I was completely unaware that people were allowed to post from mental institutions.
It's all very funny these clowns don't ever chase their guys from Bannon and whoever else Trump is openly recruiting on down (not to mention the "white country", "chimps" and muslim-genocide sorts around here), but get real upset when anyone calls any of them on it.
I'm sure there'll be some liberal/moderate brilliant gentleman along shortly to apologize for your lot, that it's all due to unfortunate economics or something and not inherent sense of racial entitlement that's passed down the generations.
I was completely unaware that people were allowed to post from mental institutions.
Easy to see why only klan recruiters accuse you guys of cleverness.
What's your handle over at Ars?
How did it feel when Reddit outted you, as the troll you are?
Have you ever watched the movie, Red Dawn?
Still married to the geek, or did she kick your ass to the curb?
How's the weather in Boston, or did you move back to California?
Still a Hells Angels wannabe?
Of course you will. I never said any different. You'll also characterize it in a way that justifies your own greed.
LOL, sure. "Greed", eh? Good thing your betters who are the wealthy suburbanites are very generous and fund charities that help kids like this.
Money is mobile. It moves out of the city, out of the county, out of the state, and even... out of the country.
Funding might be an issue of topic here, but so is the effect of flight further reinforcing ethnic enclaves.
People segregate themselves, what are we to do about it?
So far it seems the only argument is over money. Perhaps over many decades enough wealth could dissolve an ethnic enclave... by letting people both venture out, and encouraging others to move in. That's why major cities, in totality, can be quite diverse but they too all share ethnic neighborhoods. A rich white section, a poor black section. Chicago exemplifies this, yes? It would appear that money alone is no answer to the crux of the issue.
Although it might help if all the people in poverty had social security to meet their needs. As a way to discourage crime perhaps.
Yes... perhaps it really does begin by obtaining a better, national, economic structure. Maybe this recent rise of racial tension is merely because Americans are poorer and more desperate than previous decades. Are we really at each others throats because of how !@#$y things have become?
Maybe after a certain economic tipping point we're all just starving dogs fighting over scraps.
Money is mobile. It moves out of the city, out of the county, out of the state, and even... out of the country.
Funding might be an issue of topic here, but so is the effect of flight further reinforcing ethnic enclaves.
People segregate themselves, what are we to do about it?
So far it seems the only argument is over money. Perhaps over many decades enough wealth could dissolve an ethnic enclave... by letting people both venture out, and encouraging others to move in. That's why major cities, in totality, can be quite diverse but they too all share ethnic neighborhoods. A rich white section, a poor black section. Chicago exemplifies this, yes? It would appear that money alone is no answer to the crux of the issue.
Although it might help if all the people in poverty had social security to meet their needs. As a way to discourage crime perhaps.
Yes... perhaps it really does begin by obtaining a better, national, economic structure. Maybe this recent rise of racial tension is merely because Americans are poorer and more desperate than previous decades. Are we really at each others throats because of how !@#$y things have become?
Maybe after a certain economic tipping point we're all just starving dogs fighting over scraps.
I think it is the rise of social media.
I saw a video the other day on youtube where a young black woman asserted that ALL white people were racist and that they should not be interacted with until they acknowledged their racism. Do a search on "yes all white people" for the video. It is an interesting perspective she had.
Arguably the right approach is learn to act white enough until she measures up to one of the good ones.
Racism is hardwired into the brain and operates unconsciously because areas that detect ethnicity and control emotion are closely connected, according to scientists.
Researchers explain that the same brain circuits that allow us to classify a person into an ethnic group overlap with other circuits that process emotion and make decisions, leading people to make unconscious decisions based on another's race.
The latest study, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, found that functional magnetic resonance imaging brain scans revealed that interactions between people from different racial groups trigger reactions that researchers think may be completely unknown to our conscious selves.
??? Didn't quite understand that.
Do you think every single white person is a racist? I sort of do. I will expand that even further, I think that a case could be made that every single human is racist by nature, that there is an innate antipathy of the other inside all humanity.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/racism-...-unconscious-decisions-based-ethnicity-240970
how about we try to lift EVERYONE up, and for some it will require more effort than others, should we just say 'fvck it, it's too much work'?So that's one person who wants the suburban kids to get dragged down. Unfortunately for you most of the people who vote like you want their kids away from poor blacks also. And the bluest Democrat voting places are the most segregated.
There are certainly a lot of white people who aren't considered racist, by, you know, not being racist. It's just simple reality some portion are.
What you're talking about is natural inclinations. Good thing humans are usually smart enough to overcome through learned behavior. Like for example most men learn not to sexually aggress women they find attractive.
If they refuse to lower their academic standards to facilitate it then they are doing what is in the best interest of all of their students. A standard is in place to bring uniformity, such as common core attempts to do, so that students everywhere will receive the very same standard of learning. Students in poor areas are fighting many things that hinder learning so the root causes must be addressed or this will never change. Lowering educational standards is never a good thing and harms people in the long run. Schools with poor performing students need to analyze the root cause for the poor performance and present their case to the appropriate agency for assistance with it. Schools are not responsible for what goes on at a child's home where the parents bear sole responsibility so stop trying to offload it onto the school system.Affluent schools not accepting of disadvantaged kids from neighboring communities is a totally different scenario.
I'll take my "GMFY" over your seeing suburbanites as nothing but a source of funds to give to city folks.
Yes. Suburbanites are a source of funds for city folks. I don't see an issue in regards to that. It's called living in our society. The young are a source of funds for the old. The healthy a source of funds for the sick. And so on and so on. Honestly the only reason to argue against it is selfish interests which yes must be balanced and are valid. Nonetheless, wealthy suburbs should support poor inner city educational systems. This is a no brainer undisputable idea.
The fact of the matter is kids do not choose their parents. They also do not get to choose the quality of their education and their adulthood is heavily affected by these factors. At the very least, if we believe that this is a fair and just society, we should actively try and level the playing field. If this means some money going from wealthy areas flowing to poor areas to subsidize education, so be it. Again, ideas about capitalism and etc are fair ideas to apply to adults. They are NOT fair ideas to apply to children.
If they refuse to lower their academic standards to facilitate it then they are doing what is in the best interest of all of their students. A standard is in place to bring uniformity, such as common core attempts to do, so that students everywhere will receive the very same standard of learning. Students in poor areas are fighting many things that hinder learning so the root causes must be addressed or this will never change. Lowering educational standards is never a good thing and harms people in the long run. Schools with poor performing students need to analyze the root cause for the poor performance and present their case to the appropriate agency for assistance with it.
Schools are not responsible for what goes on at a child's home where the parents bear sole responsibility so stop trying to offload it onto the school system.
Let's say we see the same problem, though. I think we do. If a household has a high degree of disarray, poverty, pessimistic attitude toward education, low education in parents (leading to shame in attempting to teach kids), high degree of childcare out of the home due to needing to work longer hours, high degree of single parenting, etc., then I would not begrudge you in saying that the failure is in the household to raise that child to thrive academically, and sending them to a better school will not fix this.
How does that scenario change over 25 years?
When I lived in Philly they had forced bussing to bring black kids from the west side of town to the predominately Italian Southside to attend school. Did this work? Hell no it didn't. The kids were not in any way more inclined to learn at our high school than they were in the schools that permeated their own neighborhoods. Their attitudes towards learning needed to be shaped first but that required parental involvement to establish learning norms for them to abide by. You can allow them to attend the best schools but if they possess the wrong attitudes they will not only fail to learn but will serve as a bad influence on those around them adversely affecting their ability to learn as well.Let's say we see the same problem, though. I think we do. If a household has a high degree of disarray, poverty, pessimistic attitude toward education, low education in parents (leading to shame in attempting to teach kids), high degree of childcare out of the home due to needing to work longer hours, high degree of single parenting, etc., then I would not begrudge you in saying that the failure is in the household to raise that child to thrive academically, and sending them to a better school will not fix this.
How does that scenario change over 25 years?
You're judging the value of the bussing based on the entire population. The reality is education may benefit some and not others. Maybe only 10% of those bussed kids get a significant benefit and go on to do great things, which would not have happened with inferior schools. That is enough.When I lived in Philly they had forced bussing to bring black kids from the west side of town to the predominately Italian Southside to attend school. Did this work? Hell no it didn't. The kids were not in any way more inclined to learn at our high school than they were in the schools that permeated their own neighborhoods. Their attitudes towards learning needed to be shaped first but that required parental involvement to establish learning norms for them to abide by. You can allow them to attend the best schools but if they possess the wrong attitudes they will not only fail to learn but will serve as a bad influence on those around them adversely affecting their ability to learn as well.
Before I attended kindergarten my mother taught me to read and write and instilled the desire to read and learn in me. I didn't need an adult to coax me into picking up a book to learn from. I would sit all by myself with an encyclopedia and begin reading about everything within on a daily basis because I had high self efficacy. When a person has a personal desire to learn they can do so no matter what the knucklehead around them are doing. Time to stop blaming schools where the students come from areas that suffer from poor rearing. In no way should lowering the standards ever be allowed to accommodate poor learners nor should they get a sympathy pass during their school years. If they cannot produce the required results then they should fail until they can.
Well hello sir derps a lot.Good thing the white kids in Gardendale don't have civil rights, else the judge might need to take those into consideration also.
What's your handle over at Ars?
How did it feel when Reddit outted you, as the troll you are?
Have you ever watched the movie, Red Dawn?
Still married to the geek, or did she kick your ass to the curb?
How's the weather in Boston, or did you move back to California?
Still a Hells Angels wannabe?
You're judging the value of the bussing based on the entire population. The reality is education may benefit some and not others. Maybe only 10% of those bussed kids get a significant benefit and go on to do great things, which would not have happened with inferior schools. That is enough.
In medicine, a drug may only help 10% of people it is indicated for and because of that it will get sweeping FDA approval and cost hundreds of thousands a year. A ten percent improvement is a landslide in medicine. You may win the Nobel prize for a drug that has a 10 percent reduction in mortality. So stop judging and grasp the concept. You only need a few kids to benefit to offset the entire program and to change communities over time. Look at what's happened with minorities in law and medicine and engineering once small steps were taken to improve their access.
Yes. Suburbanites are a source of funds for city folks. I don't see an issue in regards to that. It's called living in our society. The young are a source of funds for the old. The healthy a source of funds for the sick. And so on and so on. 70% of my taxes paid will do absolutely nothing for me personally. That is fine. Wealthy suburbs should support poor inner city educational systems. This is a no brainer and fairly undisputable idea and only the most selfish, cold and incompassionate really would disagree..
You see, the fact of the matter is kids do not choose their parents. Its luck of the draw from the point of the view of the child. They also do not get to choose the quality of their education and their adulthood is heavily affected by these factors. At the very least, if we believe that this is a fair and just society, we should actively try and level the playing field. If this means some money going from wealthy areas flowing to poor areas to subsidize education, so be it. Ideas about capitalism and conservatism and etc are fair ideas to apply to adults. They are NOT fair ideas to apply to children.