640 karma · joined July 13, 2020
> This article decries remote learning and offers nothing to move the conversation forward on what WOULD work. The author makes no point at all other than complaining about how her child can't sit still. And I'm saying I bet her child can't sit still in a physical school either, so its not about remote learning.
Agreed, though I'd put that down to schools being un-engaging and useless and that gets _worse_ with remote. I'd be in favour of making 30-40% of the school day free time, like it is in high school. For knowledge work like learning, more hours doesn't necessarily mean more output, and it's really destructive to put that onto students.
Of course the 7 year old is acting out, but it's probably more to do with being stuck in a box/house all day with no interaction with their friends. And no, Zoom calls don't class as interaction for kids. This child desperately needs to play outside, not stuck behind a blurry screen learning maths.
> When people say they're "neither for or against, just annoyed" about something, they usually mean that they genuinely don't care about the underlying issue, and the annoyance comes from the idea that they have to care about it. I think this is pretty much just the maligned neutral you're describing.
- Microsoft/GitHub's work with ICE [prevents illegal migration, saving those workers from a life of wage slavery]
- Google's China search engine [gives more information than otherwise would've been available]
- use of AI in military applications [can save lives by no longer bombing civilians where it can be avoided]
I'm not going to excuse these things. What I will let slide is that it was individuals who did this, not "white males". I think associating race and gender with a particular ideology is deeply harmful to our culture, especially when those people were products of their time. They didn't know any differently.
> In terms of political, cultural, etc. power, they are, that's the point - you don't pick on people with less power than you (see also: British Empire.)
I guess we just disagree. I don't believe a person of colour has any more or less 'power' than me, solely based on racial divide. What is a problem in our society is class divide, but that isn't related to race. Or are you going to suggest I'm move privileged than Will Smith (or another rich/famous/powerful person of colour)?
Look at the UK government demographics. The cabinet especially is more diverse than the actual general population.
> For a long time, they were. (Trust me, I'm English, I'm painfully aware of this.) Many of them in power still are - just look at the GOP, for example, or UKGOV.
I'm English too and this is a complete mischaracterisation of our cultural history.
You can't judge the past by today's standards. To do so is childish and un-empathic. Remember, the British were the one to end slavery because our culture battled with this opposing idea (it goes against our core belief in individual freedom) for a long time.
Not to mention, every single culture on Earth would've done exactly the same if they had the chance.
> I mean, "punching down" is bad no matter who does it.
You're missing my point.
Saying that white people are punching down is racist, because it implies a hierarchy where white people are on top. It's a white supremacist viewpoint, albeit with a guilty conscience.
> Because it's still picking a side - "I don't want to get involved" is just an implicit picking of the side with the most power.
No - you don't get to judge people for staying out of this shit flinging contest going on in today's politics. Most people just do not care and they never will.
- affirmative action which sees white males as "above" other races, so "compensates" for others
- being told they're the root of all evil
- being told they can't "punch down" - even though this is a white supremacist viewpoint because it's putting one race over all others
- being told colourblind-ness is racist
I want to be peers with all races and genders, not divided over silly lines.