TIL that some colleagues think we should start “experimenting” with face-to-face teaching ASAP... to find out whether it’s safe.
I guess this is what happens when the deceased can keep lecturing
Sure, my 70+ mom is still not *old* enough to qualify for the vaccine in Quebec, but some of my colleagues are SUPER TIRED of Zoom, so
I’m really running out of f*cks to give, as they say
The sheer disregard of members of our lil’ “community” for the health and well-being of other members is a thing to behold.
Bear in mind we kicked the pandemic off by booting students out of dorms with nowhere for them to go, only walking that back when it became embarrassing
Anyway I guess I should be relieved to know we’re bringing nearly the same passion and thoughtfulness to each other’s health that we muster for such fundamental questions as chalkboards vs whiteboards
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
it's like watching someone turn into James Lindsay by choice
step 1: define your political opponent as bad, make up a term for them that underlines the imputed badness, but let the idea that the term is a neutral analytical one persist
step 2: appeal to common sense/intuition/reasoning as fact (without any real work to show why the point is in fact intuitive or reasonable, let alone factual)
Introductions and summaries have their place but "don't try to read the primary texts, you won't understand them and it will frustrate you," besides being patronizing, is bad advice.
Reading widely and talking with other people, formally or informally, is often a good idea.
Part of the value of primary texts is that they have been and still are open to different readings. Substituting a summary -- as opposed to using one as a help -- closes off that engagement. If you are curious about the ideas in the first place, why would you want to do that?
I also find that moving from incomprehension to (greater) understanding by working through texts or other primary material -- with helps, by all means! -- is a good part of the value of reading and indeed of education in general. Why would I want to short-circuit that?
So, in sum, a school district made material available and Counterweight helped get it removed and replaced. "Extreme" is vague rhetorical garnish.
I don't see how this is more than an ideological pressure group -- which is fine, but has nothing to do with protecting free speech.
I mean, the whole point is explicitly to make things they don't agree with harder for people to access. The comments congratulate them on rolling back CRT "implementation", but that's a red herring -- by their own account, the only "implementation" was making material available.
Again -- if you want to be an ideological pressure group that agitates for school boards to replace things you don't like for ideological reasons with things you do, OK. That's your right. But to pretend this is about promoting free speech or debate is silly. It's clearly not.
Thread on the history of self-interest, drawing on my chapter for a volume on the subject coming out shortly routledge.com/Historicizing-…
One of the most influential arguments about the history of self-interest as an idea is in Albert Hirschman's book, The Passions and the Interests (1977), helpfully subtitled "Political Arguments for Capitalism before its Triumph". press.princeton.edu/books/paperbac…
Simply put, Hirschman located the weakness of contemporary economic analysis in a failure to recognize the ideological roots of economic thought. Rather than timeless fact of human nature, however, economic self-interest had been theorized in particular historical circumstances.
The "Two Cultures" debate ceased to mean anything the minute Quillette used C. P. Snow in order to attack humanities and social sciences and defend scientific racism and eugenics.
It's just culture-war shorthand for "worldviews" that answer neither to Snow's actual descriptions nor to the current realities of research in any of the fields concerned.
Notably, Snow's targets were not social scientists, nor "humanists" in any general sense; notably, too, he distinguished between the situation in the UK and that in the US. Finally, he wrote before most people working today -- and many research fields -- were born.