After pointing out your inaccurate and uncharitable (understatement) mind-reads I was hoping you would pump the brakes with all the silly moralizing and completely dishonest fabrication of narrative. Let's see what you choose
Correct. My OPINION is that people who switch back and forth between genders daily, weekly, or even hourly are mentally ill. Am I supposed to just think like you or I'm evil? There's no evidence to support my opinion? What exactly is so wrong with holding this opinion? This isn't "terrible" it's a perfectly reasonable evidence-based opinion. Thanks for moralizing though

No, I just made it clear my opinion is that people who tell you their gender changes back and forth are mentally ill. Describing this as labeling an entire community AT LARGE mentally ill is just you fabricating more narrative so you can moralize

You're right it doesn't mean "trans people are mentally ill". Why are you framing it as if that's a claim I made or put those words in quotes as if that's something I said? Within this same post you have acknowledged and responded to my comments that indicate this to be the case. Now all of the sudden it's convenient to fabricate a narrative and do some more moralizing.

What I did do was point out was that the difference in suicide and suicide attempt stats between the trans community and other people suffering and oppressed such as slaves or people in prison to suggest oppression doesn't explain away the disparity. Same with the different rates in the gay community and trans community. I even suggested if you didn't agree with that, to offer up some data that states otherwise. Obviously you haven't done that, all you've done is fabricate a narrative so you can hop on the soap box and moralize.

What that would leave a rational person to consider is how is this disparity in suicide and suicide attempts vs other "marginalized", oppressed, or suffering groups explained?
The fact that anything I have written being described as an attack is more narrative fabrication and moralizing. Nobody has been attacked or is getting attacked. Try not to faint at the sight of the morally repugnant people who don't share your views.

Was I "weaponizing" mental health when I talked about people coming back from war with PTSD, which is a mental illness that leads to depression, anxiety, and suicide? Was it an attack on vets?

Maybe you could offer me a random historical note that would help illustrate how ridiculous your pov is here.....
I guess diagnosing people with PTSD and categorizing it as a mental illness was a giant leap backwards? Maybe you could twist this in to some narrative where I'm wishing awful things on vets too
Uh right? I don't think there has been any disagreement with elevated suicide rates in the gay community or the likely cause. This is why it's used comparatively vs the trans community. It seems like everyone agrees that people in these situations attempt suicide more often. This doesn't explain the disparity though.
If my grandmother, mother, sister, daughter, girlfriend, wife, female friend, or male friend did this my reaction would range from stop skanking it up and embarrassing yourself to hey if you want my opinion on your social media behavior, just let me know. I'm not against watching porn either, that doesn't mean I think being in pornos is normal, a good idea, or socially acceptable. If I'm going to describe someone I know and that person was in a porno or repeatedly posts pictures of themselves in lingerie on facebook, that's going to be part of the description. Leaving that out would just be weird
The fact that I "mocked" them is just you fabricating more narrative and moralizing. People don't usually fill their facebook pages with themselves in lingerie. It's not normal behavior. Pointing out that they didn't simply come out and post pictures of themselves in dresses or whatever else the evil patriarchy deems feminine clothing is notable. I don't no what to make of it but it happened and it was notable. My best guess is an in your face defiance built up from having to hide that side of themselves for so long. But what's the point of discussing things like that, right? This is a message board, a place where you can fabricate narratives, attack people, and moralize. Maybe you should ask yourself if you feel confirmation about what a moral and compassionate person you are as you fabricate blatantly dishonest narratives so you have a point to launch your disdain at people

Since you are so concerned with bad faith posting yet have serious issues with the truth, perhaps you could actually do something other than moralize with fabricated narratives

Here's a few question based on my opinions which you have used all sorts of horrible characterizations for and described as awful. Since you're concerned with "bad faith" posting, you obviously wouldn't be opposed to actually providing an evidenced based argument (which is completely absent at this point)

1. What is wrong with my position that someone born with XY chromosome and a fully functional penis and testicles being a man, and that can't be changed?

2. Given my position on my highschool classmate (below), what is wrong with it, and why?

3. I believe gender fluid people (people who believe their gender shifts, from day to day, week to week, or hour to hour) are mentally ill. That's my opinion.

a) What evidence do you have that I'm wrong?
b) Is it possible to believe this without being a bad person, and if so, how?

4. Where does your opinion differ from my positions expressed in the previous questions?

I won't hold my breathe

Yeah this is some more awful stuff IMO

This scratches the surface

https://nypost.com/2019/05/19/advers...or-victimhood/

Ha, well it appears I have learned my lesson the slow way.

This is the point though. I've asked you (multiple times), others, and generally put it out there to anyone supporting AA. If you support it, then give us a picture as to how it would work. The categories, rankings, etc

Nobody even takes a crack at it. Ever. That's something you should actually think about. Like I mean actually think about. Not just how you would actually implement it, but the fact that you and everyone else supporting it hasn't even considered how to properly implement it and isn't interested in even attempting to articulate a rough plan. That to me is a clear indication as to the mind set of people pushing this stuff.

Meanwhile in fat studies

thread includes a video

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status...67570302316544

and in gender studies

https://twitter.com/RealYeyoZa/statu...70288342224896

Don't convince everyone I can predict the future. You were asked 4 very straight forward questions.

Still not holding my breathe

juan valdez, thoughts on trans women using public restrooms?

I stated my opinion and asked the king or moralization to answer 4 questions. As both of you have been absolute champions of the good faith posting cause, it would be great to see you participate and actually articulate a position. Within those questions my opinion is demonstrated. Feel free to state your agreement or formulate an argument as to why I'm wrong or you disagree

Definitely not holding my breathe

In theory I agree with everything this article says. But in practice, I think it is particularly concerning the efforts that schools go towards towards hiding the nuts and bolts of how they actually go about determining who to admit and why.
The Harvard case is a pretty good example of this. They fought tooth and nail to suppress as much information as possible, and were fairly successful at it. The fact that colleges are willing to go to such great lengths to be secretive and suppress information definitely makes it seem like they believe they are guilty of overt discrimination, and are trying their best to hide it. Sort of analogous to how Trump handles the investigations directed towards him.

Interesting stuff.

This is my favorite part as well. I feel like the 2nd half is a bit of evidence of the systemic racism... "but its data driven!" Maybe the first part can assign a racial score and apply it to AA.. Since its so "messy" a topic, I'll throw out an idea, how about we base AA rankings on gross median wage rankings by race.


Median household income (2016 US$)
1 Asian - 80,720
2 White - 61,349
3 All households - 57,617
4 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander - 57,112
5 Hispanic or Latino (of any race) - 46,882
6 Some other race - 44,798
7 American Indian and Alaska Native - 39,719
8 Black or African American - 38,555

This data is bad though, because its household income

I think we can file this under definitely a problem

https://nypost.com/2019/05/18/nyc-sc...nsiders-claim/

NY Post is too much work to figure out if an article is legit or not but assuming it's a real story, omg the humanity of the rare unjust boss firing whites. definitely a huge problem worth a few hundred posts.

NY Post is a real newspaper, if a sensationalist one. Don't fall into the Fake News trap.

I didn't. I'm just always going to be looking for a second reference for any given NY Post article. Maybe they're more reliable than that, but it's my perception they add in some dubious stuff.

You know what's really funny? That used to be a FACT not too long ago.

How could this happen, you may ask. NGOs produced their own scientists and simply took over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_(organization))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher...ent_Consortium

wat

I think we can file this under really bad idea


https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...51612076486656

imagine how fast you'd get banned for racism if you used a different race than "whites". This mindset and ideology is poison. You're so woke it's ok to say overtly racist and awful things. You should aim to do better

anyone who states their ethnicity as asian (true or not) on a college application has no common sense. just say you're white or mixed.

truth be told that probably extends to all interactions with others in the West. Never admit to anyone you are Asian, on a job application, meeting a neighbor, whatever. You might as well well be telling everyone you have AIDS.

I agree that we should not treat anti-white discrimination as inherently unworthy of attention or dismiss it out of hand. I have no idea whether the allegations here are legit, but I wouldn't assume they aren't.

I also don't think a single case can establish some kind of equivalency in general between anti-black and anti-white discrimination as social problems, but we probably should try to avoid the appearance of anti-white bias too.

I'm curious on people's opinion on worthless education and degrees. I nominate mental health and addiction professionals. Around me is easily more than a century worth of treatment and the fruit is rather sparse next to the work and time put that was put into it. Also as I science geek I studied as a teen/early adult, between studies and experience I don't see them actually having much value in curing mental diseases or addiction since they just outright fail at it. Yet school after school are teaching these "scientific professionals" methods that just don't treat these problems properly.


I'm just assuming that if it's that bad in 1 area of science, that there are many areas that are currupted and certain degrees are worthless. There's obvious ones like engineering, law, medicine and so on that are legit but in a industry that does billions in the US alone every year, you would think mental and addiction science would be more of a real science than what it is now, more of a band-aid approach cuz they lack any real method of fixing these problems.


These people make lots of money, for what exactly? To fail? How many other educations are good at making money for the professional but essentially leaves the customer lighting their time and money on fire?

I know little of this specific field, but on its face it seems like mental health and addiction are really big, important challenges in society. It seems correct that we are investing billions in it, have students trained in them and a professional industry to address it. However, it also seems like a field where unfortunately perfect "cures" are just not reasonable to expect in the way they are for dentistry or whatever. But so what? I don't see how that means we shouldn't do what we can, with the best science available, and with the best trained people, and so on. As in, just because it is an extremely challenging field that is often intractable, doesn't mean it is worthless to be trained in it.

Hard to cure mental diseases when the cause is likely modern society. Its basically the most unnatural **** ever

uke, we did all of this pedagogy bull**** you're talking about (in statistics, mind you) ~15 years ago and it turned out to be a total disaster. It basically turned everything into preschool courses and our students had trouble getting transfer credit and admissions into other programs. This at a large state flagship university.

Ok. What exactly was being done and where do you think the problems arose? What can we learn from this example?

I don't think anyone would think my classrooms are remotely "preschool" like. These are students who are collaboratively wrestling with highly complex ideas. They don't just listen to me pontificate and dutifully write it all down, they are (ideally) actually doing mathematics.

Active learning is very much in vogue right now in STEM higher ed, so there are a lot of people trying it and a lot of people succeeding and failing. Frankly, your example right now is currently too vague for me to do much about it. But I'll give you a different example from earlier circa 2014 attempts to flip at my institution. At that time (before I was there) they were experimenting with flipped classrooms but for the initial foundational pre-class module, they were using a series of videos created by the publisher. It was a professor writing on a chalkboard, with their back to the camera, delivering an extremely uninspiring traditional lecture, which was chopped up to be used for these pre-class videos. These were not paired with any formative assessment to provide feedback or incentivize completion. The result was flipped that first year did slightly (not significant) worse than traditional. These days, our faculty collaborate to create very high quality videos whose content is entirely tailored to precisely what we are trying to achieve in the pre-class space, and engagement numbers have almost tripled to the vast majority regularly watching (94% for our most at-risk cohort!!!) and now they are statistically significant improvement over the traditional lecture in performance. So it has to be done right.

Finally, I'll note that in my view flipped classrooms are a lot less different than people think they are, in fact genuine inquiry based models are more radical a reform. The reason is the basic structure of learning (Instructor introduces concept first, students practice and extend concept in homework) is very similar, it is just the switch of where these occur and the social supports that are placed with them that is changing. So expecting it to be a complete failure or a completely radical transformation are both not right on their face.