|
Well, calculus isn't required for high school leaving anywhere in North America that I'm aware of, so... no, but I would argue that knowing what an instantaneous rate of change is and where it comes from as a concept is useful for many people, even if the actual process of finding a derivative is not. And, no, knowing about individual historical events is not important, but I would argue that it would be beneficial for our society if people had a better concept of how historical events relate to one another, and how geopolitical entities have behaved and interacted in the past. Not everyone has to be an expert at everything, but I think we should aim our sights toward making sure everyone has a good, basic education that will expose them to many different fields so they can find the thing they like, and have a good base of information with which to participate in society.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
"Knowing a single fact is useless, therefore knowing things is not useful" is a really poo poo argument, and perhaps we need an education system that produces people who are able to understand why it's a really poo poo argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
What do you mean by "participate in society"? That seems needlessly vague. People have their personal life where they can do whatever they want and people have their job where they contribute to society in some way. Your version of schooling seems geared towards the private side where people can discover themselves through hobbies (?). What use is that? Why should we spend time money and infrastructure on something like that? Wouldn't it be better suited towards actually preparing people for the workforce?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Obviously the wealth of the students' parents and teacher quality both matter. Since you are willing to grant that teacher quality is important, you would agree with me and disagree with Oxphocker that it doesn't make a lot of sense to categorically oppose evaluation of teachers' performance on the basis that teachers' performance has little effect on student outcomes. Teachers do get evaluated, the part up for discussion is how. Standardized tests don't really tell you anything about a kid's future/outcomes either, so why should we connect teacher performance to it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:If you grant that socioeconomic status has a huge impact on student performance, then evaluating teacher performance on the basis of student performance on standardized tests makes little sense. That is, however, the direction that teacher evaluations have been shifting toward. Does this make sense as the main measure of teacher quality to you? Ok, if now we are saying that students' parents wealth actually is the most important factor in students' educational outcomes, then it doesn't make sense, to me at least, to make the argument that teachers' contributions to students' success is highly under-valued, and we need entice the most brilliant minds into teaching pronto by raising salaries before our children's minds all rot. I really don't see how you can have it both ways. litany of gulps posted:The result of tying teacher pay or job security to standardized test performance of the students does not encourage the best teachers to go work in schools that are low performing as a result of socioeconomic factors, but rather to encourage all teachers to look for jobs in areas where socioeconomic factors guarantee that students will be successful on standardized tests. First of all, it needs to be said that teachers have incredible job security, much better than almost all other jobs. I would be shocked if job security for teachers were actually a problem. Secondly, how does tying teacher compensation partially to standardized test performance actually work in the proposed systems? If it is simply: Bonus = Multiplier x (Avg. student Test score), then maybe it isn't a good system, but if it instead rewards student improvement or controls for students' parents' wealth, then maybe it would be more fair. Obviously the system won't be perfect--arguments to the effect of 'well the system will never be 100% perfect, therefore we shouldn't attempt to implement it at all' aren't that convincing to me. Edit: Hawkgirl posted:Standardized tests don't really tell you anything about a kid's future/outcomes either, so why should we connect teacher performance to it? I'd be shocked if you could support this claim with evidence. It is extremely hyperbolic. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not everyone has to be an expert at everything, but I think we should aim our sights toward making sure everyone has a good, basic education that will expose them to many different fields so they can find the thing they like, and have a good base of information with which to participate in society. If you can’t answer the basic question on why knowledge is important, then you probably shouldn’t be passing high school. That should be the bottom line. Anything else just breeds the kind of anti-intellectualism we see in modern American society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Wouldn't it be better suited towards actually preparing people for the workforce? And how do you propose we do that without ensuring that students have a good knowledge base from which to work? The world needs journalists, and lawyers, and artists, and engineers, and pilots, and chefs, and doctors, and all that other poo poo that's necessary to our modern lives. Our education system should be preparing children so they aren't forced down one path or another based on choices they made when they were 12 or something ridiculous like that, and that means providing a well-rounded education.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What do you mean by "participate in society"? That seems needlessly vague. People have their personal life where they can do whatever they want and people have their job where they contribute to society in some way. Your version of schooling seems geared towards the private side where people can discover themselves through hobbies (?). What use is that? Why should we spend time money and infrastructure on something like that? Wouldn't it be better suited towards actually preparing people for the workforce? Because a basic liberal education is needed in order to effectively participate in politics, for one. It's also broadly applicable to the sort of jobs or societal needs we haven't even conceived of yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What if we just brought back the good paying factory jobs and made education a moot point. Not everybody needs to have a college degree. Is knowing about the Battle of Hastings or how to take a derivative really that important for most people? Germany's manufacturing sector fared far better than ours in a global market. Germany has a fantastic vocational education system, which does not eliminate history or any other core component of the curriculum. These two things are probably related.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2012/04/how-much-teachers-affect-student.htmlquote:Alexander notes that Goldhaber and his colleagues have concluded is that "that around 9 percent of variation in student achievement is due to teacher characteristics. About 60 percent of variation is explainable by individual student characteristics, family characteristics, and such variables. All school input combined (teacher quality, class variables, etc.) account for approximately 21 percent of student outcomes." So even though teachers are the most important school-based factor in student achievement (however you measure it), a teacher's influence pales in comparison to factors from outside the school. So now you can explain to me the logic of how student testing and observations should count 100% of a teacher's evaluation for effectiveness when teachers, even the best ones, account for less than 10 percent of student achievement. I've seen different numbers in different reports...but generally around 30% of student effectiveness is from schools with 15% being a good district with good leadership and 15% being effective teachers. So at best, only about 30% comes from the schools themselves. The remaining 70% is all the outside factors like home life, mental illnesses, poverty, etc. So as others pointed out, it's actually a combination of factors that are involved...not just a single one. So simply saying we keep throwing money at schools and/or we spend more than most countries for no effect is kinda inaccurate because it's WHERE we are spending the money and HOW. Standardized testing alone costs over 1.7 Billion per year - http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/11/29/13testcosts.h32.html For something that doesn't really help us improve on education. Finland doesn't even bother with testing the majority of the time because they are putting that money into equity instead of standardizing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Anything else just breeds the kind of anti-intellectualism we see in modern American society. Sadly, it's not just a modern thing... there's been a strong anti-intellectualism streak in American society going all the way back to the pilgrims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I'd be shocked if you could support this claim with evidence. It is extremely hyperbolic. You know, I did look it up and I guess there's no studies on it yet. The closest things I found were 1) standardized tests don't predict undergrad college performance very well, and 2) standardized tests DO predict graduate school performance fairly well. Both aren't about the types of standardized tests we were discussing, of course, so not related but interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Ok, if now we are saying that students' parents wealth actually is the most important factor in students' educational outcomes, then it doesn't make sense, to me at least, to make the argument that teachers' contributions to students' success is highly under-valued, and we need entice the most brilliant minds into teaching pronto by raising salaries before our children's minds all rot. I really don't see how you can have it both ways. You're continuing to miss the nuance of the situation, almost certainly intentionally. Let's lay out a few basic points. 1. Socioeconomic status is the most important contributing factor when it comes to student success. I don't think anyone anywhere is really disputing this, because there's an incredible weight of evidence supporting the idea. Now, WHY this is the case might be worth discussing, but the fact of it is not. 2. When discussing problems in the education system, we are often discussing issues present primarily in the inner cities and rural areas. For example, the drop out rate nation wide may be 7.4% or whatever, but in an urban district it may be closer to 50%. 3. A major problem in the most troubled regions of the country is how to intervene and close the achievement gap between low socioeconomic students and high socioeconomic students. This burden is often placed on schools and therefore teachers. If this is going to be the accepted method of attempting to resolve the problems presented by poverty when it comes to educational performance, then obviously you truly do need the absolute best teachers to make an impact. Do you follow? 4. Job security in teaching actually varies widely depending on the type of district you work in. A school that performs poorly on standardized testing, regardless of the reason why, may actually be a very unstable place to work. A school that performs well on standardized testing, regardless of the reason why, is going to be a very stable place to work. Do you understand where this is going? Are you shocked by that idea? 5. Typically these systems for performance based on standardized testing are, as Oxphocker has tried to explain and you have struggled mightily to fail to understand, are based on performance versus other schools. These schools may have wildly varying populations. One may be 95% Hispanic with more ESL students than any other school in the country, and it may be judged as failing when compared to the last school with white students and community involvement in a district with incredibly variable populations. Do you understand? 6. Given the choice to work in an unstable urban district where you'll be judged based on ridiculous measures or simply go to work in a stable suburban environment for comparable pay and far less stress, where do the good teachers go? Does this system lead to an improvement in the overall educational outcomes of students in the United States? Do you get it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Germany's manufacturing sector fared far better than ours in a global market. Germany has a fantastic vocational education system, which does not eliminate history or any other core component of the curriculum. These two things are probably related. They also segregate students at grade 4. We should probably start doing the same thing. Dumping more money into the system when the system clearly can't serve and isn't meant to serve everyone seems like a better approach. Since people at the top are more likely to be able to afford more, the charter/private system isn't so bad. There will be an adjustment period where religious schools thrive but since those schools don't really teach anything the market will ensure they fall apart pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Germany's manufacturing sector fared far better than ours in a global market. Germany has a fantastic vocational education system, which does not eliminate history or any other core component of the curriculum. These two things are probably related. Shbobdb posted:They also segregate students at grade 4. We should probably start doing the same thing. Please explain how segregating students at an early age into manufacturing training is going to help when our manufacturing output is at a peak and there are fewer jobs than ever in these sectors. Training a bunch of poor kids for non-existent jobs will solve our problems?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Please explain how segregating students at an early age into manufacturing training is going to help when our manufacturing output is at a peak and there are fewer jobs than ever in these sectors. Training a bunch of poor kids for non-existent jobs will solve our problems? But we still have lots of basic infrastructure jobs like construction, pharmacy techs, mechanics, etc. Your average German Hauptschule would cover those and we can fine tune it from there. We don't have to ape Germany's model perfectly. For example, the service sector is huge in America. We could train them for those jobs. That could also help normalize the career path where your fry cook really is just a dumb teenager getting training while the manager is a more well respected middle aged figure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:They also segregate students at grade 4. We should probably start doing the same thing. Dumping more money into the system when the system clearly can't serve and isn't meant to serve everyone seems like a better approach. Since people at the top are more likely to be able to afford more, the charter/private system isn't so bad. There's a lot of neoliberal rhetoric in this response that I disagree with. The market ain't fixing poo poo, and more funding is absolutely necessary. Tracking and segregation aren't really the same thing, although they might be in practice if implemented in the US. But magnet programs and honors track classes aren't segregation, and we don't need heavy handed tracking to improve the vocational options in our schools. The problem we have in US education is that we operate under the illusion that all students need to be prepared to go to college, which simply isn't true. All students should have the option to be on a college track curriculum, but many would be better served with vocational alternatives that currently suck or don't exist at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Germany is a terrible example anyway.  They employ more of their population is manufacturing than we do, but it's still a relatively small amount compared to services and it's showing the same declining trend as the US. Using education to push kids towards a dying part of the economy (at least as far as employment is concerned) seems like a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Yes, Germany's manufacturing sector has been declining like ours. But it's still a lot more robust, and their educational system is very likely the reason. There are quite a lot of jobs that require training, but not a college degree -- particularly in the medical field -- that are prime targets for vocational ed, too. Many students would be a lot better off if they could graduate from secondary school with the qualifications to work as a dental or radiology technician without having to pay thousands of dollars to a certification program, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:For example, the service sector is huge in America. We could train them for those jobs. We already are. We conceal the fact that we're training the poor for customer service jobs by calling them "business education." Is the service sector the future of America, do you think?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Manufacturing isn't the only trade... There are lots of viable jobs for electricians, plumbers, millwrights, welders, etc that can be very high paying in relation to education level. A multi year paid internship leading to a +$60k job is very obtainable for many students who would otherwise be pushed into a 2 or 4 year degree in general studies that wouldn't help them get a job... We don't have to start tracking ala German style at age 12... it could be as simple as starting in 10th grade to offer different tracks in preparation for a variety of fields including: practical arts (auto, shop, home ec, etc), fine arts (music, arts, languages, etc), college track, and top tier college track (AP, etc). Based on scores, aptitude, grades, personality, interests, etc...it would be maximizing their own interests with classes actually geared toward what they might want. But in a lot of places, the trades classes were slowly choked off because of the whole 'everyone goes to college' thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's a lot of neoliberal rhetoric in this response that I disagree with. The market ain't fixing poo poo, and more funding is absolutely necessary. Tracking and segregation aren't really the same thing, although they might be in practice if implemented in the US. But magnet programs and honors track classes aren't segregation, and we don't need heavy handed tracking to improve the vocational options in our schools. The problem we have in US education is that we operate under the illusion that all students need to be prepared to go to college, which simply isn't true. All students should have the option to be on a college track curriculum, but many would be better served with vocational alternatives that currently suck or don't exist at all. Let's focus on where we agree since "Neoliberalism" has become a meaningless buzzword. We agree the system is broken because it is designed towards an end that simply doesn't make sense. Rather than think about wishy-washy things like "the benefits of a liberal education" let's think about ends. What is the telos of education? What ends are we trying to reach? If we can identify that, then we can start thinking about means and methods. Gearing it towards employment seems like a good and reasonable end for general education. There is something to be said about "the world of the mind" but that's historically been reserved for the independently wealthy because it's not really productive in a way that translates to financial gain. If we're gearing it towards employment, why not start splitting at 4th grade? In Germany you can transfer between school tracks (it's not easy but the right kind of motivated student can hack it and that's precisely the population it is designed for). Why wait until grade 10? Those 16 year olds could already be trained, working and earning. Plus, it would help with teen pregnancy. It's not a big deal to be a pregnant teen if you have a career already established. Being a pregnant teen who has to drop out of high school, on the other hand, basically prevents them from having any negotiating power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:There will be an adjustment period where religious schools thrive but since those schools don't really teach anything the market will ensure they fall apart pretty quickly. If this was true the Middle East wouldn't be full of religious schools that teach little but how to be a fanatic and we'd all be much better off. There's also no reason why a religious school shouldn't be excellent. I went to a religious state school in the UK and it had an excellent reputation. My agnostic parents chose it over the other nearby secular school (which was just fine) because of this. In the UK religious state schools are legally forced to provide an education equivalent to secular schools - they just have extra lessons about the school religion. I have this sneaking suspicion that Betty DeVos will *not* require that religious schools provide the same quality education!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:3. A major problem in the most troubled regions of the country is how to intervene and close the achievement gap between low socioeconomic students and high socioeconomic students. This burden is often placed on schools and therefore teachers. If this is going to be the accepted method of attempting to resolve the problems presented by poverty when it comes to educational performance, then obviously you truly do need the absolute best teachers to make an impact. If you really believe what Oxphocker is posting, then good teachers aren't really that valuable, and fighting poverty by spending more money on smarter and more effective teachers to educate poor students is pretty hopeless. The report he/she posted estimated teacher quality to be responsible for 10% of student achievement. Again, if you really believe what Oxphocker is posting, then it makes more sense, to me at least, to put the money into other welfare programs rather than by hoping to attract smarter teachers, since teacher quality has such a small effect on student outcomes. litany of gulps posted:4. Job security in teaching actually varies widely depending on the type of district you work in. A school that performs poorly on standardized testing, regardless of the reason why, may actually be a very unstable place to work. A school that performs well on standardized testing, regardless of the reason why, is going to be a very stable place to work. I definitely believe you that teaching in an inner city school is not that great of a job, but you are confusing job security with turnover. If it is so hard to find teachers to teach in poor, inner-city schools, why would they be firing them all the time? Your earlier claim about job security for teachers being terrible was just a scare tactic. Teachers have incredible job security. litany of gulps posted:5. Typically these systems for performance based on standardized testing are, as Oxphocker has tried to explain and you have struggled mightily to fail to understand, are based on performance versus other schools. These schools may have wildly varying populations. One may be 95% Hispanic with more ESL students than any other school in the country, and it may be judged as failing when compared to the last school with white students and community involvement in a district with incredibly variable populations. Is this how the proposed performance-based compensation plans for teachers actually work though? Oxphocker hasn't explained much of anything to me at all, and based on previous posts in this thread, has a tendency to post a lot of hyperbole. I googled a couple of articles on it, and it looks like it is a little more involved than: Bonus = Multiplier x Average Student Test Score. Can you support your claim with some kind of source? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Feb 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, the problem with the teaching profession is that it's the easiest profession to get into off of a college education but it also pays poorly which means people who could be doing something else probably won't do teaching. The glut of teachers makes it a very hard field to get into unless you're committed to it early. I came from TV. My last co-teacher was a former chef. I've worked with lawyers. My fiance who also teachers has her Masters in neurology from Columbia. We could definitely do other poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you really believe what Oxphocker is posting, then good teachers aren't really that valuable, and fighting poverty by hiring smarter and more effective teachers to educate poor students is pretty hopeless. The report he/she posted estimated teacher quality to be responsible for 10% of student achievement. You are almost getting it, buddy. You are so close. Good teachers aren't solving the problem of poverty, they're a stopgap measure because our society isn't willing to actually address the problem. If that's going to be the solution, you'd better invest in the best, because that's a tough way to solve that particular problem. quote:I definitely believe you that teaching in an inner city school is not that great of a job, but you are confusing job security with turnover. If it is so hard to find teachers to teach in poor, inner-city schools, why would they be firing them all the time? Your earlier claim about job security for teachers being terrible was just a scare tactic. Teachers have incredible job security. Have you ever heard of the phrase "Improvement Required?" Are you familiar with the thought process behind "fixing" schools that perform poorly on standard testing? This is a rhetorical question, because the answer is obviously "no." quote:Is this how the performance-based compensation for teachers actually works though? I googled a couple of articles on it, and it looks like it is a little more involved than: Bonus = Multiplier x Average Student Test Score. Can you support your claim with some kind of source? You're the one composing this whole idea of "bonuses" out of your own mad brain. You think teachers are getting bonuses? You googled a couple of articles? Are you literally insane?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Have you ever heard of the phrase "Improvement Required?" Are you familiar with the thought process behind "fixing" schools that perform poorly on standard testing? This is a rhetorical question, because the answer is obviously "no." Can you post a source showing that teachers have poor job security? I think you are exaggerating the job security issue. litany of gulps posted:You're the one composing this whole idea of "bonuses" out of your own mad brain. You think teachers are getting bonuses? You googled a couple of articles? Are you literally insane? Can you post a source showing proposals for teacher compensation partially based on standardized test scores? I think you are exaggerating how unfair they would be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Google "reconstitution" you clown. If you want an example of teacher compensation based on test scores, look at the Dallas "TEI" system. Do your own research, you ignorant scumbag.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Google "reconstitution" you clown. Settle down Beavis. I'll look those things up. But I still think you are exaggerating and are using technicalism to avoid having to support your claims with evidence. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Feb 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Settle down Beavis. you could actually do your own research instead of lazily concern trolling, but that wouldn't produce the intended outcome i think
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Settle down Beavis. You can't work Google, clown? Case study - Billy Dade Middle School. Here. Since you clearly have nothing to work with and nothing in your brain, I'll give you a starting point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Settle down Beavis. I'll look those things up. But I still think you are exaggerating and are using technicalism to avoid having to support your claims with evidence. Project much, he of little logic and less knowledge?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If this was true the Middle East wouldn't be full of religious schools that teach little but how to be a fanatic and we'd all be much better off. Those religious schools in the Middle East are damned good at producing soldiers so they seem to be working great! Again, you have to look at ends. The ends for those schools is different than the ends for a middle school in middle America. Though maybe they shouldn't be, since military service remains the most viable path for escaping poverty in much of the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Can you post a source showing that teachers have poor job security? I think you are exaggerating the job security issue. 1) I believe people are saying that evaluating teachers on test scores would lower their job security, not that their job security is poor. 2) Proposals nothin; states were incentivized to use test scores to evaluate teachers with Race to the Top. Here's an example of teacher evaluations that incorporate student test scores: https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=54b589481130c00dd469e8e1
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
If they're seriously going to force private schools to be christian than that's only going to make the rich stupid. Not to mention flood the market with a bunch of kids with a completely useless skill of selective bible passage recitation - if that information even retains outside of a more useless mandate to see it on SATs. I mean, what, are they going to expect preacher to be a paying job?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:If they're seriously going to force private schools to be christian than that's only going to make the rich stupid. Not to mention flood the market with a bunch of kids with a completely useless skill of selective bible passage recitation - if that information even retains outside of a more useless mandate to see it on SATs. I mean, what, are they going to expect preacher to be a paying job? The poor will get stupider than the rich and the rich will enjoy obedient, unquestioning children. Remember, we're not just dealing with rich people, we're dealing with rich authoritarians. They have a certain vision of how the world ought to be and will do what they have to, to force the world into that position, whether or not anything about their vision is actually worth a drat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Your take isn't quite right. The poor will be completely left out of the system. The Rich will get fantastic educations and the squishy middle social climbers will have the choice of either letting their kids get education for the poor and get nowhere or get unquestioning obedience school. This reshapes the middle class to be a mindless stamp for the whims of the upper class as opposed to an actual mobile source that may be a threat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
Except I don't think this really guarantees excellence even for the rich. Specifically because what if they get uppity at the government? Better to make them obedient and docile too, which just brain drains the whole lot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
Who is "the government"? This seems like conspiracy-style thinking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Who is "the government"? Well there always seems a soros or actors or some other rival rich among those currently in power. If courts and smears don't work, they could just go after their children too to "cut off liberal indoctrination at its root". If they're going straight for education centers to control generations themselves, why not also target those with money immunity? Crabtree fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Feb 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 10:42
|
|