|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you really think that there aren't men in America, right now, who think women are subhuman? The difference is that race relations in the 40s and 50s had an institutionalized, wide-spread belief of non-whites as subordinate and inferior. The vast majority of whites believed this. The views of women by the vast majority of men today are nothing close to that sort of thinking, and this minority shrinks further when you get to younger people these days. I mean hell, if there is one single man in this country who views women as subhuman, is that enough for you to stretch that one man's belief to the goddamn institutionalized racism of the 40s and 50s?! Not to mention your comparison is looking at the 40s and 50s, where racial segregation was the norm. Coed classrooms are the norm now and studies are showing segregation has benefits improving upon the norm for a large numbers of students/types of students. If you really think that these situations are similar and therefore the solutions are similar (integration will help students more than segregation), then why the hell are we seeing these results when comparing COED classes - the current norm, mind you - to SINGLE-SEX classes? I mean drat there is race-baiting and then there's this.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
Because you're cherry picking your results to make it seem like there's an overwhelming improvement to segregating by sex when ultimately there is negligible or no gain. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-a0035740.pdf edit: countdown until the most minimal of studied groups that shows an improvement is used as an argument for benefits... esto es malo fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:I am now also curious about this given that I'm back on the north shore for the holiday. Who the gently caress talks about the breakfast club in the USPol thread? What, is Michelle back in town with a new nutrition initiative? Sometimes, students refuse to eat anything but McD's. What do you do, send them home hungry? (Yes.) If the teachers and administrators wouldn't eat it, why the gently caress are we feeding it to our kids? Make that poo poo part of a vertically-integrated production chain and slap on some "mandatory life skills" cover. Students should learn to cook, to garden, to jar, and to produce high-quality meals from a young age. If they don't wanna, they can always go and clean some loving bathrooms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The difference is that race relations in the 40s and 50s had an institutionalized, wide-spread belief of non-whites as subordinate and inferior. The vast majority of whites believed this. I mean, I get you're a troll, so I won't try and convince you that sexism is institutionalized in America. It is. But don't confuse your own hyperbole for mine, I was clear the scale is vastly different. The point is that even if you do see those results when funding and teacher qualifications are equal, when implemented at large segregation has shown to be generally not equal in the distribution of resources. You see this pretty much anytime there is a history of discrimination followed by segregation of resources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Because you're cherry picking your results to make it seem like there's an overwhelming improvement to segregating by sex when ultimately there is negligible or no gain. First off, that study itself admits that it couldn't find enough controlled studies to meet its own criteria for analyzing some areas where other studies have shown the greatest benefits: science attitudes, general school attitudes, general school achievement, body image, etc. Second, that study is essentially trying to push DIT theory (you can notice this by the portion of their studies dedicated to DIT) and even when faced with evidence AGAINST DIT theory, blames the disconnect not on the theory but on terminology, see here: quote:Developmental intergroup theory (DIT) posits that social factors Third, the vast majority of studies this meta-analysis looked at were studying older children, and a large portion of the single-sex schools were parochial or private schools which have a large number of other variables involved. Fourth, this meta-analysis conveniently left out within-group studies because of confounding variables. EDIT: That also fails to mention that at least one writer of that study is a supporter of American Council for CoEducational Schooling and has done multiple studies to show that single-sex classrooms are sexist, including articles in Science magazine with the leadership of the ACCES. Trabisnikof posted:I mean, I get you're a troll, so I won't try and convince you that sexism is institutionalized in America. It is. But don't confuse your own hyperbole for mine, I was clear the scale is vastly different. How can you have unequal distribution of resources between classrooms in the same school? Furthermore, please show me the studies showing single-sex CLASSROOMS don't get equal resources. Amergin fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Everyone I knew that went to the boys only Catholic high school (ours was co-ed) had a homosexual experience while there. So I mean I don't know if being distracted by the opposite sex would be the only issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Everyone I knew that went to the boys only Catholic high school (ours was co-ed) had a homosexual experience while there. The real question is, how many of those experiences were forced, versus how many of them would be forced in a co-ed classroom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
The real reason we need to ban co-ed classrooms is because the blood rushing from their brains upon seeing a glimpse of a female shoulder is far too much let them continue processing schoolwork. I don't understand why we keep letting them make decisions in adulthood, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The real question is, how many of those experiences were forced, versus how many of them would be forced in a co-ed classroom. I am not aware of any rape in either of those schools during that time, though there was the one guy from the boy school who prostituted out his girlfriend from the all girls school at parties. Rich kids are all kind of hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Rich kids are all kind of hosed up. Rich parents are all kinds of hosed up. Most of the drugs I did in high school were bought from my friend's dad's stash (the dad sold coke to me--cool dad, but a really bad parent).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
I think selling cocaine to teenagers makes you just a bad person in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The real question is, how many of those experiences were forced, versus how many of them would be forced in a co-ed classroom. This question seems redundant. He already told you it was catholic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The real reason we need to ban co-ed classrooms is because the blood rushing from their brains upon seeing a glimpse of a female shoulder is far too much let them continue processing schoolwork. Actually, its the tendancy for male aggression to be rewarded by social peers moreso than other forms of achievement. While female passive-aggression is rewarded among female peer groups, overt acts of male aggression are what it takes to quickly become popular in male peer groups. tl;dr you shove the loving nerds in the trashcans so your brahs laugh about it, and you sexually harass female students without reprimand from educators nor administrators
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I think selling cocaine to teenagers makes you just a bad person in general. He also was a stock broker or hedge fund manager or some type of high-flying financier. If he had a mustache he probably would have been twirling it constantly. e: Also lol @ the literal pimp you used to know. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Actually, its the tendancy for male aggression to be rewarded by social peers moreso than other forms of achievement. While female passive-aggression is rewarded among female peer groups, overt acts of male aggression are what it takes to quickly become popular in male peer groups. You shove the nerds in the trashcans to reinforce the social hierarchy in the school, and your brahs laugh about it because you're exerting your dominance over another individual and since they're your brahs, your dominance is their dominance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I think selling cocaine to teenagers makes you just a bad person in general. sorry your parents were lame, like mine
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
There really wasn't any bullying, cliques, or even harassment (relative to the time) of gay students for the high schools either though, so besides the everywhere presence of drugs and possible underage prostitution rings, it was a pretty okay social experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Amergin posted:You shove the nerds in the trashcans to reinforce the social hierarchy in the school, and your brahs laugh about it because you're exerting your dominance over another individual and since they're your brahs, your dominance is their dominance. Yes, Amergin, you rationalize why you were shoved into lockers. I realized that last month. Depending on the cause of the nerdiness, an individual does not deserve to be shoved into a locker. For instance, shoving a beta bitch into a locker because he was sexually harassing De-Da during Trig? Acceptable. Shoving a beta bitch into a locker because he was focused during the course and refuses to join your gang? Unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I knew this one Indian kid whose parents were rich enough to fly him to India and back on a private plane for his birthday once, and I don't think I ever remember him being anything but high as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, Amergin, you rationalize why you were shoved into lockers. I realized that last month. Depending on the cause of the nerdiness, an individual does not deserve to be shoved into a locker. I actually bullied kids, and it's because that's one of the ways I could climb the social ladder. Making jokes at other kids' expense was a panty-dropper. EDIT: USPol January: Obama Sticks His Cuban Cigar Into Rubio's Papaya Amergin fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I knew this one Indian kid whose parents were rich enough to fly him to India and back on a private plane for his birthday once, and I don't think I ever remember him being anything but high as gently caress. I only knew one rich indian kid, but he was huge into pot, yeah. Rich suburbanites are drugged out roughly 2/3rds of the time. When I was in my heavy drug use days I mostly got away with so much poo poo because my fellow users were rich white kids. Even though they had a big black kid (big enough to be done up Mike Brown Style, I was 5"8 and ~240lbs) with them (adolescent me), they were able to loiter every and anywhere. I didn't actually realize how good I had it till I got to college and my social circle became way more diverse and I had my first real bad interaction with the cops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:I only knew one rich indian kid, but he was huge into pot, yeah. Yes, well, in your experience, has the same occured in urban areas? I'm thinking of writing a post on the capital implications of post-racial America (in the sense that race cannot solely be used to determine an individual's accumulated capital; race and context must now be considered).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, well, in your experience, has the same occured in urban areas? I'm thinking of writing a post on the capital implications of post-racial America (in the sense that race cannot solely be used to determine an individual's accumulated capital; race and context must now be considered). Well, I hung out with rich kids but I was not rich myself. I was one of the poors getting bused in from the dirty proles living in a staunchly middle-class area. If you were to have looked at me and assumed I was poor because I was black you'd have been more or less right until... like... 4 years ago when my family hit it big. As for if it happened more in urban areas? No, not really. Even in urban areas I was generally around white folk and cops tend to leave you alone when you've got your white friends nearby. These days though I just avoid police in general and I haven't seen a cop that wasn't in his car since summer. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Well, I hung out with rich kids but I was not rich myself. I was one of the poors getting bused in from the dirty proles living in a staunchly middle-class area. If you were to have looked at me and assumed I was poor because I was black you'd have been more or less right until... like... 4 years ago when my family hit it big. I wouldn't have assumed you were poor because you were black. I would have assumed you were poor because you were fat, short, black, in a staunchly middle-class area, and unlikely to have a $60 haircut. Fat because the fewer calories one consumes, the more one spends on food. Short due to a history of malnutrition and lower capital intensive food consumption. Black and in a staunchly middle-class area indicative of either family holding semi-professional or professional, and stable, careers (unlikely due to fat and short), and lack of haircut used as confirmation. Much different from 50 years ago when one could simply assume black in middle-class neighborhood as indicative of SES and ability to retaliate against harassment. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I wouldn't have assumed you were poor because you were black. I would have assumed you were poor because you were fat, short, black, in a staunchly middle-class area, and unlikely to have a $60 haircut. Ah. Yeah, that makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Ah. Yeah, that makes more sense. Its what individuals mean when they say America is a post-racial society. We've firmly moved beyond purely judging you on race as the sole determinant of SES and somene's ability to shake you down; now we use contextual clues in addition to race, like selling jiffies on the street corner while black and obese. Unfortunately for black males in America, if you're athletic and black without $60 haircut or $200,000 watch with matching outfit, or morbidly obese and black and engaged in lower-SES behavior, police doctrine is to respond in same manner due to threat assessment based upon race-blind context. One must consider race in order to understand contextual clues in modern law enforcement policy and doctrine in order to prevent Ferguson; alas, Missouri is too poo poo of a state to assist and efforts must be focused upon states where upward class mobility throughout lifecourse still exists and requires amplification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:... efforts must be focused upon states where upward class mobility throughout lifecourse still exists and requires amplification. The trouble, though, is that these states are forcing black people out of their homes/jobs/lives via your usual gamut of racial discrimination, gentrification, and the continual down slide to a lovely service-based economy. If things run their course the way they have been the past few years you'll have blacks all over the country living like we were stuck in loving Missouri. poo poo, I'd go so far as to say upward mobility doesn't exist in America for most minorities anymore. Either you made it before the recession hit and held on tight or were/are being swept under by the rising tide of FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Well, I hung out with rich kids but I was not rich myself. I was one of the poors getting bused in from the dirty proles living in a staunchly middle-class area. If you were to have looked at me and assumed I was poor because I was black you'd have been more or less right until... like... 4 years ago when my family hit it big. So was Chris Rock's skit on "get a white friend" absolutely on the nose?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:The trouble, though, is that these states are forcing black people out of their homes/jobs/lives via your usual gamut of racial discrimination, gentrification, and the continual down slide to a lovely service-based economy. If things run their course the way they have been the past few years you'll have blacks all over the country living like we were stuck in loving Missouri. My advice? Get the gently caress out of Missouri. poo poo gonna get much worse, for much longer, before it gets better. If you're stuck in Missouri, move, abandon all hope, die, or self-organize and govern yourself in a manner which is in accord with best-practices for development. When the state opposes you, ignore them and do poo poo correct. What are they gonna do, sue you for reducing pedestrian deaths and decreasing rates of segregation? Who's going to pay for their lawsuit? Like I said, gtfo of Missouri while better opportunities exist. There is upward mobility for everyone in America. You're not gonna find it in loving Missourah Folks laugh at me for saying Chicago does its poo poo right. We do; we're not loving Missourah, nor are we Indianjins. We're loving Chicago, so get your rear end to our perfect loving city and make it better with a higher wage. Management don't give a poo poo about you. Therefore, manage yourself better. Don't move to the suburbs; don't make immediate decisions because they're easy. Move to a real loving city before poo poo gets too late for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:My advice? Get the gently caress out of Missouri. poo poo gonna get much worse, for much longer, before it gets better. Lol dude, I live outside the nation's capital in Montgomery County, one of the wealthiest counties in the country, and I'm still seeing what I was describing! The Missourification of America is coming hard and fast for non-whites. Raenir Salazar posted:So was Chris Rock's skit on "get a white friend" absolutely on the nose? Hanging out with more white people is basically a requirement to being a successful non-white in America. (Which is telling when you consider how devoid of minorities most white social groups are  ).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Therefore, manage yourself better. So... bootstraps?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Ugh, bring back cornchat, for gently caress's sake. Where's fishmech to sperg on about light rail or panamax ships or some other pointless poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
I vote boats for the next derail as I'll finally be interested in one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Ugh, bring back cornchat, for gently caress's sake. Where's fishmech to sperg on about light rail or panamax ships or some other pointless poo poo? Construction on the Nicaragua canal began today. This cannot be allowed and must be met with military force. China cannot violate the Monroe Doctrine!!! THEY WILL REGRET THIS!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I vote boats for the next derail as I'll finally be interested in one. All members of the Obama administration should be tried for treason due to their failure to bring back America's proud Battleships We have been waiting for the U.S.S. Montana for 72 years. Enough is enough! We cannot allow an armor belt gap!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:All members of the Obama administration should be tried for treason due to their failure to bring back America's proud Battleships Hold on now, Obama has outfitted our boys with loving lasers. loving operational lasers and railguns; who the gently caress needs armor when you have lasers and railguns?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Hold on now, Obama has outfitted our boys with loving lasers. loving operational lasers and railguns; who the gently caress needs armor when you have lasers and railguns?! where I come from we don't hold with any fancy electric guns. We must crush America's enemies beneath mountains of cold steel and sulfur.We will hurl shells heavier than office buildings from cannons barrels wide enough to admit my '77 LeSabre
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Can we have a derail about language etymology because it's fascinating stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:where I come from we don't hold with any fancy electric guns. Battleships are awesome. Wasn't Reagan's use of a battleship in Lebanon the last time one saw active combat; lobbing huge shells 5 miles or more inland. That was before the Marine barracks was bombed and we turned tail and ran. vvvv_________. Any chance the Judge will sentence him to the 3 years max in prison in honor of his campaign promise? radical meme fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
Two bits of news today: 1. President Bush I has been admitted to hospital after experiencing shortness of breath. 2. A judge has dismissed Sheriff Joe's lawsuit against Obama, ruling that Joe does not have standing to sue the President over his executive actions on immigration. I love this and can't wait for the social media age to become aware that expulsion is a thing Congress can do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:11
|
|
