Elsewhere (196)
Via Bobby in the comments, Michael Wolff on the visions and follies of former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger:
If selling had been part of his job description, Rusbridger, who never met a pound he had to earn that didn’t disgust him in some visceral way, would have been disqualified long ago. Indeed, his early enthusiasm for the internet – and a continuing principle of faith for him – was that it was free. The corollary, that free had to be supported by advertising, was one of those cause-and-effects that it was Rusbridger’s unique gift to be able to wholly ignore… Having made a personal and moral commitment to free – both as a political principle and as a way to advance the scope of the Guardian’s message – he was confronted, and confounded, by the reality that he had no way to monetise his business.
Readers may recall the Guardian’s short-lived brand expansion into the world of trendy Shoreditch coffee shops, which the paper styled as “the future of open journalism,” a supposedly “data-driven” hub of Fair Trade beverages and online journalistic collaboration, and which was opened without Wi-Fi.
Blake Neff on destroying children’s futures in the name of “social justice”:
While the traits listed [being rigorous and punctual, speaking grammatical English] may simply be regarded as positive traits for success in the modern world, Dr Heather Hackman described them as traits chosen and emphasised to favour whites to the detriment of non-white groups, who are forced to assimilate ‘white’ traits such as good discipline and goal orientation or else be left behind. Hackman’s solution, then, is to train teachers to move away from all these aspects of ‘white privilege’ in education. She routinely touted the benefits of collective assessments (measuring student learning at the class level instead of determining whether each student knows the material), as well as eliminating all school grades entirely.
I share the above in case any readers had assumed that Dr Caprice Hollins, who dismisses foresight, diligence and punctuality as “white values,” must be a one-off absurdity. Alas, no.
And Paul Sperry on the consequences of government-mandated racial favouritism in school discipline policy:
In St Paul, Minnesota, a high school teacher was put on administrative leave last month after Black Lives Matter threatened to shut down the school because the teacher complained about lenient discipline policies that have led to a string of assaults on fellow teachers. Last month, two students at Como Park Senior High School punched and body slammed a business teacher unconscious, opening a head wound that required staples. And earlier in the year, another student choked a science teacher into a partial coma that left him hospitalised for several days. In both cases, the teachers were white and the students black. […]
In New York City public schools, classroom assaults have become so common that parents last week filed a negligence class-action suit against the education department, which last year adopted “restorative practices” [i.e., race-based exemptions from discipline] in lieu of suspensions. The complaint says the department “refuses to discipline or transfer” violent classroom bullies.
Further to which, don’t forget this grim farce. Behold the Long March in action. See its glories.
Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments. It’s what these posts are for.
My ex-wife, pure Chinese, used to despair when either of our two daughters didn’t work hard enough at school, figuring that they could do ‘just enough’ to get by (since they were both extremely bright): “White people disease”.
So, we’re damned if we worked too hard and succeed (white privilege) or if we don’t work hard enough and fail (white people disease). What’s left? Working hard and failing? Or not working hard enough and succeeding? Personally, I’d prefer the latter, but it continues to elude me.
Fortunately I’d long before discovered SF and Fantasy, so _The Great Gatsby_, _A Separate Peace_, and all the other gloomy, boring crap they foisted off on me
So in a thread where we are bemoaning, among other things, the inability of the modern youth to read hard books, you are complaining about being made to read hard books!
The Great Gatsby is a brilliant introduction to literature. Short, well written and not clogged up with philosophy — but nonetheless not shallow. If that is too hard for you, then you have low standards of difficulty.
And in any case, some of the point of English teachers giving hard books is so that people don’t turn up at University only able to read what they like.
It’s meant to broaden horizons, so that middle-class whites might actually be exposed to the non-dominant culture rather than sitting in a bubble. And also to force closed minority groups to see some of the rest of the world, so that they might see beyond their ghetto.
Next you’ll be complaining the nasty Maths teacher made you do Algebra.
So in a thread where we are bemoaning, among other things, the inability of the modern youth to read hard books, you are complaining about being made to read hard books!
No, I’m complaining about being made to read *boring*, *crappy* books, especially at an age where getting students to read *anything* is often challenging. Lord of the Rings I read several times in Junior High school. Atlas Shrugged I read several times in HS (yes, the characters were two-dimensional and the plot simplistic, but at least it *had* a plot, and characters who did stuff other than throw pointless parties). I’ve read lots of stuff, much of it more difficult, and more interesting, than _The Great Gatsby_, or _A Separate Peace_.
When people start talking about “great literature” it generally translates as “critically acclaimed snooze-fest”.
See, for instance, Vanessa Engle’s excellent documentary series Lefties, particularly the episode A Lot of Balls, . . . It’s linked below in four parts and is well worth watching in full:
Ah, Hang on there, watch it in four parts?!?!?
Unless there actually is something I’m completely missing, one can watch A Lot of Balls in one sitting . . . and can do the same with at least one of the other two parts of the series—The episode entitled Property Is Theft seems to be undergoing a bit of ownership discussion on YouTube at the moment . . .
It seems ironic that the Graun is financed by a trust that I’m guessing invests in various businesses and is basically a machine to reap the benefits of capitalism.
Maybe that’s why he’s running it down. No doubt the Graun can survive on his idealism.
“Seattle’s Community Police Commission wants the city to allow public drinking in designated areas as a way to reduce unequal enforcement.”
I find the taste of alcohol to be utterly ghastly, so the issue is rather academic for me, but unless I’m rather mistaken, public drinking in designated areas is already entirely established with such names as tavern, bar, pub . . . . . . .
When people start talking about “great literature” it generally translates as “critically acclaimed snooze-fest”.
I remember, decades ago, seeing a comic strip (Shoe, I believe it was), where a character had to write a book report.
The character wrote “Despite being a classic book in English literature, surprisingly, Moby Dick is actually a good book”.
Too often, the “classics” strike the right chords with what educators think should be classics, regardless of what the readership thinks. The modern equivalent are the various film festivals, where critics swoon over obscure films that the public will never see, and be none the less for it.
Absolutely, some literature is dreary, because some are more significant for their place in history than their prose. And of course, language and tastes change; what was enjoyable and in fashion 300 years ago may be incomprehensible today.
But I agree, reading the Great Gatsby was a chore. Not because it was difficult, but because it was deathly dull, and filled with pretentious characters we were expected to adore, but for the most part, I couldn’t care less about.
David?
. . . Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that there can never, ever be statistical differences in ability between racial groups . . .
Can you cite specific references, studies, etc.?
I’ve seen commentary of a sort come up elsewhere in a different discussion, where assorted uncited studies were merely told of, where when I’ve tried doing some bits of Googlemancy so that I could read for myself the original commentary on DNA and intelligence, all I get is immense handwaving in all directions, with totally conflicting claims and rather general references being pointed at.
So far, all I’ve got—and all such basically from my ongoing direct experience—is that when one individual is clearly more intelligent than another one, the clearly smarter one is simply processing information better and faster than the other. At all times in such, the DNA involved remains utterly unrelated and pointless to bring up, one can only move on to the next individual, and there is no way to extend out to groups based on ancestry . . .
Also so far, the only time I’ve encountered a viable assessment of intelligence based on a group is when the group description is social or culturally based, as in noting that if hipsters were capable of having functioning synapses, they wouldn’t be hipsters.
At the very least, something in the form of see nameofstudy by nameofauthor, wheretofind should be informative . . . and at the very least, such a citation could certainly be in the category of Build a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.. . . .
. . . The book that most horrified my teacher was Toland’s Hitler biography, which I was reading in grade 7 during lunch. I got “the Germans are our friends now” speech
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn’t happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they’ve hardly bothered us since then.
—Tom Lehrer
Oh, for those just being introduced to Lehrer, he’s a retired uni instructor, of mathematics.
I remember, decades ago, seeing a comic strip (Shoe, I believe it was), where a character had to write a book report.
The character wrote “Despite being a classic book in English literature, surprisingly, Moby Dick is actually a good book”.
Oh, definitely Skyler, that . . .
Can you cite specific references, studies, etc.?
I don’t follow the literature closely as I don’t find the subject of much interest, except, for instance, insofar as it touches on the dissonance mentioned upthread. I.e., where an insistence that diversity of outcome can only be due to racism somehow coexists with the idea that some ethnic groups can’t be expected to cope with deadlines or even turn up to class on time.
The charged and taboo nature of the subject makes it difficult to research or even discuss dispassionately, and researchers may simply avoid the subject for fear of being assailed with accusations of dastardly intent, or losing funding, etc. See, for example, this. Even acknowledging heritable differences within a single ethnic or geographical group, or between the sexes of a group, is likely to be met with disapproval among some. And so for a non-technical reader it isn’t the easiest subject on which to arrive at an unequivocal, evidence-based position.
There’s a chapter on ethnic and geographical differences in test scores in Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve (pp 269-315), which, while often attacked ignorantly and for political reasons, is carefully argued and has extensive annotations and data sources. See also this. There are also papers on the subject by Linda Gottfredson, who, again, seems thorough and conscientious. That said, I read these some time ago and I can’t comment decisively on the methodology, but to a laymen’s eye there does appear to be some non-trivial aggregate difference to argue about.
[ Links added. ]
Franklin Einspruch on the Marxist view of free speech:
Too often, the “classics” strike the right chords with what educators think should be classics, regardless of what the readership thinks.
Often the books were very popular in their day. But tastes can change in many ways.
Also: teaching can take all the fun out of a book simply because the student is reading the book not to enjoy the story or the process of learning things, but rather to passing tests and getting good grades. I have first-hand experience of this, where I did not particularly enjoy books assigned by various professors, but greatly enjoyed them when I reread them a few years later.
Alan Rusbridger got paid nearly £400K a year to edit a paper that was losing readers and revenue hand over fist, and was having to lay off staff left right and centre. The day he quit his job he walked out of King’s Place with cheers and rounds of applause.
Some people deserve a boss like that.
‘“Students might be more inclined to read what academics want them to if our curricula weren’t overwhelmingly white, male and indicative of a society and structures we fundamentally disagree with because they don’t work for us.”’
Any student who thinks that should be told that they belong in a kindergarten, and not a Uni.
Compare and contrast time!
“Students might be more inclined to read what academics want them to if our curricula weren’t overwhelmingly white, male and indicative of a society and structures we fundamentally disagree with because they don’t work for us.”
“The facts are stark: in every state and in every grade, boys are trailing behind girls in reading, according to a 2010 report by the Center on Education Policy, which called this lag, “the most pressing gender-gap issue facing our schools.””
http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/why-so-many-boys-do-not-read/
(Via Ace)
Seriously, if you’ve an hour to spare, it’s eye-widening stuff.
Bleedin’ hell, what a bunch of muppets. Blithering incompetence exacerbated by petty infighting: how unpredictable.
Blithering incompetence exacerbated by petty infighting
What’s interesting, though, is how often the incompetence and squabbling – and general unrealism – was a result of their own ideology. They weren’t just socialists who happened to be incompetent and unrealistic; they were incompetent and unrealistic because they were socialists.
Blithering incompetence exacerbated by petty infighting
It’s funny, watching the film again. There’s so much inadvertent comedy, obliviousness and utterly casual arrogance. For instance, the scene in which Henry Stewart, the paper’s finance officer, boasts of their having raised £6.5 million for the venture, as some great proof of their commercial viability and of “shattering myths” of leftist incompetence and profligacy, when in fact most of that money was siphoned from unwitting taxpayers via a corrupt GLC and from local authority pension funds. And all of which was pissed away on a two-month vanity project.
They weren’t just socialists who happened to be incompetent and unrealistic; they were incompetent and unrealistic because they were socialists.
I was thinking that the opposite is true, that incompetents naturally gravitate toward socialism, rather than socialism inducing incompetence. But on reflection, both appear to be true, actually.
If you’re no good at something, it’s natural to prefer an environment where your incompetence is not graded, and you are shielded from the effects of it. But when you are good at something, if you’re in a system where your skill and expertise are not rewarded, there is no incentive to make any effort to excel, and your output will drop to the the lowest acceptable level.
Rather symbiotic, actually.
But on reflection, both appear to be true, actually.
Yes, I think so. Leftism attracts incompetence and unrealism, and then repeatedly excuses it.
They weren’t just socialists who happened to be incompetent and unrealistic; they were incompetent and unrealistic because they were socialists.
Exactly! They could have had a hundred goes at it, with the same result. And I like the way that the “founders” – who had a Golden Share simply gifted to them for having the right political ideology – refused to give it up when the bloke who had poured half the money in wanted to take it over to try to get it back on its feet. It didn’t surprise me one jot that they were Scousers.
“Leftism attracts incompetence and unrealism”
They’re really good at slogans, protesting, shaming and misdirection though.
Blithering incompetence exacerbated by petty infighting
It seemed to me that their finance director got the position because he could set up a spreadsheet, although he had no actual experience in running a business, or in financial management or reporting. No wonder it went sideways. That, of course, and the fact that none of them had any experience in doing the jobs they were assigned to. The only one who did got thrown under the bus by the guy who buggered off to Australia in the midst of the launch planning “well, it was clear he wasn’t acknowledging me as the Editor-in-Chief when I returned – he sniffs. Of course he wasn’t you great bloody fool – because you didn’t act like one!
All-in-all, a very amusing hour or so…
I wonder what these esteemed educators teach their own children?
Vanessa Engle’s excellent documentary series Lefties, particularly the episode A Lot of Balls, which recounts the attempt by socialists to launch a “radical” Sunday tabloid in 1987.
That was a great watch. I did some googling to get some more background on the News on Sunday project, and came across this account, written by one of the people who were involved from the start:
https://bigflameuk.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/the-news-on-sunday-project/ .
It’s all pretty entertaining, and it confirms once more the completely unacceptable belief that stereotypes often have some sort of basis in reality:
I believe we created an environment in which it was impossible to succeed. It was full of endless meetings, back-biting, lack of clear responsibility and a sense of blame if you got things wrong. The debate over “No tits” became so heated that there were groups of people who wouldn’t talk to you if they suspected you of supporting it. You had to watch what you said and who you said it to. It was, with hindsight, what you would expect if you put a group of 80s lefties in charge of running an organisation. And I include myself in that.
How much more stereotypically leftist could they have been?
I just stumbled across #greenpartyfeminism. https://twitter.com/hashtag/greenpartyfeminism?src=hash
A sub-group of the (UK?) greens decided ‘women’ was not inclusive enough as it did not encompass everyone who does not identify as ‘male’. So they determined ‘non-male’ was a better term. So they really want to be ‘Greens, anyone who isn’t cis-male.’
Aside from the clear stupidity of it, it seems like they have just inverted the inclusiveness to exclude only cis-males (including gay ones I assume).
So they’re exluding 50% of the population. Not very inclusive.
How do these people manage to get dressed and have breakfast, never mind make it out the front door and drive something or catch public transport?
There is just too much stupid.
How much more stereotypically leftist could they have been?
I think the thing to bear in mind is that leftism is a self-flattering ideology, or rather, a self-flattering bundle of attitudes, and therefore tends to attract people who are quite vain, if not outright narcissistic. The clichés, incompetence and general obliviousness pretty much follow from that.
What also amused me is that they launch a newspaper to deliver hard-hitting critiques of the Thatcher regime, and their first story is…about a man from Brazil who sold a kidney. You couldn’t make it up.