Am I wrong? Did I treat this person in a way that you felt was wrong? Have I pushed forth the idea that they said something they did not? Did I overstep my bounds by questioning the motive? (Isn't determining the motive part of finding the truth?)
I would like to learn from this if I can. Dropping it would be nice, but I feel (and this whole discussion is evidence of that) it will only be brought back up later when someone wants to discredit my post or sideline the discussion.
Good man.
On the other hand, it's brought up whenever your rhetorical style is too obtrusive to stomach, because you're engaging in destructive tactics. It has absolutely nothing with discrediting your post or sidelining the discussion. A hint: you're actually not that dangerous in terms of opinions. We have all kinds here. Anarchists, libertarians, religious folks, adamantly non-religious folks, transgendered people, gay people, bisexual people, mentally disabled people, and on, and on, and on.
Look at the OP. It says no derails. We're derailing anyway because we want to argue with you and are having a damned hard time ignoring the little barbs and assumptions we find in your posts. This discussion is evident of that fact, not that we are doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to make it so that your points aren't heard.
Since we do not know each other, all I can do is fill in blanks. Please don't jump on those statements as if I was accrediting them to you. I fully feel that they were not written in such a way and you read into them as such.
This is where what I said earlier came in.
Filling in blanks is not all you can do. Every time you see a blank that could be filled in with an extremist position, either you ask (can still tend to offend people) or you wait for them to provide more information themselves, or you argue in good faith and assume that they think what they are saying and have no Big Scary Positions hidden in the depths (for example, maybe they're expressing high amount of pissedness about some topic, but they have no clever implementation of a solution--so assuming that their solution is concentration camps is just silly. Passionate anger does not necessarily mean kneejerk reactions). It is impossible to figure out which statements you are accrediting to us, and which you are accrediting to your mental model of us that you're responding to instead of us. Yes, you say "I can only assume that [EXTREMIST POSITION]," but on the other hand that leaves us saying:
"How the fuck did he get that out of my statements, so that it's the fully most logical conclusion?"
And again, I am not saying this to attack you. I am saying this because I really want you here and providing your unique experiences and knowledge, but I need you to be able to do that without hurting and annoying the other folks here completely unintentionally. And also, frankly, your argumentative style is driving me a little bit bonkers because it's one that I had not a couple of years ago, so there is definitely a part of me that's going "Aaaaah fix it fix it now or there's going to be Trouble!" Er, it tended to get me in a lot of shit, and I could never understand why I ended up having a billion arguments every day that just got bigger and bigger instead of ever diminishing.
I want to find out why you have an extreme dislike for the person doing something... anything to fix our debt problems (in a time of financial woe) and our ailing school systems. I want you to realize that your hatred for this man is blinding you to the solution he provided and it's non-conservative roots.
So, for example, you apparently know Truean's motives and ideas better than she does. You can tell her that her hatred is blinding her to solutions. You know her mind better than she does.
You need to stop making assumptions like this. It is not kosher. I have no idea why you keep on arguing in this manner, and I am not going to try to guess why. All I know is that you are treating her as though she has no way of filtering past a hatred of a person to an acceptance of their policies. It's infantilizing and rude. It assumes a lack of sophistication on her part.
You can disagree with her all you like. You can say "See, I think you're missing out on how totally progressive this is! He's trying out a new thing, which is the opposite of conservative, right?" Note that word--I think. That allows you to cover your ass later when she informs you that no, that isn't what progressivism means (or not). You don't assume anything about her interior state. You assume you can stand to learn from anyone you're arguing with.
And so on, and so forth. If I had more time, I'd explain more, but I have an exam to study for.
Thank you Vector. [soft hug]
Andir, I don't understand what you're doing man.
Let me summarize what happened and why if you wanna get technical, you've been entirely ad hominum to me
First, I was talking about education funding being unconstitutional in Ohio and said Kasich wasn't helping
On the school district case, I live in Ohio. That was huge news here for quite some time. Eventually the prosecution backed down after the fact when it suddenly occurred to them what they had done..... This is the problem with academically minded people and where the expression "dumbest smart person I know," comes from. The legal theories may have technically made this some sort of theft but just wow.... Look at what they aren't saying.... Naturally, the state chose to only prosecute one person in the whole damn state for this behavior and of course it was a poor black woman. Others had done the exact same thing, some of them for years, but they had not been criminally charged. Bull... shit....
Keep in mind, the Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly said the way Ohio funds its schools through property tax is unconstitutional. No one argues the state's funding method is constitutional, because everyone knows it isn't. Its just that no one cares and no one wants to fix it. Thus, we continue to have an unconstitutional state educational funding system and will for the foreseeable future....
What's even worse is Gov. Kasich is making the problem so much more terrible by attacking teachers and poorer school district funding from the state level. This means school districts in rich areas will at least have the possibility of raising local levy taxes to make up the difference whereas poor school districts (already at an unconstitutional funding disadvantage) have no chance of offsetting the lost state aid with local taxes....
you defended Kasich and asked for my source material.
What's even worse is Gov. Kasich is making the problem so much more terrible by attacking teachers and poorer school district funding from the state level. This means school districts in rich areas will at least have the possibility of raising local levy taxes to make up the difference whereas poor school districts (already at an unconstitutional funding disadvantage) have no chance of offsetting the lost state aid with local taxes....
Source?
Edit: There's this story:
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2011/03/16/story-budget-schools.html
Which sounds like Kasich wants to give parents choice in where their kids go. It sounds like a voucher system. Parents would be able to decide what school gets the voucher for their kid's school funding.
I presented source material, while expressing disbelief that you asked for it and addressed each one of your points in detail.
What's even worse is Gov. Kasich is making the problem so much more terrible by attacking teachers and poorer school district funding from the state level. This means school districts in rich areas will at least have the possibility of raising local levy taxes to make up the difference whereas poor school districts (already at an unconstitutional funding disadvantage) have no chance of offsetting the lost state aid with local taxes....
Source?
Edit: There's this story:
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2011/03/16/story-budget-schools.html
Which sounds like Kasich wants to give parents choice in where their kids go. It sounds like a voucher system. Parents would be able to decide what school gets the voucher for their kid's school funding.
Heck, the more I read about Kasich and schooling it sounds like he has a plan. It's almost a progressive plan... changing what you claim nobody is changing.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/kasich-promises-to-bring-teach-for-america-to-ohio-1106749.html
More:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/03/kasich-plan-would-let-parents-fix-failing-schools.html
The highlights here:
- If parents disagree with the way the kids are being taught they can petition to have it changed, by law
- School funding at a per pupil level instead of levee based. So I don't see how poor communities would be disadvantaged here.
Are you kidding? He's hardly progressive in any sense of the word.... I'm well aware of his proposed "solutions." Do you really want me to look for a source saying that cutting state funding hurts education and specifically hurts poorer districts? Do you understand I could inundate you with them? I haven't met an educator who likes Kasich and they tend to write... a lot. Additionally your own articles mention the undeniable spending cuts he is making to education. Tell you what, you're from Columbus, how about some from your local paper?
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2011/01/20/proposed-education-cuts-will-hurt-poor-kids-the-most.html?sid=101
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/22/copy/critics-say-kasich-budget-will-hurt-poor.html
Are you actually calling me out on not having a source for opposing Kasich's education cuts, especially that they hurt poor schools? You can disagree with me if you want, but don't say there isn't an ocean of opposition to him and tons of written sources to that effect....
Vouchers:
Vouchers are not the way to go. Public education needs widespread reform in order to be effective. Your own article states that the "parent's choice" voucher provision only applies to parents in school districts that perform in the bottom 5% of the state school districts and that is a narrow reform. (Kasich knows we don't have the money to privatize all the under performing schools and you do or should too). If you are in a school district performing in the bottom 6th-49th% this simply doesn't apply to you and Governor Kasich has no plan to help you at all, or at least his voucher plan doesn't.... Those widespread cuts to education? Those hit hard and vouchers can't provide the cushion he wants people to think they can.
Have you read some of the alleged "remedies" of this crap the governor thinks parents should be able to do in these bottom 5% performing schools?
"• Converting into a charter school. [How the hell is anyone going to pay for that? Unfunded mandate]
• Replacing at least 70 percent of the staff. [And replace them with who and how exactly and with what plan for improvement?]
• Contracting with another school district, an effective nonprofit group or a for-profit group to operate the school. [pray someone else can figure it out]
• Turning the school's operation over to the Ohio Department of Education. [complicated, unspecified, unpredictable results]
• Making "fundamental reforms" to the school's staffing or governance. [what the heck does this even mean?]"
This is crap that sounds good but no one really can practically do. It might get him reelected; but it won't fix jack, which is exactly what he's planning on. Also Vouchers generally have problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher#Legal_challenges
Teach for America
Is also not the way to go because it doesn't address the problem at all. First of all, these people may have no background in education/teaching whatsoever, your article says they are given just 5 weeks of training and don't meet current certification standards! Are you serious, 5 weeks of training? That's supposed to prepare them for the hell that is today's classrooms? Just because someone got good grades in college doesn't mean they understand anything at all much less that they know how to teach material to someone who doesn't get it.... I have had countless professors who were clearly brilliant; they knew their subject matter but damned if they knew how to teach it. How to teach is its own skill and it involves communication. Moreover, we're just gonna can all the existing teachers? Really? The magic pill is to replace what we have with ... what exactly. He doesn't have a plan, he's just throwing out what we have to replace it with something that hasn't been thought out well....
Summation:
No! This man speaks like he's thinking up slogans that will fit on a bumper sticker, because that's exactly what he is doing. Someone needs to role up their sleeves and get into the nitty gritty mechanics of things. Giving only 5% of parents the possibility of a choice if they go through a crazy process doesn't fix the system at large.....
We could just fund our schools like any of the other 49 states do, but no..... Instead let's attack teachers along with police, firemen and every other public employee in Ohio, which the governor is expressly against....
Edit2:
It actually looks like it's the normally richer schools that are throwing the biggest fits:
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/ohio_gop_lawmakers_plan_change.html
In Cuyahoga County -- home to some of the deepest cuts in state funding for wealthy schools under Kasich's proposal -- 18 of 31 school districts would be helped by such a provision. The districts are all suburban, with relatively high property values such as Orange, Rocky River, Westlake and Beachwood.
Wow, let me spell this out for you. I know Cuyhoga County.... They aren't hurting in those districts at all in the slightest. They are getting cuts, everyone is. The rich folks are just complaining more. "Deepest Cuts?" Under "No Child Left Behind." The top performing schools got more money, and these were the top performing schools. I have been to each and every one of those districts, they actually have something to cut in terms of funding. However, in downtown Cleveland (Glennville, Marshal, etc) THERE'S NOTHING TO CUT. These districts are already operating on a bare bones budget and barely surviving. Cutting their funding means that these schools are in serious danger of shutting down and/or having to consolidate.
These articles miss the mark entirely.... "OMG! They're taking more from Rocky River than they are from the piss poor inner city Cleveland Ghetto Schools. Waaaah!" These rich little morons.... [headdesk] What would you like them to take away from people who already have nothing? This is exactly what I'm talking about with overeducated morons with absolutely no god damn practical sense whatsoever who will point to these numbers and say they are the most disadvantaged by the recent cuts....
you completely ignored my points, all of them. You reduced them all to two words, "funding complaints." It isn't that you "didn't feel like going through all of them," you didn't go through a single one of them or any part of them. Rather you totally marginalized them and basically said I was just complaining about funding, that I was mad for the sake of being mad. If you would've just done that it would've been interesting enough but then you chose to ascribe or very strongly imply terrible motives to me: bias and ignorance. So rather than addressing my points at all, you decide to say I'm biased and that don't get it/can't get it because I'm too biased.....
[funding complaints ...]
I suppose you have seen that they doubled funding? ( source links here: http://www.politifact.com/ohio/promises/kasich-o-meter/promise/782/promote-school-choice/ ) ... so that pretty much invalidates most of your post. Sure... there are still some cuts (but mainly from wealthy districts.)
Funding is done on a per student basis (despite the vouchers for the lower 5%... that allow parents to get their kids out of the poor performance school.) This means that those poor schools you claim are hurt by this are actually getting a proportionate amount of money. I also don't understand your claim that the district can just raise taxes... if you're in a poor district, isn't that like squeezing water out of a lump of dirt?
The rest of your post just sounds like you are mad simply to be mad at something (because he's republican? because he's trying to cut the overspending?) You stated yourself that you don't know what the options entail. To you that sounds like you are mad at uncertainty.
RE: Teach for America...
Apparently they get results:
http://www.hydefoundation.org/news/2011/01/06/teach-for-america-grads-in-tennessee-outperform-their-peers.155670
http://www.urban.org/publications/411642.html
The findings show that TFA teachers are more effective, as measured by student exam performance, than traditional teachers. Moreover, they suggest that the TFA effect, at least in the grades and subjects investigated, exceeds the impact of additional years of experience, implying that TFA teachers are more effective than experienced secondary school teachers. The positive TFA results are robust across subject areas, but are particularly strong for math and science classes.
I don't care if you think Kasich is the biggest ass in the world. The proposal sounds great to me.
Also, what's with the attitude?
Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_in_qIfT538&feature=channel
He talks specifically about cuyahoga county's problem.
I basically called you on point four and said you could either address my points or know I wouldn't be addressing yours.
Hey Andir. Try not to ascribe motives to me or put words in my mouth while ignoring my very clear CRAC (Conclusion, Rule, Analysis Conclusion) formulated arguments. You've done this before on this thread and I'm not about to deal with it:
(I know... I'm not supposed to being up prevention or solutions, only sit around the campfire and share feelings and hug... sorry!)
Did I say that?
No. No, I did not. This is part of cleaning up your rhetoric, bucko. You stop putting words in the OP's mouth.
What did you think it was going to do for you, hm? I run off, and go "Oh man, he has demeaned the space I am maintaining by implying that it is nothing more than a little support group, no matter how many arguments and oppositions I have entertained here! No fucking way. I will immediately stop policing language in order to allow people who have actually experienced this shit to speak, because Andir's opinion is the most important."
No. If you disagree with my attitudes and opinions--particularly about moderation--you can ask questions or make a case, whatever. I've gotten PMs about this, spoken about it in other threads. Hell, the first couple pages are basically about suggestions in changes to the OP and its interpretation, putting both religion and conservatism under its banner of protection. I've happily listened to all of these people and incorporated their suggestions. But I am tired of sitting here and having to moderate your nastiness.
Your points are perfectly valid, but if you want people to listen to you, you need to stop this. Period. It isn't conducive to keeping the status of this thread inside debate and outside argument.
I addressed your points specifically whereas you sorta glanced over mine and filled in whatever you thought I meant. I made references to your articles, all of which I took the time to read. Your quotation of my well thought out points was simply:
[funding complaints ...]
If you're not going to take the time to deal with my posts I'm not going to take the time to deal with yours, except to say that I understand Ohio law better than most anyone else you'll meet. Look back through my numerous posts on law and you'll see why.... 
. Hint, I argue for a living in Ohio....
One ironic part to me was: "Public education needs widespread reform in order to be effective." -- How is Kasich's plan not widespread reform?
I've addressed this point specifically in at least two posts and you keep repeatedly going right over it and asking the same question I've already answered: Because the "parent choice program" only applies to 5% of schools and the voucher program just doesn't cover a big percentage of the state's students.
Very first post:
Vouchers:
Vouchers are not the way to go. Public education needs widespread reform in order to be effective. Your own article states that the "parent's choice" voucher provision only applies to parents in school districts that perform in the bottom 5% of the state school districts and that is a narrow reform. (Kasich knows we don't have the money to privatize all the under performing schools and you do or should too). If you are in a school district performing in the bottom 6th-49th% this simply doesn't apply to you and Governor Kasich has no plan to help you at all, or at least his voucher plan doesn't.... Those widespread cuts to education? Those hit hard and vouchers can't provide the cushion he wants people to think they can.
Have you read some of the alleged "remedies" of this crap the governor thinks parents should be able to do in these bottom 5% performing schools?
"• Converting into a charter school. [How the hell is anyone going to pay for that? Unfunded mandate]
• Replacing at least 70 percent of the staff. [And replace them with who and how exactly and with what plan for improvement?]
• Contracting with another school district, an effective nonprofit group or a for-profit group to operate the school. [pray someone else can figure it out]
• Turning the school's operation over to the Ohio Department of Education. [complicated, unspecified, unpredictable results]
• Making "fundamental reforms" to the school's staffing or governance. [what the heck does this even mean?]"
This is crap that sounds good but no one really can practically do. It might get him reelected; but it won't fix jack, which is exactly what he's planning on. Also Vouchers generally have problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher#Legal_challenges
My whole point is that in theory it sounds good, but I just don't believe it is well defined enough currently and its scope is too narrow. If you believe that it is then fine, but I think the Governor needs to address the mechanics of how he is going to actually give parents a choice in a meaningful, far more detailed way on a large scale. The keywords I'm seeing are "he stated," but I'm not seeing how this is going to practically work. For example, say you replace 70% of the school staff and replace them with "new hires" then what? What are the new hires going to do that the old ones didn't. How are things going to be different? These are valid questions that are currently unanswered. His approach seems to be far too simplistic to work and even then these things only apply to people who are in the bottom 5% of schools. This means that the other 95% of parents in school districts don't have a choice..... What about them?
I hope we can agree that a the program only providing choice for 5% is a valid concern.... Its scope is very narrow. Really it only gives 5% of parents a choice and that's only if a majority of the parents in that bottom 5% all vote to basically overthrow the school district....
I didn't do a single solitary ad hominem attack against you. You don't seem to like my introductory phrases of "Tell you what," or "let me spell it out for you." No one else has ever complained about that to me ever, I talk like that in real life sometimes and no one cares. Your questions are entirely suggestive and rhetorical, because all of your questions are directed directly towards me and imply negative motives/bias/ignorance.
You are overreacting and imagining horrible things about me:(I literally imagined you tossing the table aside and getting right in my face.)
Where in the hell did you get that? Wow, really? You are imagining me tossing aside tables and getting in your face huh? Yeah I can't imagine anyone thinking you're overreacting.... This is another example of you totally putting words in my mouth/ascribing motives and actions to me that come out of nowhere. Even if I had a disagreement with you, do you think I'm going to physically fight you or something? Why? I'm a transsexual who likes men and wants to be a woman desperately, where the crap did you get this from?
I do feel as though you push this idea aside (partially or wholly) based on who presented it. (Opinion... I'm not telling you what you said.)
Do you understand that it is the substance of what you say instead of the form of it that is getting you in trouble here? You put a little disclaimer on the end saying you weren't ascribing motives/putting words in my mouth, but the substance of that statement totally does exactly that. It says you really do feel like I'm just biased and pushed the idea aside just because it came from Kasich.... That's what you're doing here even though you're saying it isn't and its far from just me who thinks so. This right here is an example of you doing it....
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 870402 times)