Just pick one from Group A and one from Group B:

Group A

systemic, emotional, structural, intersectional, feminine

Group B

bias, ideology, milk-shaking, cancel-culture, ethos, oppression

And then add “narrative” are the end. Now you have a topic for today’s podcast! Why don’t we hear more about the left’s emotional milk-shaking narrative?

I just find it weird that racism/sexism are the only socially constructed concepts that are referred to with those adjectives.

You'll find plenty of discussion of systems, institutions, and structures in relation to pretty much every type of social stratification, even if specific phrases haven't become widely adopted. Partly I think it's just because if you're discussing economic stratification there's not usually much need to clarify that you want to discuss systemic/institutional issues specifically, whereas with racism a distinction is being drawn between those types of issues and individual prejudice.

Maybe stop giving them all jobs and you'd be surprised at how quickly the problem fades away.

Same goes for the drugs, if Americans want to stop the flow of narcotics across the border, stop BUYING them.

They’re not the ONLY socially constructed concepts tho?

And it’s not weird. Race and gender are historically, culturally, and jurisprudentially the most significant categories thus most likely to be studied by social scientists (and then associated with specific terms).

It would be really weird if they weren’t by far the most discussed/studied/written upon categories, given their prominence as categories.

It’s somewhat understandable that you mistake them as the ONLY socially constructed concepts. It’s akin to WWI and WWII being the only world wars that are discussed in popular academics/media. Why won’t anyone talk about Charlemagne and Alexander the Great? Well, maybe because they are less immediately connected to our current world.

I think master figured him out better with this...

Premises:
1. EVerify and other systems designed to keep undocumented workers from seeking and gaining many different kinds of work are inhumane and economically wasteful.

2. Employers who hire undocumented workers frequently underpay them and this has a detrimental effect on the job market and earning power of both the undocumented employees and the displaced employees.

Solution: Employers (who will always hire whoever costs less) are permitted to hire anyone without reference to immigration status. However, the cost savings that many employers reap will be (partially) redirected through a tax to fund hiring of additional immigration judges, social workers, and other human/capital resources to ease the processing of immigrants at the southern border. Once there is sufficient processing infrastructure in place so that immigrants can be swiftly welcomed into the United States (now with more job options, job growth potential, and concomitant tax base increase), the current caps on annual immigration can be increased to levels the judges/social workers believe are supported by the current infrastructure.

I do think this plan, in order to be politically palatable for the displaced workers, will need to include significant expenditure (UBI or otherwise + job training + ?) for the displaced worker.

Demonstration of knowledge at a grade-appropriate level, and graduation rates.

As far as the second part, that's sort of my point. No amount of money spent on new buildings and bloated administrative salaries in these districts is going to change the fact that truancy rates are through the roof and too many kids come to school ready to fight, not learn.

Change begins at home, and schools should be there to provide the best possible education to those who want one. Not try to "save" America's Next Top Felons by letting them poison entire classrooms, which is how it works now. Let those kids beat on each other and teachers in another part of the building away from everyone else. Give the majority a chance to succeed.

Agreed. Get your **** together, America. Hugs, not drugs.

I don’t disagree that the home environment being stable is crucial for educational success; this is another great argument for UBI btw.

But the notion that self-selected private schools can be “determined” to “produce better outcomes” is wrong. They can’t. Not possible. Too many variables. This isn’t a defense of the public system per se, nor a refutation of the position that competition in the education marketplace *may* be a good (skeptical of this somewhat because of how horribly “progress” is measured by the types who love to measure it).

If I understand you correctly, you would prefer that, in lieu of spending money on education, the bad apples who are poisoning the classroom shouldn’t be allowed to attend public school? Or should be segregated into some kind of Hamsterdam apart from the rest of the school and allowed to just go wild on each other? You sound more hardened than the most grizzled prison warden; even those guys believe that children can be rehabilitated.

It seems to me that a better option than your suggestions would be to offer significant behavioral health services, medical services, and UBI to get children therapy and medicine they most likely need and the funds to stabilize home life to a greater degree. If it’s determined that spending on education really is wasteful, then perhaps the money earmarked for that could be redirected to getting kids behaviorally/medically stable and getting that UBI financial security blanket into their homes as well.

I'm certain they can, but a general classroom with 1 teacher and 35 kids is not the place to do that.

The teachers winds up spending most of their time on behavior issues, not teaching.

Or, just give all the kids vouchers and let the parents select the school. The onus will be on those parents to make sure their kid holds up their end of the bargain.

I just can't get behind the mentality that we should sacrifice the education quality of a majority of kids just so we aren't seen as being heartless toward kids who aren't interested in participating. Seems like a dick move toward all the innocent victims who are being robbed of their chance at an education through no fault of their own.

How about just implement a guest worker visa program so people who want low skilled and short term employment in the US can enter legally to get it? That would 'solve' almost the entire illegal immigrant 'problem' and cost about 1/2093480390th of everything Trump and co has on the table currently. Plus as a bonus no dead children.

Of course this was originally an idea proposed by noted commie leftist George W. Bush, so no chance the right wing would ever go for it. But what workable solution have they ever gone for in, like, the history of the universe?

I agree that disruptive children should be removed from a classroom they’re disrupting. The question is: what are you going to do about it? For the most part it’s not these kids’ fault their mental health is untreated or their parent(s) is/are too poor to afford to maintain a decent home life.

In my experience, disruptive children are removed from classrooms. You seem to imply teachers are powerless to remove disruptive children. I’ve never heard this happening. I’ve talked to thousands (tens of thousands?) of teachers about classroom discipline.

I don’t mind a guest worker program as a temp fix while the bigger plan is implemented. Guest worker program as an end is weak tea.

No, the issue is that you think racism and sexism are either nonexistent or good and it makes you mad when them college boys do egghead **** like talk about them existing and being bad.


But also, even at face value, setting aside "systemic corruption", "institutional religion," "structural engineering"...

what the **** are you talking about bro.

Like what's the big neo-Marxist adjective conspiracy you've uncovered?

It's was not, and still not a trap. I know you view people who think motherhood is a role played by women is sexist. I alluded to this, almost from the start. I'm trying to understand how progressives rationalize away the role (and the general qualities and characteristics that go with it), since they obviously view those who acknowledge that role as an example of sexism. If it's sexist to believe that role exist, it means you do not value that role, or do not believe that role even exist. Like, why does it not mean those things to you, certainly you've seen mothers exhibit some of the qualities and characteristics we commonly associate with motherhood.

You can't answer it, it seems. You keep trying to pivot away from the central premise of the discussion.

I kind of doubt that Wookie (or progressives in general) think it's sexist for women to inhabit the role of motherhood. I expect that most think it's perfectly fine and normal for women to adopt pretty much the entire range of culturally accepted beliefs/behaviors/attitudes associated with motherhood.

Usually people only start talking about sexism when the presumption is made that women ought to be mothers, or ought to stick to traditional gender roles whether they want to or not.

Many millions of impoverished households are able to make it work. This is a cop-out and you're not doing anyone any favors by shifting responsibility away from the family.

Where are these teachers?

From what I hear, it goes like this:

1) Students fight
2) Teacher attempts to control the situation
3) Students continue to fight
4) Safety is called
5) Wait 5 minutes for Safety to come, room is in chaos
6) Safety comes, 50/50 chance that student(s) are removed from the room as opposed to simply using the additional adults in the room to calm things down
7) If students are removed, takes another 10 minutes for the energy in the room to dissipate and you might be able to go back to a lesson
8) If students aren't removed, the kids are separated but continue to distract everyone. No meaningful education takes place.
9) Sometimes, an administrator shows up to threaten suspensions (these rarely occur though now, because DPI stats)
10) 20 minutes later, something resembling learning might be able to resume.
11) The kids who were removed previously are now returned to the class without punishment, and 30% chance to go immediately back to step 1.

Rinse repeat every single day.

Yeah, the false dichotomy. You and progressives don't have a lock on what's considered sexist/racist...but you think you do, which makes discussing these things with you folks tedious.

This is standard retort to the neo-Marxism association, to associate with a conspiracy. The thing about it is though, I've never heard a progressive argue how neo-Marxism is dissimilar from a lot of progressive ideology. It's not that I, or most others, think there is some marxist conspiracy going on by a bunch of marxist (or, we'd simply call you marxist, instead of progressives), it's just seems like a lot of what progressives talk about seem to align with Marxism, ideologically and when applied to social issues...to which is called neo-Marxism.

You're not doing them any favors ignoring the structural factors involved in explaining why some people have an easier time than others either. Those factors are larger than just poverty.

I honestly do not know. See:

This says viewing motherhood as a role with qualities and characteristics is sexist.

What structural factors are preventing me from being a semi-pro baseball player, much less an MLB one, what about Nobel prize winner?

I'm sure some here would have no problem saying i'm an untalented idiot...

I don’t remember racial equality as being a big part of Marx’s philosophy.

I'm pretty sure I know. I think this bit of conversation is going badly because you're starting from premises that seem pretty bizarre from a typically progressive standpoint. We all call our parents mom and dad without thinking twice about it, and we don't generally have any major problem with "mothering" or "fathering" existing as gendered roles. Most people's ideas about what constitutes sexism are much narrower than that.

It's kind of like the point WillD made yesterday about the term "toxic masculinity" not intending to impugn masculinity en toto. Feminist critiques of gendered social norms don't usually extend so far as to say that there should be no gendered roles at all, except maybe for some small number of very radical feminists. But you shouldn't conflate progressives with that group.

These analogies seem particularly bad, so I doubt I could provide you an answer that would actually be relevant to this conversation. It is not primarily politically relevant socio-economic factors that prevent you from going semi-pro in baseball, or from becoming a Nobel prize winner. But it does not follow from this observation that there are also no politically-relevant socio-economic factors related to educational outcomes in the kinds of neighborhoods we are discussing.

What is your alternative. Youve identified a problem, and so far the only solution is that the problem kids should be separated. Ok, then what?