Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CobaltKobold]

Try giving a kid information on "affection" without telling him what is "sexual affection" and what isn't.

See that kid go through high school with everyone thinking he's gay, when he isn't.  It screws with a person.

Can you clarify this a bit? I'm confused as to what you mean.

*sigh*

Improper teaching of social rules, in general.  You tell someone that a given behavior is affectionate, but you don't teach them when it is appropriate or when it isn't... or things like "affectionate behavior in cats may be affectionate behavior in humans as well, but it will be construed sexually."

Screw my funky childhood ;_;

My choice of answer to this would be "screw said social rules".

1. catering to the lowest common denominator is necessary in any single-group exercise
-necessary if you wish all of the group to advance at the same pace.
2. "with certain assumptions as to what the maturity level..."
-Why make assumptions if you can test?

If maturity is an issue (and only if. Also this applies to other distinguishing factors), then one should divide students accordingly and actually teach at their individual level. Or at least closer to it.

When you can write a standardized test for maturity, we'll talk >_>

Standardized testing is not necessarily the answer. I think you'd agree that it would work poorly in this case.

As-is, I'm not saying that catering to the lowest denominator is necessary in any single-group exercise.  What I'm saying is that in this particular case, the results can be far worse than in other cases.

Example:

Math class is far too fast for a student's mathematical maturity.  The student may develop low self-esteem and decide to concentrate his efforts on the liberal arts.

Material is violent and student does not understand the implications of violence.  Student develops violent tendencies and a habit of attacking people when they do not do what he wants.  Much difficulty ensues.

Got rigorous, repeatable studies that a. show this happens and b. show this relation to be causal? The burden of proof is on that side.

Anyway, the first example has multiple easy solutions, since it will be objectively clear that the student is not doing well. Namely, create a remedial section, hire a tutor, or other solutions that fit (more exist, but I'm not familiar with this area.) (Also, I'm not sure why choosing to not pursue something one performs less well at is a bad decision.)

Spoiler: As for violent material causing violence (click to show/hide)

 my favorite take on this is considering Looney Tunes. Have you seen any children shooting each other because of Elmer Fudd? Or (various means of violence) because of Wile E. Coyote? Dropping anvils on people?

Also, the "nightmarish level" for Doom, shown on a prominent news program, alleged to be created by the Columbine shooter? From what they showed, it appeared to be the last level of Doom 2.

[Agdune]

It's pretty hard to jump into a topic like this 8 pages in (hello giant pile of anecdotal evidence and semi-related tangents!) but as far as the original topic goes, it seems to be an amazingly inane response to something that is really only an issue to crazy people.

Also this talk on why sex-ed is pointless is extremely amusing. There hasn't been a single example given of why kids learning about sex is bad that can't be explained by the fact that the education given to those kids up untill that point had obviously been vastly insufficient anyway.

Western society needs to pull its head out of its ass in relation to sexuality, seriously. The onion, of all things, puts it best (though for the purposes of comparing it to this conversation, ignore the porn part of the joke, or something.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4kwk5jV2nU

[Jude]

Also this talk on why sex-ed is pointless is extremely amusing. There hasn't been a single example given of why kids learning about sex is bad that can't be explained by the fact that the education given to those kids up untill that point had obviously been vastly insufficient anyway.

Moral guardians don't need evidence and empiricism, as long as people's knees jerk

[Leafsnail]

I've just found out how amazingly innapropriate some of the stuff on our Latin Course is.  Hm...

[Taco Dan]

So they do this, and my school library has Running With Scissors, which, I was somewhat surprised to find, has more description of sexual acts than that dictionary does.

So they let buttsex get through in a book, but not oral in a dictionary, that pisses me off.

[Jude]

Clearly nobody has discovered that piece of smut yet! Tell an adult and FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T OPEN THE BOOK

[Apostolic Nihilist]

I don't see a problem with this, actually.
Well, okay. I take issue with them going through needless hassle, but it's not hurting the students at all; it's just a waste of the teacher's time.

Removing a word from an elementary school's dictionary? So what? If they start removing or censoring words from middle-school & high-school dictionaries, that's when we start to run into issues.

Nothing bad directly comes of their decision. Nothing good does, either. They've made other dictionaries available and the students aren't at the age where the differences between them will matter.

There was a similar incident when I was in third grade: a geology book a group of students were reading had photos of statues — of women — with breasts. Once the teacher saw this, she took the book away. I take issue with this, for various reasons, but that's a different discussion.

As long as this doesn't start some trend of banning words deemed questionable (it had better not -- I have faith in you, Americans), I fail to see a reason to be annoyed. It seems like it's just something that'll get the serious anti-censorship people riled up.

Just a note: I'm not encouraging this behaviour, I just fail to see a problem with it. On a purely fundamental level, it's wrong, but realistically, it's not going to cause any trouble.

[Cthulhu]

For the record, they have children's dictionaries, filled with words kids need to know without any of the words they don't necessarily need to know.

As that's the case, I don't see why they don't just move the collegiate dictionaries to the high school and only give the kiddies access to kiddie dictionaries.

[Jude]

Also, a teacher not using a book with boobies in it because she doesn't want to waste time with the distraction of third graders giggling "boobies" the whole time is different from censoring dictionaries

[Vector]

@CobaltKobold:

No rigorous, repeatable studies, sadly.  Just noting that a lot of people who read material where violence is a morally acceptable way to solve problems end up behaving violently (myself included).  It gave an answer where none was before, and so I exercised the answer.

The point, by the way, is that it doesn't matter so much when you leave un-mathematically inclined people in the dust and they choose to change careers.  Not everyone can be good at everything, and very few people actually need to be good at mathematics (i.e., mathematicians need to be good at mathematics.  Everyone else can get by with a little bit of computation from time to time).

Anyway, the first example has multiple easy solutions, since it will be objectively clear that the student is not doing well. Namely, create a remedial section, hire a tutor, or other solutions that fit (more exist, but I'm not familiar with this area.) (Also, I'm not sure why choosing to not pursue something one performs less well at is a bad decision.)

I still consider that "catering to the lowest level" (since large numbers of resources are going to go to the people who couldn't keep up), but I largely agree with you.

As far as the second issue, defined here to be the sort of pervasive social muck that makes it pretty much impossible to act at a reasonably mature level... well.  Do you know what they do with the second issue, at least where I'm from?  They put up posters with facial expressions in all the rooms from elementary school and middle school and, provided that you're not too crazy, that's just about it.  If you're quiet and shrink from social contact, that's fine.  If you still can't read those damnable facial expressions, that's fine, too.

Nothing really matters as long as you're at the very top of that intellectual curve.

Provided that you're not a total rapscallion, there's no time for you, and no one is going to help with whatever's plaguing you.  This isn't exactly scientific, no, but it's a distinct trend.  Teachers don't have time for a lot of things we all wish they did.

So, here's the question: provided that these people aren't causing too much trouble, should we spend the resources on them or not?  Eh... I suppose it doesn't have that much to do with censorship, but at the same time I'd say that raising the lowest social maturity bar more aggressively is something we need to do before we can start really thinking about removing censorship in schools.

As that's the case, I don't see why they don't just move the collegiate dictionaries to the high school and only give the kiddies access to kiddie dictionaries.

I was using collegiate dictionaries for my spelling lists in second grade.  It would have been a distinct problem--what you're suggesting now is the blunting of the upper level of intellect.  I'll admit that I brought the dictionary from home, but it would've been a hell of a lot more convenient to have one in class.

[Apostolic Nihilist]

Also, a teacher not using a book with boobies in it because she doesn't want to waste time with the distraction of third graders giggling "boobies" the whole time is different from censoring dictionaries

Assuming that's actually the behaviour the students were exhibiting... which it wasn't. Banning a book because of historically relevant nudity denies access to the actual content. She probably banned it because she didn't want third graders to (heaven forbid!) see breasts, or didn't want parents complaining of the same thing. By banning it, she was sexualizing the content.

I'd say your description applies more to the context of the original article -- the teacher (and parents, apparently) didn't want 'oral sex' in the dictionary because of this sort of potential. I know people who used to look through dictionaries and laugh at the descriptions for 'penis', 'vagina', and even 'butt'.

I was using collegiate dictionaries for my spelling lists in second grade.  It would have been a distinct problem--what you're suggesting now is the blunting of the upper level of intellect.  I'll admit that I brought the dictionary from home, but it would've been a hell of a lot more convenient to have one in class.

Wait, what?
(To the best of my knowledge) Most children's dictionaries exist as slightly-toned-down versions of normal dictionaries anyway. I had them throughout 5th and 6th grade; they're just normal dictionaries without genitals and obscenities. They also usually have a heftier 'adjectives' section for each entry, at least the ones I used. I may be thinking of the more aptly named 'Junior Writer's Dictionaries' on second thought, but those fit the purpose just as well.

Still, I'd like to know what sort of words you'd be using (in second grade!) that could only be found in collegiate dictionaries.

[Jude]

I guarantee any class of third graders, regardless of previous exposure to boobies, WILL giggle and go "lol boobies" upon seeing boobies in class, NO MATTER WHAT

I know people who used to look through dictionaries and laugh at the descriptions for 'penis', 'vagina', and even 'butt'.

Ya me too

namely EVERY SINGLE PERSON I KNOW

[Cthulhu]

Everyone on Earth did that.

"Weiner" was the first word to ever be defined on paper.

[smigenboger]

From what I've heard of in the American '50s, weren't womans' legs a socially created sexual item, at least much more than now? America seems to only see breasts when either taking a shower or having sex, turning them into a sexual object.

What I'm getting at is if breasts really were put on a public blacklist, the public would take another part of the body and sexualize it, like how legs were in the '50s. If they too were to be blacklisted, then something non-sexual (such as eyebrows?) would take its place?

[Cthulhu]

I think you meant to put that in the Australia thread?

Anyway, look what Japan did when they made them censor genitals.  Tentacle monsters and slimegirls.  Come on.