased budget and this can undermine the value of public education. Many believe that families with the means to send their children to private schools should be responsible for those costs instead of taking money from low-income area public schools.
Many private schools are religious, and opponents of the voucher system believe it constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state.
Public schools are required to meet the needs of disabled and special-needs students while private schools are not, meaning those students are not able to use vouchers.
In some areas, students attending private schools did not perform better academically than public school students. In some cases, students showed no improvement in reading skills and suffered losses in math.
Parents don't always make better school choices for their children. It's important to weigh the pros and cons of each available school as some may not be better than the neighborhood public school.
Private schools can be insular, whereas public schools have a demographic mix of religions, socio-economic groups and cultures. Public schools are important for promoting democracy.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SCHOOL CHOICE
The Brookings Institution and the Center on Reinventing Public Education studied 18 cities offering public school choice and have published a report on how school choice is playing out for families in those cities. The data in their report, both pro and con, can help focus the school choice debate on facts rather than emotions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

THE PROS OF SCHOOL CHOICE AND VOUCHERS
The primary benefit of school choice is that it gives parents the power to make choices for their children, based on their needs, interests and learning styles.
School choice encourages competition among area schools, which has resulted in raising the standard of education throughout all schools.
In areas with failing public schools, students have a chance at a better education when their parents have options for their schooling. The voucher program in Washington, D.C. increased student graduation rates by 21 percent overall and parents reported high levels of satisfaction with the schools.
Vouchers eliminate the need for parents to pay twice for their children's education: once with tax dollars and then again in private school tuition.
Many parents feel that it is not the government's responsibility to tell them where their children should be educated. School choice allows them to enroll their child in a school that better fits their religious, cultural or racial background.
A study shows that school choice and the school voucher program in Louisiana has resulted in reduced racial segregation. Many families have used vouchers to avoid the "school-to-prison pipeline" by getting their children out of racist or gang-dominated schools.
THE CONS OF SCHOOL CHOICE AND VOUCHER PROGRAMS
The voucher program takes money away from the public school system. The lower student population may not offset the decreased budget and this can undermine the value of public education. Many believe that families with the means to send their children to private schools should be responsible for those costs instead of taking money from low-income area public schools.
Many private schools are religious, and opponents of the voucher system believe it constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state.
Public schools are required to meet the needs of disabled and special-needs students while private schools are not, meaning those students are not able to use vouchers.
In some areas, students attending private schools did not perform better academically than public school students. In some cases, students showed no improvement in reading skills and suffered losses in math.
Parents don't always make better school choices for their children. It's important to weigh the pros and cons of each available school as some may not be better than the neighborhood public school.
Private schools can be insular, whereas public schools have a demographic mix of religions, socio-economic groups and cultures. Public schools are important for promoting democracy.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SCHOOL CHOICE
The Brookings Institution and the Center on Reinventing Public Education studied 18 cities offering public school choice and have published a report on how school choice is playing out for families in those cities. The data in their report, both pro and con, can help focus the school choice debate on facts rather than emotions.

your "cons" apply to the failing schools, primarily. So are you saying we should force inner city kids to stay in failing schools, to make life easier on the people who work at the failing schools? Isn't this supposed to be for the kids?

school choice can exclude religious schools.

No strong arguments there. The people in the cities want it, because they know it will help their kids.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, that's Sowell's claim of why Dunbar was a success in spite of being all black.
But then he specifically points to the entrance of inadequately educated, inadequately motivated, and disruptive students from the surrounding all black neighborhood as the reason for the change at Dunbar.

Where did the inadequately educated, inadequately motivated, and disruptive students suddenly appear from? Were they being educated prior to 1954?

The Sowell article was a response to your "This re-segregation trend often concentrates minorities in schools with fewer resources that face challenges attracting and retaining quality teachers. A mounting body of evidence indicates that school segregation has negative impacts on short-term academic achievement of minority students and their success in later life. Integrated schools have a positive impact on all students through promoting awareness and mutual understanding and ensuring that they have the necessary tools to function in an increasingly multicultural society. Not taking intentional steps to ensure that all students have the opportunity to attend quality, integrated schools perpetuates injustice, allowing the mistakes of the past to haunt the future."

The Sowell article, though not specifically meant as a counterpoint to yours, points out that it is not necessary to integrate schools in order to provide quality education. Nor are the money or the so-called necessary tools which are supposedly more abundant in integrated schools necessary factors for education that leads to success.

Nor is he arguing against integrated schools.

His article, in effect, points out the necessary key ingredients for quality education. And he is proposing that it is those ingredients, regardless if a school is integrated or not, which are necessary for quality education.

I think he laments that the approaches taken by the successful all black schools have been cast aside for the implementation of various theoretical social and pedagogical notions which are obviously failing not only minorities but even most whites.

The approach taken by those historic black schools were successful not because they were "black." They were actually very white, Western civilization, pedagogy. They were classically rigorous. They demanded discipline. They molded good, industrious, citizens who were far better prepared to face a world in which the ability to think, with discipline and motivation, is required, than are the public schools in the urban black neighborhoods of today. And the leftist political resistance to charter schools, or school choice, or vouchers, or religious schools (all alternatives in their way similar to old Dunbar High), which give minorities a chance at a better education, keeps many black children stuck in failure.

Integration is perfectly fine. Certainly a desirable goal. But it is not the answer for quality education. Growing up in Detroit, I went to integrated schools. What was required of students in order to get the most out of what was being taught, were the very things that were required of students attending the old Dunbar high school and the other successful all black schools of the past. And that rigor and discipline was required of all students, black or white. Those who slacked, did poorly or not as well. Black or white. Those who were serious and disciplined, were prepared for a better life. Black or white.

There is a classical notion that personal responsibility is the key to success. There is the Progressive notion of collective responsibility directed by experts and enforced by government being the only truly viable and equitable path to success.

The classical path admired by Sowell is old school. The Progressive new school shuns the classical as elitist, repressive, unfair, even racist. There is a competition between the ideas, even in how and what to teach.

Yeah, the classical may work, but it is mean spirited and inconsiderate of the basic needs of the less advantaged. It breeds contempt and animosity. Conflict and rebellion. The Progressive is still in its experimental stage, but will lead us to a better world.

So they say. In the meantime, we have an educational wilderness.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Sowell article was a response to your "This re-segregation trend often concentrates minorities in schools with fewer resources that face challenges attracting and retaining quality teachers. A mounting body of evidence indicates that school segregation has negative impacts on short-term academic achievement of minority students and their success in later life. Integrated schools have a positive impact on all students through promoting awareness and mutual understanding and ensuring that they have the necessary tools to function in an increasingly multicultural society. Not taking intentional steps to ensure that all students have the opportunity to attend quality, integrated schools perpetuates injustice, allowing the mistakes of the past to haunt the future."

The Sowell article, though not specifically meant as a counterpoint to yours, points out that it is not necessary to integrate schools in order to provide quality education. Nor are the money or the so-called necessary tools which are supposedly more abundant in integrated schools necessary factors for education that leads to success.

Nor is he arguing against integrated schools.

His article, in effect, points out the necessary key ingredients for quality education. And he is proposing that it is those ingredients, regardless if a school is integrated or not, which are necessary for quality education.

I think he laments that the approaches taken by the successful all black schools have been cast aside for the implementation of various theoretical social and pedagogical notions which are obviously failing not only minorities but even most whites.

The approach taken by those historic black schools were successful not because they were "black." They were actually very white, Western civilization, pedagogy. They were classically rigorous. They demanded discipline. They molded good, industrious, citizens who were far better prepared to face a world in which the ability to think, with discipline and motivation, is required, than are the public schools in the urban black neighborhoods of today. And the leftist political resistance to charter schools, or school choice, or vouchers, or religious schools (all alternatives in their way similar to old Dunbar High), which give minorities a chance at a better education, keeps many black children stuck in failure.

Integration is perfectly fine. Certainly a desirable goal. But it is not the answer for quality education. Growing up in Detroit, I went to integrated schools. What was required of students in order to get the most out of what was being taught, were the very things that were required of students attending the old Dunbar high school and the other successful all black schools of the past. And that rigor and discipline was required of all students, black or white. Those who slacked, did poorly or not as well. Black or white. Those who were serious and disciplined, were prepared for a better life. Black or white.

There is a classical notion that personal responsibility is the key to success. There is the Progressive notion of collective responsibility directed by experts and enforced by government being the only truly viable and equitable path to success.

The classical path admired by Sowell is old school. The Progressive new school shuns the classical as elitist, repressive, unfair, even racist. There is a competition between the ideas, even in how and what to teach.

Yeah, the classical may work, but it is mean spirited and inconsiderate of the basic needs of the less advantaged. It breeds contempt and animosity. Conflict and rebellion. The Progressive is still in its experimental stage, but will lead us to a better world.

So they say. In the meantime, we have an educational wilderness.

Where did the disrupters suddenly appear from to destroy the Utopian experience that existed at Dunbar is a simple question that points out the fault in Sowell’s hypothesis that integration ruined Dunbar.

There easily could have been many other factors that changed to make the school and all of it’s members less successful. Aging leadership that doesn’t provide for continuity in mission along with an aging staff and then compounded by a significant mission change would disrupt any organization.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Where did the disrupters suddenly appear from to destroy the Utopian experience that existed at Dunbar is a simple question that points out the fault in Sowell’s hypothesis that integration ruined Dunbar.

The experience was not utopian. It was rigorous and disciplined. It was an insistence on high standards imposed by and demanded by the Principal and the teachers. There was no selection process. It did not require test scores or socio-economic qualifications to enter. All who applied would be accepted if physically possible. But once in, the student had to perform, no exceptions, no excuses. That was understood.

So, as Sowell said, there was self-selection. Those parents who applied were serious about their children being educated.

Sowell did not say that integration ruined Dunbar. He made it clear that the politically expedient decision to make Dunbar just another neighborhood school exposed it to the mass of those who were not as serious.

So the usual unruly, unserious, destroyed the character of the school. It was not about integration, but another sociological, cultural, and political problem that Sowell discusses at length in many other of his books and essays, but not detailed this article.

There easily could have been many other factors that changed to make the school and all of it’s members less successful. Aging leadership that doesn’t provide for continuity in mission along with an aging staff and then compounded by a significant mission change would disrupt any organization.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sowell stated very clearly that, contrary to aging leadership, it was the early retirements of once dedicated teachers and principals caused by the destruction of the ability to impose a work and discipline ethic and, presumably, the influx of current anti-disciplinary pedagogical theories that destroyed what Dunbar was and turned it into just another ghetto neighborhood school. A typical type of school that provides jobs for those with education degrees but doesn't provide the necessary disciplined and demanding learning environment required to produce quality education.

Various alternative school systems (with Dunbar-like aspirations), charter, choice, vouchers, etc. try to bypass the current education industry lock on the neighborhood school notion. But the industry and its union members with their paid for political lackeys, resist.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sowell stated very clearly that, contrary to aging leadership, it was the early retirements of once dedicated teachers and principals caused by the destruction of the ability to impose a work and discipline ethic and, presumably, the influx of current anti-disciplinary pedagogical theories that destroyed what Dunbar was and turned it into just another ghetto neighborhood school. A typical type of school that provides jobs for those with education degrees but doesn't provide the necessary disciplined and demanding learning environment required to produce quality education.

Various alternative school systems (with Dunbar-like aspirations), charter, choice, vouchers, etc. try to bypass the current education industry lock on the neighborhood school notion. But the industry and its union members with their paid for political lackeys, resist.

Oddly enough children with involved parents will usually excel in any school they attend and most with parents who are not, will not.
What concerns me more is mainstreaming the least educable and removing funding for programs for the top tier. That has been going on for the last 25 years and as a board member 20+ years ago I saw the effects of it. Dunbar would fall within that group.
In large part I believe that is what has driven the push for Charter, etc. schools.
It also has caused some very intelligent kids without involved parents to be lost in the educational system.
And I do agree with you on our self perpetuating education system, where those who excel at "school" become educators, love meetings about "school" and don't necessarily become skilled at teaching.
Luckily it is not true in all cases.

[scottw]

the marxist new york times cancel culture...I thought these people were supposed to be open-minded, more highly educated, tolerant, all about peace the party of "Love" and stuff

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

the marxist new york times cancel culture...I thought these people were supposed to be open-minded, more highly educated, tolerant, all about peace the party of "Love" and stuff

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Pot meet Kettle

Tweety is the original cancel culture proponent, from Apple to the Wall Street Journal, he has wanted them all fired, boycotted and cancelled.

Then look at "conservative" publications and search for critics of Tweety. There are very few. National Review got rid of David French and Jonah Goldberg. WSJ lost Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss. Fox News has lots of Tweety propagandists, but sent George Will down the road.

So if you are a centrist, you will get cancelled, by one side or the other.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by scottw

the marxist new york times cancel culture...I thought these people were supposed to be open-minded, more highly educated, tolerant, all about peace the party of "Love" and stuff

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

She didn’t have the lock step down.