A 4th grade english teacher pulled a common core sheet from LA. for homework the students took it home. It happened to be on ebonics. (why we are teaching ebonics instead of english to 4th graders i don't know).
Three things. First, links for any of this?
Second, I find it highly ironic that a person who often makes posts devoid of proper grammar is going to be the one to complain about the dirth of education as it relates to English and grammar teaching. A salient example is how you start this thread.
"It is enough to say that our education system here in america is well bad."
ought to read
"It is enough to say that our education system here in America is, well, bad."
because "well bad" as a phrase doesn't really mean anything.
But that's beside the point.
Third, why are you opposed to the teaching of ebonics? As much of a stickler for grammar and punctuation as I am I think there is GREAT value in teaching culture and ebonics is very much emblematic of a particular American culture and the grammars created within that culture.
After some cursory research turning up Fox News, Personal Liberty, and Infowars links, it seems the offending paragraphs are a) NOT ABOUT TEACHING ENGLISH b) are about history c) are referencing the title of a very famous piece of art, and d) are not "filled with Ebonics" as you, Alex Jones, and other misguided right wingers claim. Seriously stop presenting it as the dichotomy of "Why are we teaching Ebonics instead of ENGLISH?!" and start saying what you really mean. "Why are we teaching our kids about BLACK PEOPLE in history!!!" because that's what the outrage is about.
There's also no reference to "hoes" just the title of the song 'Po Pimp'
Should we not be teaching Al Capone in history, you know, because Mobster? Should we not be teaching Georgia O'Keefe in art, you know, because vaginas?
Yeah, but government improved access to birth control sounds a lot like ABORTIONMEGAPLEX to me. (re: The Onion's description of Planned Parenthood)
Also have we grown out of using the term "slavery" to describe taxation yet? As someone whose ancestors were actually enslaved as part of Chattel Slavery I grow tired of the completely inapt (and inept) metaphor that's only resemblance is meant to evoke an emotional response instead of anything actually remotely resembling Chattel Slavery.
I mean, seriously, the Libertarian usage of "slavery" isn't even sufficient to match up with Wikipedia's definition. That's just sad.
"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation."
legal definition:
Slavery
A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another.
Collins:
the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
AHD:
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
Random house:
slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery
The only way to keep the word from simply meaning "being subject to an influence" is to understand the person as property. Taxes don't ****ing do that. Stop saying it. It's god damn insulting.
If you want to discuss how slavery manifests itself in housing costs, you may want to look at the predatory lending practices of the 1960s-80s in regards to your ever-so-beloved free market and its treatment of African-Americans in mortages. Hint: They made it so it couldn't happen to force blacks into the (more profitable) renting market and to create an urban/sub-urban divide between black and white.
And this was all without any government intervention at all. Hey, who would have thought, the free market is a breeding ground for racism! Anyone want to guess where the impetus for slavery came from?
Hey guys, Mystery is not the exception to the rule okay. Because he did something, we can all expect that every other person on the planet should be equally capable. At least...I think that is what he is trying to say.
Also the fact that he's 50 and is using the past tense of "worked" certainly has nothing to do with it. Times do not change.
He's like 98% conservative. The fact that he doesn't toe (or tow, as I believe actually makes sense in this case) the party line on every social issue doesn't even remotely make him a liberal.
If racism exists then we should treat the problem along the racial lines that the problem is situated on. But that's not at all what I was saying, so way to red herring the **** out of this discussion?
My point was that the states with the worst levels of segregation in the past also have the highest proportion of black poverty today. To think this is a mere coincidence is to ignore the racialized boundaries of American society.
On a similar notion of the voting rights act take a look at the percentages. There are a few northern states (Delaware, New Jersey) that have a large number of African Americans on welfare, but the worst states are all Southern states that were listed under the VRA.
Alabama: 66%
Arkansas: 58.2%
Florida: 46.6
Gerogia: 70.2%
Louisiana: 78%
Mississippi: 83.6%
North Carolina: 58.6
South Caroline: 69.2
Tennessee: 53.6
Kentucky, Kansas, and Missouri are the only 3 Southern States with a higher percentage of whites than Afro-Americans on welfare.
Of course though, racism ended in the form of job discrimination in the 70s
That is not proof of racism at all. That's proof that in the south African Americans are more likely to be poor. Poor parents tend to raise kids that will continue to be poor because of education reasons and outside influences like gangs. If the kid drops out of school at 15 so he can run with a gang or work at McDonalds to try to feed his younger siblings he has a very low chance of breaking out of poverty. Even if he finishes high school chances are he's not going to go to college without a full ride scholarship.
So to me the welfare problem is not racism it's lack of ability for poor kids to do better than their parents.
You act like the systematic disparagement from Jim Crow and the 60s doesn't carry on into future society. That's kind of my point, that history affects current society.
On a similar notion of the voting rights act take a look at the percentages. There are a few northern states (Delaware, New Jersey) that have a large number of African Americans on welfare, but the worst states are all Southern states that were listed under the VRA.
Alabama: 66%
Arkansas: 58.2%
Florida: 46.6
Gerogia: 70.2%
Louisiana: 78%
Mississippi: 83.6%
North Carolina: 58.6
South Caroline: 69.2
Tennessee: 53.6
Kentucky, Kansas, and Missouri are the only 3 Southern States with a higher percentage of whites than Afro-Americans on welfare.
Of course though, racism ended in the form of job discrimination in the 70s
Genesis WaveBody doubleCraterhoof Behemoth
No, body double has a replacement effect that modifies how it enters the battlefield. At the point in time it enters the battlefield (during Wave's resolution) Craterhoof is not the graveyard. Craterhoof goes in the graveyard as the last part of Gen Wave's resolution.
Also note that if this scenario involved Clone and say any other creature that would be put on the board Grizzly Bears the clone would still be unable to copy those because it can only copy creatures that are on the board as it enters the battlefield. Which in this case Grizzly Bears would not yet be on the battlefield.
Wait, did someone seriously ask the question of "who protects the racists?"
Just because someone's a racist doesn't mean they can be assaulted with impunity.
Yes, and that's covered under normal laws of assault. But asking the question of "why isn't there a hate crime statute that gives extra protection to racists" is uh....... stupid. And socially vile/toxic.
He got it, he just said it was a poor analogy because it is comparing across radically different lines. IE the example would be "gays have just as many rights as straight people do because they can own guns."
Because "bieber fan" is to "Catholic" as "gay marriage" is to "gun ownership"
IE, completely unrelated.
If Nickelback fans were a protected class and someone said "Bieber fans are a protected class because they could all be protected under Nickelback fans" the analogy would make sense. But they aren't, so it doesn't.
You need to drastically revise your statement: The person who assaults me because I am straight should be punished as harshly as the person who assaults a gay person because they are gay.
Why is this motive worse than other motives? What if I were to say that the person who assaults me because I didn't pay protection money should be punished more harshly than either?
For the exact same reason that hanging a person because they are black should be punished more severely than killing someone for sleeping with your wife.
If we're going to discuss the legitimacy of the existence of protected classes/whether or not hate crimes should be a thing I'm all for it, but I didn't know that was this discussion.
You need to drastically revise your statement: The person who assaults me because I am straight should be punished as harshly as the person who assaults a gay person because they are gay.
Females being main characters was not the complaint. Even the roles females are in are hyper-masculine in nature. It's females being great warriors that are good and even then they have male warriors in lesser roles. It's not like males are in non-masculinized roles that are celebrated.
Also, exception, not even CLOSE to the rule.
On the first page the original poster was complaining about female characters not battling next to male characters and what not in Call of Duty. Maybe I misread that?
I don't think strong female leads are an exception any more... Seems to be very common. One of the oldest Nintendo heroes is a female as well (Samus).
You did misread it. Here's the OP's only bit about Call of Duty, and it is exactly what I said the argument was:
Quote from JD »
There is nothing wrong with having a player character in a male dominated profession, such as being an infantryman. There IS something wrong with female dominated professions not being presented in an equally viable, positive light.
The game should show display service men and women in a variety of crucial roles that don't reinforce gender stereotypes.
If a game glorifies the infantry man, it should also glorify the flight surgeon who stitches up the infantry for his next battle.
In games such as Call of Duty, vital military roles typically deemed as "feminine" such as being a nurse, flight surgeon, or secretary, should be presented in a positive light, as much as the infantry role. No, playing as a nurse in Call of Duty probably would not make for the most engaging gameplay experience. I'm not suggesting Call of Duty become a surgery simulator. But the profession such as the surgeon should at least be shown to be a positive, essential role in the military.
The player character in Call of Duty should at the very least fight along side female combatants. The US military plans to have females in combat roles by 2016, but there's no reason why Infinity Ward cannot start with the next Call of Duty.
Games like Call of Duty unfortunately tell our youth that the only way to answer one's personal call of duty to serve one's country is to be a stereotypically male infantry man.
It has NOTHING to do with "women fighting equally alongside men on the battlefield in CoD" but IS about the gender stereotypes and masculine tropes that dominate the narrative of such games that denigrates traditionally "feminine" characteristics. It is NOT about the absence of female lead roles existing in video games.
Also, I do really want to stress that female leads are the exception and by no means the rule. For every example of a top selling game with a female lead you come up with I can easily produce 10 with male leads that sell as well if not better than your examples.
I did, right there in my post before I reminded him of his privilege. Don't both contributing if you can't provide a counter argument. Since you've not been exposed to the subtle discrimination faced by women, especially feminists, I have to question how well qualified you are to contribute to this conversation.
It doesn't matter if he or I have all the privilege in the world or not. Arguments stand and fall on their own. Your reminder of his privilege doesn't invalidate his argument.
If you want to keep going this route, I'd be happy to demonstrate how the logic you're using is going to topple down on top of your head.
Stop engaging Karlov Queen. A) Karlov is being completely sarcastic. Karlov, as displayed in numerous other threads on the subject, doesn't believe in the things espoused in Karlov's posts in this thread. Karlov is mocking those beliefs. And B) Karlov intentionally misread my post in order to post the satirical comment.
Three things. First, links for any of this?
Second, I find it highly ironic that a person who often makes posts devoid of proper grammar is going to be the one to complain about the dirth of education as it relates to English and grammar teaching. A salient example is how you start this thread.
"It is enough to say that our education system here in america is well bad."
ought to read
"It is enough to say that our education system here in America is, well, bad."
because "well bad" as a phrase doesn't really mean anything.
But that's beside the point.
Third, why are you opposed to the teaching of ebonics? As much of a stickler for grammar and punctuation as I am I think there is GREAT value in teaching culture and ebonics is very much emblematic of a particular American culture and the grammars created within that culture.
After some cursory research turning up Fox News, Personal Liberty, and Infowars links, it seems the offending paragraphs are a) NOT ABOUT TEACHING ENGLISH b) are about history c) are referencing the title of a very famous piece of art, and d) are not "filled with Ebonics" as you, Alex Jones, and other misguided right wingers claim. Seriously stop presenting it as the dichotomy of "Why are we teaching Ebonics instead of ENGLISH?!" and start saying what you really mean. "Why are we teaching our kids about BLACK PEOPLE in history!!!" because that's what the outrage is about.
There's also no reference to "hoes" just the title of the song 'Po Pimp'
Should we not be teaching Al Capone in history, you know, because Mobster? Should we not be teaching Georgia O'Keefe in art, you know, because vaginas?
Also have we grown out of using the term "slavery" to describe taxation yet? As someone whose ancestors were actually enslaved as part of Chattel Slavery I grow tired of the completely inapt (and inept) metaphor that's only resemblance is meant to evoke an emotional response instead of anything actually remotely resembling Chattel Slavery.
I mean, seriously, the Libertarian usage of "slavery" isn't even sufficient to match up with Wikipedia's definition. That's just sad.
"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation."
legal definition:
Slavery
A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another.
Collins:
the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
AHD:
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
Random house:
slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery
The only way to keep the word from simply meaning "being subject to an influence" is to understand the person as property. Taxes don't ****ing do that. Stop saying it. It's god damn insulting.
If you want to discuss how slavery manifests itself in housing costs, you may want to look at the predatory lending practices of the 1960s-80s in regards to your ever-so-beloved free market and its treatment of African-Americans in mortages. Hint: They made it so it couldn't happen to force blacks into the (more profitable) renting market and to create an urban/sub-urban divide between black and white.
And this was all without any government intervention at all. Hey, who would have thought, the free market is a breeding ground for racism! Anyone want to guess where the impetus for slavery came from?
Also the fact that he's 50 and is using the past tense of "worked" certainly has nothing to do with it. Times do not change.
He's like 98% conservative. The fact that he doesn't toe (or tow, as I believe actually makes sense in this case) the party line on every social issue doesn't even remotely make him a liberal.
My point was that the states with the worst levels of segregation in the past also have the highest proportion of black poverty today. To think this is a mere coincidence is to ignore the racialized boundaries of American society.
You act like the systematic disparagement from Jim Crow and the 60s doesn't carry on into future society. That's kind of my point, that history affects current society.
Alabama: 66%
Arkansas: 58.2%
Florida: 46.6
Gerogia: 70.2%
Louisiana: 78%
Mississippi: 83.6%
North Carolina: 58.6
South Caroline: 69.2
Tennessee: 53.6
Kentucky, Kansas, and Missouri are the only 3 Southern States with a higher percentage of whites than Afro-Americans on welfare.
Of course though, racism ended in the form of job discrimination in the 70s
No, body double has a replacement effect that modifies how it enters the battlefield. At the point in time it enters the battlefield (during Wave's resolution) Craterhoof is not the graveyard. Craterhoof goes in the graveyard as the last part of Gen Wave's resolution.
Also note that if this scenario involved Clone and say any other creature that would be put on the board Grizzly Bears the clone would still be unable to copy those because it can only copy creatures that are on the board as it enters the battlefield. Which in this case Grizzly Bears would not yet be on the battlefield.
Yes, and that's covered under normal laws of assault. But asking the question of "why isn't there a hate crime statute that gives extra protection to racists" is uh....... stupid. And socially vile/toxic.
Because "bieber fan" is to "Catholic" as "gay marriage" is to "gun ownership"
IE, completely unrelated.
If Nickelback fans were a protected class and someone said "Bieber fans are a protected class because they could all be protected under Nickelback fans" the analogy would make sense. But they aren't, so it doesn't.
For the exact same reason that hanging a person because they are black should be punished more severely than killing someone for sleeping with your wife.
If we're going to discuss the legitimacy of the existence of protected classes/whether or not hate crimes should be a thing I'm all for it, but I didn't know that was this discussion.
You did misread it. Here's the OP's only bit about Call of Duty, and it is exactly what I said the argument was:
It has NOTHING to do with "women fighting equally alongside men on the battlefield in CoD" but IS about the gender stereotypes and masculine tropes that dominate the narrative of such games that denigrates traditionally "feminine" characteristics. It is NOT about the absence of female lead roles existing in video games.
Also, I do really want to stress that female leads are the exception and by no means the rule. For every example of a top selling game with a female lead you come up with I can easily produce 10 with male leads that sell as well if not better than your examples.
Stop engaging Karlov Queen. A) Karlov is being completely sarcastic. Karlov, as displayed in numerous other threads on the subject, doesn't believe in the things espoused in Karlov's posts in this thread. Karlov is mocking those beliefs. And B) Karlov intentionally misread my post in order to post the satirical comment.