(07-28-2021 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-28-2021 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I think you miss my point lad.
I don't really care if YOU (or people like you) agree because you're obviously on board either way. I'm saying that by doing what you're doing... whether 'fair' or not... you are alienating people like me who OTHERWISE would be just as engaged as you are.
The minute we start talking about 'math' or 'healthcare' being racist... I push back... and now we're arguing about whether or not math or healthcare is racist.... see the dozen or so posts doing just that.... and aren't working on solutions.... when we AGREE that there is a problem that we can and should address.
How is that productive? What purpose is served? Why can't we just stop where we agree? Why must your side push me to agree with something that I fundamentally reject and LITERALLY serves no purpose other than to divide us?? I find myself feeling this way about a LOT of issues from the left. Its not enough that many on the right don't care if gay people marry or want kids or whatever, some on the left insist that we CELEBRATE or ADMIRE it when they do.
I push back because I see healthcare as impacting poor and uneducated people REGARDLESS of race. There are MILLIONS of white people impacted by it and millions of minorities who are not. MORE whites than minorities are impacted... and math is math. OF COURSE we can look at educational and job opportunities or drug laws etc and cite clear examples of racism... and those factors themselves play a key part in minorities being over-represented by percentages in the under-served populations... but that doesn't make healthcare or math themselves 'racist'.
I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me on the above. Honest people CAN disagree. All I'm trying to say is that I don't share your perspective here; It distracts from our shared beliefs that we can and should improve some aspects of healthcare and education; and it serves no purpose for us to 'debate' our beliefs in this area..... UNLESS there is some 'greater good' reason/purposed served by your position that you can articulate to me.
I definitely got your point. One of my retorts was that I wish that disagreement didn’t cause the distraction from a common goal on both sides.
To the counter side of your point, why cant the side that doesn’t agree just leave it at “maybe it is” as opposed to “it definitely isn’t”? Two sides of the same coin, with neither moving.
I mean, just look at the previous posts. I’m not even arguing that math is racist or math curriculum is, I’ve been arguing that maybe these people have a point and asking what that point is. However, you, OO, and others have argued that whatever it is definitely isn’t racist, without even know the argument being presented.
There is no way to present an argument that 2+2=4 is racist, and you hang your hat on not knowing which specious arguments are being used.
(07-28-2021 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-28-2021 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-28-2021 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I think you miss my point lad.
I don't really care if YOU (or people like you) agree because you're obviously on board either way. I'm saying that by doing what you're doing... whether 'fair' or not... you are alienating people like me who OTHERWISE would be just as engaged as you are.
The minute we start talking about 'math' or 'healthcare' being racist... I push back... and now we're arguing about whether or not math or healthcare is racist.... see the dozen or so posts doing just that.... and aren't working on solutions.... when we AGREE that there is a problem that we can and should address.
How is that productive? What purpose is served? Why can't we just stop where we agree? Why must your side push me to agree with something that I fundamentally reject and LITERALLY serves no purpose other than to divide us?? I find myself feeling this way about a LOT of issues from the left. Its not enough that many on the right don't care if gay people marry or want kids or whatever, some on the left insist that we CELEBRATE or ADMIRE it when they do.
I push back because I see healthcare as impacting poor and uneducated people REGARDLESS of race. There are MILLIONS of white people impacted by it and millions of minorities who are not. MORE whites than minorities are impacted... and math is math. OF COURSE we can look at educational and job opportunities or drug laws etc and cite clear examples of racism... and those factors themselves play a key part in minorities being over-represented by percentages in the under-served populations... but that doesn't make healthcare or math themselves 'racist'.
I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me on the above. Honest people CAN disagree. All I'm trying to say is that I don't share your perspective here; It distracts from our shared beliefs that we can and should improve some aspects of healthcare and education; and it serves no purpose for us to 'debate' our beliefs in this area..... UNLESS there is some 'greater good' reason/purposed served by your position that you can articulate to me.
I definitely got your point. One of my retorts was that I wish that disagreement didn’t cause the distraction from a common goal on both sides.
To the counter side of your point, why cant the side that doesn’t agree just leave it at “maybe it is” as opposed to “it definitely isn’t”? Two sides of the same coin, with neither moving.
I mean, just look at the previous posts. I’m not even arguing that math is racist or math curriculum is, I’ve been arguing that maybe these people have a point and asking what that point is. However, you, OO, and others have argued that whatever it is definitely isn’t racist, without even know the argument being presented.
There is no way to present an argument that 2+2=4 is racist, and you hang your hat on not knowing which specious arguments are being used.
You're clearly missing my point despites multiple attempts for me to explain things.
You also don't actually understand the program that is being criticized, which makes another point about not doing enough research to even understand the issue. That's what you get when you rely on Fox News commentators for your news.
(07-28-2021 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To the counter side of your point, why cant the side that doesn’t agree just leave it at “maybe it is” as opposed to “it definitely isn’t”? Two sides of the same coin, with neither moving.
I mean, just look at the previous posts. I’m not even arguing that math is racist or math curriculum is, I’ve been arguing that maybe these people have a point and asking what that point is. However, you, OO, and others have argued that whatever it is definitely isn’t racist, without even know the argument being presented.
The above demonstrates that you DON'T get what I'm saying.... because your position above requires that one or the other of us acquiesce to the other, and that is not what I am suggesting.
The ONLY reason any of us are saying that these things AREN'T racist is because 'you' are saying that it is, and we disagree. Until you get to that claim, we are aligned. The impetus therefore is NOT on you to NOT believe that the system is racist or for me to believe that it is... it is simply upon you to 'stop' where we stop agreeing.
If you cannot support fixing the problem without having us agree on 'racism', THEN we are at an impasse. I can support fixing the problem without it.
Said as I did before... we need to stop where we disagree because it isn't vital to either of us in terms of finding a solution. I don't need you to agree that it isn't racist, I just need for you to not claim that it is... and thus I don't need to respond that it isn't.
(07-28-2021 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-28-2021 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (07-28-2021 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-28-2021 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I think you miss my point lad.
I don't really care if YOU (or people like you) agree because you're obviously on board either way. I'm saying that by doing what you're doing... whether 'fair' or not... you are alienating people like me who OTHERWISE would be just as engaged as you are.
The minute we start talking about 'math' or 'healthcare' being racist... I push back... and now we're arguing about whether or not math or healthcare is racist.... see the dozen or so posts doing just that.... and aren't working on solutions.... when we AGREE that there is a problem that we can and should address.
How is that productive? What purpose is served? Why can't we just stop where we agree? Why must your side push me to agree with something that I fundamentally reject and LITERALLY serves no purpose other than to divide us?? I find myself feeling this way about a LOT of issues from the left. Its not enough that many on the right don't care if gay people marry or want kids or whatever, some on the left insist that we CELEBRATE or ADMIRE it when they do.
I push back because I see healthcare as impacting poor and uneducated people REGARDLESS of race. There are MILLIONS of white people impacted by it and millions of minorities who are not. MORE whites than minorities are impacted... and math is math. OF COURSE we can look at educational and job opportunities or drug laws etc and cite clear examples of racism... and those factors themselves play a key part in minorities being over-represented by percentages in the under-served populations... but that doesn't make healthcare or math themselves 'racist'.
I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me on the above. Honest people CAN disagree. All I'm trying to say is that I don't share your perspective here; It distracts from our shared beliefs that we can and should improve some aspects of healthcare and education; and it serves no purpose for us to 'debate' our beliefs in this area..... UNLESS there is some 'greater good' reason/purposed served by your position that you can articulate to me.
I definitely got your point. One of my retorts was that I wish that disagreement didn’t cause the distraction from a common goal on both sides.
To the counter side of your point, why cant the side that doesn’t agree just leave it at “maybe it is” as opposed to “it definitely isn’t”? Two sides of the same coin, with neither moving.
I mean, just look at the previous posts. I’m not even arguing that math is racist or math curriculum is, I’ve been arguing that maybe these people have a point and asking what that point is. However, you, OO, and others have argued that whatever it is definitely isn’t racist, without even know the argument being presented.
There is no way to present an argument that 2+2=4 is racist, and you hang your hat on not knowing which specious arguments are being used.
You're clearly missing my point despites multiple attempts for me to explain things.
You also don't actually understand the program that is being criticized, which makes another point about not doing enough research to even understand the issue. That's what you get when you rely on Fox News commentators for your news.
As I have noted here dozens of times to apparently deaf ears and closed minds, I get my news from a variety of places, including CNN.
This story was on MSN, and I linked it. I link interesting or important stories off MSN often, whether they are from Fox or WSJ or NYT or WashPo. Only the indoctrinated object to the links from Fox but think the others are OK.
No, I don't understand the program being criticized, because I don't understand insanity. I don't understand how some people think the Moon landing were faked. I also don't understand Scientology or heaven's gate or the Trump/Russia conspiracy theories, because they make no possible sense. I am not going to investigate the beliefs of somebody who believes in impossible things. I guess you feel that is a necessary step, so go investigate. When you find something that makes sense, tell me. I won't hold my breath. It's as if it was 1938 and you would refuse to condemn Nazism because you have not investigated the basis for their anti-jewish propaganda.
Why Pelosi won't tolerate dissent on her insurrection committee
From Newsweek:
But Pelosi and the Democrats were intent on transforming Jan. 6 into something more—something that would continue to be politically useful even after Trump exited the White House. Though talk of insurrection was hyperbolic, it allowed Democrats to construct a political universe in which opinions about the former administration matter more than those about the current one, or about the narrow Democratic congressional majorities.
The Democrats' Kamala Harris problem
On the one hand, she's quite likely to be her party's next presidential nominee, in either 2024 or 2028 (depending on whether 78-year-old Joe Biden runs for re-election and/or lives long enough to complete one or both terms). On the other hand, her popularity lags behind Biden's, and the general sense in Washington is that she's politically inept.
Harris's bad polls
"No one is coming out and saying she's doing an amazing job, because the first question would be 'On what?'" acknowledged one Harris ally. "She's made a bunch of mistakes and she's made herself a story for good and bad."
(07-28-2021 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-28-2021 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To the counter side of your point, why cant the side that doesn’t agree just leave it at “maybe it is” as opposed to “it definitely isn’t”? Two sides of the same coin, with neither moving.
I mean, just look at the previous posts. I’m not even arguing that math is racist or math curriculum is, I’ve been arguing that maybe these people have a point and asking what that point is. However, you, OO, and others have argued that whatever it is definitely isn’t racist, without even know the argument being presented.
The above demonstrates that you DON'T get what I'm saying.... because your position above requires that one or the other of us acquiesce to the other, and that is not what I am suggesting.
The ONLY reason any of us are saying that these things AREN'T racist is because 'you' are saying that it is, and we disagree. Until you get to that claim, we are aligned. The impetus therefore is NOT on you to NOT believe that the system is racist or for me to believe that it is... it is simply upon you to 'stop' where we stop agreeing.
If you cannot support fixing the problem without having us agree on 'racism', THEN we are at an impasse. I can support fixing the problem without it.
Said as I did before... we need to stop where we disagree because it isn't vital to either of us in terms of finding a solution. I don't need you to agree that it isn't racist, I just need for you to not claim that it is... and thus I don't need to respond that it isn't.
Trust me, I do get what you're saying about overreach (especially when it comes to distracting from the bigger picture). And I do think that overreaching with regards to racism is an issue at time . But saying bringing up race is an overreach can't be the default position - as in, we can't always think someone is overreaching when race is brought into the conversation.
That kind of position basically requires race to never be discussed in case someone thinks it is an overreach. And that's why I brought up my perspective on acquiescing as you said. If we shouldn't have it as a default position, then racism will be brought up, and how everyone responds is most crucial.
I agree with the bolded, and I think it is in line with what I've been saying in our back and forth. If someone brings race into the situation and another thinks it is overreaching, the person who thinks that can bite their tongue or express their opinion - the key is that the disagreement on it does not stop either side from focusing on the bigger issue at hand if it was being discussed.
That being said, people who bring race into the conversation should think carefully about whether it will be a productive comment, or if it will just create more division and distract.
edit: to clarify, I'm not arguing that your point isn't valid in total, just that I think some responsibility lies in all parties in disagreements
(07-29-2021 09:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The Democrats' Kamala Harris problem
On the one hand, she's quite likely to be her party's next presidential nominee, in either 2024 or 2028 (depending on whether 78-year-old Joe Biden runs for re-election and/or lives long enough to complete one or both terms). On the other hand, her popularity lags behind Biden's, and the general sense in Washington is that she's politically inept.
Well, if the Hologram keeps up with the comments on how he used to drive an 18-wheeler, she's quite likely to be 25thed into the office.
(07-29-2021 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]However, you, OO, and others have argued that whatever it is definitely isn’t racist, without even know the argument being presented.
Some things lend themselves to being known without needing research.
I don't need to do any research to determine that the philosophy of Heaven's Gate or Scientology is bunk. Nor do you. Apparently you also need no research to determine that everything on Fox News is bunk.
Tell me which of the following require more investigation on your part before you can say bull****:
1. Physics classes teaching that gravity exists are racist.
2. People teaching that sugar is sweet is racist
3. Teaching the multiplication tables is racist.
If you want to look into the way Sociology 101 is taught, fine with me. But math?
The "hard" sciences? You are an engineer, so explain to me how any hard science class you ever took - or math - could possibly be taught in a racist way. Is Planck's constant different for blacks? Is n-dimensional Hilbert space only for whites? Math is math, no relationship to race, sex, or religion. 6 x 7 = 42 in Iran and China as well as at BYU and Howard. It is 42 for everybody, everywhere. No way to make it racist. Therefore, nothing to correct.
IMO, we are looking for - and "finding" - racism in everything under the sun. I think some movements may actually preach/teach this concept.
(07-29-2021 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Trust me, I do get what you're saying about overreach (especially when it comes to distracting from the bigger picture). And I do think that overreaching with regards to racism is an issue at time . But saying bringing up race is an overreach can't be the default position - as in, we can't always think someone is overreaching when race is brought into the conversation.
In fairness to me, I never suggested it was the default position/always an over-reach. In fact I absolutely acknowledged that it is fair to talk about racism when it comes to educational and occupational opportunities.... especially in a historical context (not that it doesn't ever exist today, just that it used to be vastly worse and still has impact)...
My comment is that it often becomes a stretch... and saying 'math' is racist or 'healthcare' is racist when the determinants of impact is clearly based on income and not race.... then it is ABSOLUTELY AND BY DEFINITION an overreach. This essentially means that anything where cost is an issue is racist. Dining out is racist. Cars are racist. Good wine is racist.... heck, BAD wine is racist (because it markets to poor people/gets poor people but not wealthy people drunk).
Those are all an over-reach. Speaking about the inputs to educational opportunity and job opportunities is not.
Quote:That kind of position basically requires race to never be discussed in case someone thinks it is an overreach. And that's why I brought up my perspective on acquiescing as you said. If we shouldn't have it as a default position, then racism will be brought up, and how everyone responds is most crucial.
I agree with the bolded, and I think it is in line with what I've been saying in our back and forth. If someone brings race into the situation and another thinks it is overreaching, the person who thinks that can bite their tongue or express their opinion - the key is that the disagreement on it does not stop either side from focusing on the bigger issue at hand if it was being discussed.
That being said, people who bring race into the conversation should think carefully about whether it will be a productive comment, or if it will just create more division and distract.
edit: to clarify, I'm not arguing that your point isn't valid in total, just that I think some responsibility lies in all parties in disagreements
The last line, I just can't agree with.
My position doesn't exist without yours. My position only exists in disagreement with yours. Its therefore not incumbent upon me to 'stay silent' while you're allowed to present your position. If you're allowed to state your opinion, so too am I in response.... even if it isn't constructive, because neither is yours. COULD I remain silent? Sure. Is it fair? No.
It is different if my position exists without yours... as in I come into a conversation about math and say without provocation that math isn't racist. You disagree and should be allowed to say so in response... but the question is, why would I bring that into a conversation? WHile it can happen and in those cases I agree with you that I would be in the wrong... That isn't what often happens. FAR more often it is the overreach that happens... so complaining about the overreach is like the healthcare system being primarily concerned about chronic hypertension... and someone bringing up the fact, but much less often position where people suffer from chronic hypotension. Yes, hypotension is a concern for some... but hypertension is a concern for the overwhelming majority.
(07-29-2021 11:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2021 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Trust me, I do get what you're saying about overreach (especially when it comes to distracting from the bigger picture). And I do think that overreaching with regards to racism is an issue at time . But saying bringing up race is an overreach can't be the default position - as in, we can't always think someone is overreaching when race is brought into the conversation.
In fairness to me, I never suggested it was the default position/always an over-reach. In fact I absolutely acknowledged that it is fair to talk about racism when it comes to educational and occupational opportunities.... especially in a historical context (not that it doesn't ever exist today, just that it used to be vastly worse and still has impact)...
My comment is that it often becomes a stretch... and saying 'math' is racist or 'healthcare' is racist when the determinants of impact is clearly based on income and not race.... then it is ABSOLUTELY AND BY DEFINITION an overreach. This essentially means that anything where cost is an issue is racist. Dining out is racist. Cars are racist. Good wine is racist.... heck, BAD wine is racist (because it markets to poor people/gets poor people but not wealthy people drunk).
Those are all an over-reach. Speaking about the inputs to educational opportunity and job opportunities is not.
Quote:That kind of position basically requires race to never be discussed in case someone thinks it is an overreach. And that's why I brought up my perspective on acquiescing as you said. If we shouldn't have it as a default position, then racism will be brought up, and how everyone responds is most crucial.
I agree with the bolded, and I think it is in line with what I've been saying in our back and forth. If someone brings race into the situation and another thinks it is overreaching, the person who thinks that can bite their tongue or express their opinion - the key is that the disagreement on it does not stop either side from focusing on the bigger issue at hand if it was being discussed.
That being said, people who bring race into the conversation should think carefully about whether it will be a productive comment, or if it will just create more division and distract.
edit: to clarify, I'm not arguing that your point isn't valid in total, just that I think some responsibility lies in all parties in disagreements
The last line, I just can't agree with.
My position doesn't exist without yours. My position only exists in disagreement with yours. Its therefore not incumbent upon me to 'stay silent' while you're allowed to present your position. If you're allowed to state your opinion, so too am I in response.... even if it isn't constructive, because neither is yours. COULD I remain silent? Sure. Is it fair? No.
It is different if my position exists without yours... as in I come into a conversation about math and say without provocation that math isn't racist. You disagree and should be allowed to say so in response... but the question is, why would I bring that into a conversation? WHile it can happen and in those cases I agree with you that I would be in the wrong... That isn't what often happens. FAR more often it is the overreach that happens... so complaining about the overreach is like the healthcare system being primarily concerned about chronic hypertension... and someone bringing up the fact, but much less often position where people suffer from chronic hypotension. Yes, hypotension is a concern for some... but hypertension is a concern for the overwhelming majority.
To the last part of the post - I think we might be presupposing different situations are occurring.
I 100% agree that if we're sitting in the commons, just talking about our math homework and someone blurts out "Yo, math is racist!" there isn't really a reason for an opposing view to stay silent because it is such a non sequitor.
I was assuming we were talking about a discussion on, say, issues in math curriculum. And in that instance, if someone says, "Yo, another problem is that math curriculum is racist," it's relevant to the topic. So if someone disagrees with that position, I think they do bear some responsibility in how they respond because it's potentially relevant to the broader topic of issues in math curriculum.
I think that's very similar to your hyper/hypotension comparison. To a layman, that looks like a point that is eminently relevant. And while the person who brings up hypotension should think about whether their comment is going to derail the conversation, I think others also have the responsibility to think the same thing - will how they respond derail the conversation.
(07-29-2021 11:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To the last part of the post - I think we might be presupposing different situations are occurring.
I 100% agree that if we're sitting in the commons, just talking about our math homework and someone blurts out "Yo, math is racist!" there isn't really a reason for an opposing view to stay silent because it is such a non sequitor.
I was assuming we were talking about a discussion on, say, issues in math curriculum. And in that instance, if someone says, "Yo, another problem is that math curriculum is racist," it's relevant to the topic. So if someone disagrees with that position, I think they do bear some responsibility in how they respond because it's potentially relevant to the broader topic of issues in math curriculum.
I think that's very similar to your hyper/hypotension comparison. To a layman, that looks like a point that is eminently relevant. And while the person who brings up hypotension should think about whether their comment is going to derail the conversation, I think others also have the responsibility to think the same thing - will how they respond derail the conversation.
I think you're demonstrating a distinction without a difference. Just because someone talking about the moon says 'the moon is racist' doesn't make it relevant to the conversation.
Math is math. It is not different for whites than blacks. It CANNOT be racist. Someone teaching it might be and that could impact the outcomes... but that's not the same thing. How is me saying 'I think you're wrong about that because math is the same for everyone, regardless of race' (which is what I understand you to paraphrase the responses of others that you see as problematic... correct me please if I am wrong) an inappropriate response to the above?
Sometimes things are non-sequiturs; other times they are simply things that derail a conversation unnecessarily... by inserting a clearly controversial or debatable point into an area where we otherwise agree.
Let me give an example. Let's say we agree that we need to do something to address gun violence. Let's say we agree on the need to reduce or eliminate gun violence by criminals who account for the majority of deaths... and we agree on reducing or eliminating gun violence by people who are irresponsible with their weapons. Where we disagree is on turning otherwise lawful and responsible owners into criminals by banning specific weapons. Possession itself becomes a crime.
Talking about banning assault rifles is certainly pertinent to a discussion on gun violence... but as rifles account for about 1% of all gun deaths and we don't agree at all that they should be part of the discussion, clearly a FOCUS on assault rifles (by the side that wants to ban them) is not conducive to making progress in the areas where we agree. I've not added 'attack bananas' into the conversation as a non-sequitur, but I have moved us from areas of agreement to areas of clear disagreement. If someone also argued that focusing on hand guns was racist because most ARs are owned by white people, they would be deflecting from the reality that headlines aside, 99% of gun deaths are caused by hand guns.
Charges of racism are essentially a trump card. Only admitted racists are okay being called racists. Only admitted racists don't mind their ideas or 'things they are comfortable with' (like the idea that math is math) being called racist. Charges of racism should not be so carelessly tossed about as they often are these days. Such comments often derail constructive conversation.
(07-29-2021 12:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2021 11:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To the last part of the post - I think we might be presupposing different situations are occurring.
I 100% agree that if we're sitting in the commons, just talking about our math homework and someone blurts out "Yo, math is racist!" there isn't really a reason for an opposing view to stay silent because it is such a non sequitor.
I was assuming we were talking about a discussion on, say, issues in math curriculum. And in that instance, if someone says, "Yo, another problem is that math curriculum is racist," it's relevant to the topic. So if someone disagrees with that position, I think they do bear some responsibility in how they respond because it's potentially relevant to the broader topic of issues in math curriculum.
I think that's very similar to your hyper/hypotension comparison. To a layman, that looks like a point that is eminently relevant. And while the person who brings up hypotension should think about whether their comment is going to derail the conversation, I think others also have the responsibility to think the same thing - will how they respond derail the conversation.
I think you're demonstrating a distinction without a difference. Just because someone talking about the moon says 'the moon is racist' doesn't make it relevant to the conversation.
Math is math. It is not different for whites than blacks. It CANNOT be racist. Someone teaching it might be and that could impact the outcomes... but that's not the same thing. How is me saying 'I think you're wrong about that because math is the same for everyone, regardless of race' (which is what I understand you to paraphrase the responses of others that you see as problematic... correct me please if I am wrong) an inappropriate response to the above?
Sometimes things are non-sequiturs; other times they are simply things that derail a conversation unnecessarily... by inserting a clearly controversial or debatable point into an area where we otherwise agree.
Let me give an example. Let's say we agree that we need to do something to address gun violence. Let's say we agree on the need to reduce or eliminate gun violence by criminals who account for the majority of deaths... and we agree on reducing or eliminating gun violence by people who are irresponsible with their weapons. Where we disagree is on turning otherwise lawful and responsible owners into criminals by banning specific weapons. Possession itself becomes a crime.
Talking about banning assault rifles is certainly pertinent to a discussion on gun violence... but as rifles account for about 1% of all gun deaths and we don't agree at all that they should be part of the discussion, clearly a FOCUS on assault rifles (by the side that wants to ban them) is not conducive to making progress in the areas where we agree. I've not added 'attack bananas' into the conversation as a non-sequitur, but I have moved us from areas of agreement to areas of clear disagreement. If someone also argued that focusing on hand guns was racist because most ARs are owned by white people, they would be deflecting from the reality that headlines aside, 99% of gun deaths are caused by hand guns.
Charges of racism are essentially a trump card. Only admitted racists are okay being called racists. Only admitted racists don't mind their ideas or 'things they are comfortable with' (like the idea that math is math) being called racist. Charges of racism should not be so carelessly tossed about as they often are these days. Such comments often derail constructive conversation.
I think we're pretty close in agreement here on the big issue, I think we diverge in a way that, ironically, makes that hard to see.
And I think that's because the "math is racist" language was brought in by Fox News and misrepresents the specific workshop that they were talking about, as far as I can tell.
The workshop in question was not about racism in math itself, but in the curriculum about how it is taught. And that actually jives with your bolded statement (as in, there possibly could be racism involved).
This all started because I asked OO for clarification because of how absurd a statement like "math is racist" sounds at face value. It turns out there is likely a media spin in play here to rile up conservatives and others who think race is being overplayed. I was skeptical of the Fox report because of how absurd it sounded on its face, and OO has repeatedly taken issue with me investigating deeper because of that.
So this to me begs the question.... if Fermat's Theorem isn't racist, how does one inject racism into the study of that? Same for any of the items that OO forward earlier (i.e. Hilbert N Space... etc).
(07-29-2021 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So this to me begs the question.... if Fermat's Theorem isn't racist, how does one inject racism into the study of that? Same for any of the items that OO forward earlier (i.e. Hilbert N Space... etc).
I've said this ad nauseum - the program the Fox News article was referenced is apparently discussing racism with regards to math curriculum. So it's not how one studies math, but how one is taught math.
I couldn't find any information besides the big picture of the program, so I can't actually comment on how curriculum could be racist, but that seems far more plausible to me than saying a specific mathematical theorem is racist. I'm skeptical of the idea, even though it's more plausible, because I don't initially see a lot of room for biases to manifest themselves in such a hard science, but I'd be interested in hearing the perspective.
(07-29-2021 12:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2021 12:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2021 11:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To the last part of the post - I think we might be presupposing different situations are occurring.
I 100% agree that if we're sitting in the commons, just talking about our math homework and someone blurts out "Yo, math is racist!" there isn't really a reason for an opposing view to stay silent because it is such a non sequitor.
I was assuming we were talking about a discussion on, say, issues in math curriculum. And in that instance, if someone says, "Yo, another problem is that math curriculum is racist," it's relevant to the topic. So if someone disagrees with that position, I think they do bear some responsibility in how they respond because it's potentially relevant to the broader topic of issues in math curriculum.
I think that's very similar to your hyper/hypotension comparison. To a layman, that looks like a point that is eminently relevant. And while the person who brings up hypotension should think about whether their comment is going to derail the conversation, I think others also have the responsibility to think the same thing - will how they respond derail the conversation.
I think you're demonstrating a distinction without a difference. Just because someone talking about the moon says 'the moon is racist' doesn't make it relevant to the conversation.
Math is math. It is not different for whites than blacks. It CANNOT be racist. Someone teaching it might be and that could impact the outcomes... but that's not the same thing. How is me saying 'I think you're wrong about that because math is the same for everyone, regardless of race' (which is what I understand you to paraphrase the responses of others that you see as problematic... correct me please if I am wrong) an inappropriate response to the above?
Sometimes things are non-sequiturs; other times they are simply things that derail a conversation unnecessarily... by inserting a clearly controversial or debatable point into an area where we otherwise agree.
Let me give an example. Let's say we agree that we need to do something to address gun violence. Let's say we agree on the need to reduce or eliminate gun violence by criminals who account for the majority of deaths... and we agree on reducing or eliminating gun violence by people who are irresponsible with their weapons. Where we disagree is on turning otherwise lawful and responsible owners into criminals by banning specific weapons. Possession itself becomes a crime.
Talking about banning assault rifles is certainly pertinent to a discussion on gun violence... but as rifles account for about 1% of all gun deaths and we don't agree at all that they should be part of the discussion, clearly a FOCUS on assault rifles (by the side that wants to ban them) is not conducive to making progress in the areas where we agree. I've not added 'attack bananas' into the conversation as a non-sequitur, but I have moved us from areas of agreement to areas of clear disagreement. If someone also argued that focusing on hand guns was racist because most ARs are owned by white people, they would be deflecting from the reality that headlines aside, 99% of gun deaths are caused by hand guns.
Charges of racism are essentially a trump card. Only admitted racists are okay being called racists. Only admitted racists don't mind their ideas or 'things they are comfortable with' (like the idea that math is math) being called racist. Charges of racism should not be so carelessly tossed about as they often are these days. Such comments often derail constructive conversation.
I think we're pretty close in agreement here on the big issue, I think we diverge in a way that, ironically, makes that hard to see.
And I think that's because the "math is racist" language was brought in by Fox News and misrepresents the specific workshop that they were talking about, as far as I can tell.
The workshop in question was not about racism in math itself, but in the curriculum about how it is taught. And that actually jives with your bolded statement (as in, there possibly could be racism involved).
This all started because I asked OO for clarification because of how absurd a statement like "math is racist" sounds at face value. It turns out there is likely a media spin in play here to rile up conservatives and others who think race is being overplayed. I was skeptical of the Fox report because of how absurd it sounded on its face, and OO has repeatedly taken issue with me investigating deeper because of that.
Have you even watched the clip I linked?
If so, watch it again.
here it is:
anti-racist math program
If not, watch it and tell me what parts you object to.
You seem to be attributing things to Fox or the Professor that just are not there.
Once again, 2+2+4 was an editorial comment by me - not something Fox News or Professor Erec Smith said.
Seriously, what in this clip do you object to, other than the fact that Fox News chose to publish it while certain other outlets chose to ignore it?
(07-29-2021 03:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2021 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So this to me begs the question.... if Fermat's Theorem isn't racist, how does one inject racism into the study of that? Same for any of the items that OO forward earlier (i.e. Hilbert N Space... etc).
I've said this ad nauseum - the program the Fox News article was referenced is apparently discussing racism with regards to math curriculum. So it's not how one studies math, but how one is taught math.
I couldn't find any information besides the big picture of the program, so I can't actually comment on how curriculum could be racist, but that seems far more plausible to me than saying a specific mathematical theorem is racist. I'm skeptical of the idea, even though it's more plausible, because I don't initially see a lot of room for biases to manifest themselves in such a hard science, but I'd be interested in hearing the perspective.
I understand you to be saying that while we don't know what about the curriculum is racist, it is your presumption based on the logic of the conversation that there must be something in the teaching there that results in this outcome... like perhaps they insist on (just using an earlier example of mine) using word problems about farming acres to an inner city school as well as a rural farming school which favors the (more white) farming community.
I guess I understand how that could be, but I really am having a hard time imagining how that would work at a single school or even within a single district... or even all but a few large and very diverse states.... most of which skew left so they would tend to favor the minority. I don't know of a right leaning state (Texas is about as close as I can come) where you might have kids in the 3rd Ward of Houston who would struggle with math problems dealing with heads of cattle or oil and gas production that might make more sense to a kid in Lubbock.... but all the energy companies are in Houston?? So still, how is that racist?? The best examples I come up with are SAT tests which are national using words like sky-scrapers or acres or city blocks... but that wouldn't be part of a curriculum.... so I just struggle and thus I don't share your conviction here. No worries.
My presumption (because I've seen it inserted into FAR too many situations in the past) is that it is simply the 'catch-all' for action. MY example was healthcare... where the poor or less educated are quite often pushed between 3-4 networks of care which leads to access issues and confusion, thus worse outcomes. This is clearly an issue of income and employment consistency, not race. It impacts more white people than minorities. It would be all but impossible to solve this problem and NOT help more white people than minorities in the process. Every time we look to address it though, it is couched by someone (most often the government or activists) as 'healthcare equality' under the guise of ending systemic racism.
While the issue is very important to me and I work on it and keep my mouth shut, I feel pretty racially ostracized. I can either keep my mouth shut and solve the problem, or I can speak my mind and derail the conversation into what is ultimately meaningless (to the problem) debate. The stress I feel is tremendous and unnecessary... because people CONSTANTLY talk to me as if the whole reason I'm doing what I do ISN'T because there is a problem that needs to be solved for tens of millions of Americans of every shape and size.. but because of my 'white shame' and racist ancestors. Racism certainly lead to a larger percentage of minorities than whites being in these populations, but so too did many of the efforts to address racism. Racism did NOT play a part in having marketplace networks be different from Medicaid, commercial and Medicare networks.... UNLESS we're saying that the designers and promoters of the ACA were racists?? Under the old system, poor people of all colors were exactly equal... either getting no care at all or heading to the emergency room and waiting for hours.
FYI, apologies I haven't been ducking the discussion, I had to travel to London for the day (yesterday) and was offline.
In my absence it appears the 'discussion' has continued without resolution. No surprise there.
Thanks Ham for pointing out word problems in mathematics as a possible area of concern. Catching up on the thread that was one area that hadn't been discussed ad nauseum. Word problems are the domain of consumer mathematics and possibly infringe in some elementary algebra texts. As long as the word problems stick to apples and oranges I don't see a problem. I don't see racism. That's based on my knowledge and experience of mathematics that unfortunately ended with calculus.
Now if the consumer math curriculum asked questions regarding a magnum of champagne versus a jeroboam, then there might be an issue. But it's not racist, it's cultural. Same if the question referenced rods. This question would be simple enough for anyone who has strung barb wire and all but impossible for anyone who hasn't and can't access Google. Again, not racist but cultural.
As the commentator pointed out in the video, racism is an industry. There's money to be made promoting it even where racism doesn't exist. Of course there's always perception and one's (subjective) truth.
Somewhat off topic, on the train back from London I happened to be sitting near someone who worked for the Guardian (left-leaning) newspaper. I purposefully avoided politics, but they asked and I acknowledged I was a native Texan and generally regarded myself as conservative with a libertarian slant. Just before leaving the train they began waxing lyrical about Michele Obama and 'her' book. I asked if they knew who wrote it seeing how her junior treatise (?) at Princeton lacked cogency, was a grammatical train wreck, and would have failed the English composition competency exam (at Rice). Their response was "Piss off! Piss off, you're a racist!"
Typical.
The posts from Ham and Mersey make my point beautifully - none of us knew enough about the content of the program being discussed in the original article to immediately counter it.
Maybe there are valid claims about racism in math curriculum. Maybe there aren’t. Maybe there are a bit of both. But given that we know so little about the program itself, it’s damn hard to counter its claims or support it’s claims.
And that was my initial frustration with the Fox News article - it didn’t provide ANY information or specifics about the claims. Yet it caused one poster to say that the program in question was saying 2+2=4 is racist. Does anyone here know if it is saying that???