Confession...

Damocles said:
Again, I am reasonably sure that the intent of the class can be served, if a little more difficult, allowing choices on that reading list as well.

I prefer the job to be a bit more difficult and people have choices allowing them to avoid that which you, yourself, proclaimed they had a right to avoid, while you believe that a teacher should be stubborn, and regardless of being seen as indoctrinating they should stick to their guns, and force people to read even things that they have a right, again that you stated they had, to ignore if they felt it would offend.... Your reasoning is circular. First you say they have a right to just "not read it" if they feel it would offend, then you say that they cannot be offered any other choice.

It doesn't have to be superior. They can pretty much choose anything by O. Henry and fit that bill.

Yeah. Teachers should have that power... not.

Let me get this directly from you again... Do they have a right not to read that which offends them?
Click to expand...
Having a right not to read someting was a rhetorical comment about anyone reading anything in general and not about how a literature instructor assigns a reading list. So there's no contradiction or circular reasoning there. You have a right not to read what your assigned and they have a right to flunk you if you don't and vice versa but that's not the point here.

If an instructor has good pedagogical reasons for a reading assignment why should they be forced into providing alternativeves with out strong compelling reasons for doing so? Wanting to teach or expose students to a specific concept or point of view is not the same as indoctrination.

You're example demonstrates my point. O'Henry did use dialect in some of his short stories. The point here is that the instructor may chose Twain because he used the same devise more affectively then O'Henry did.

But OK, fine, what if they do give O'Henry as a weaker alternative to teaching dialect vs Twain? I'm sure there's something to offend someone there too. In fact, I'm reasonably sure Dixie and SM would be quite offended at the portrayal of southerners in the Kidnapping of Little Red Chief (where O'Henry uses dialect). So the point remains. The literature teacher is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Why shouldn't their professional judgement be respected in this subject as a science or math teachers would?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Having a right not to read someting was a rhetorical comment about anyone reading anything in general and not about how a literature instructor assigns a reading list. So there's no contradiction or circular reasoning there. You have a right not to read what your assigned and they have a right to flunk you if you don't and vice versa but that's not the point here.

If an instructor has good pedagogical reasons for a reading assignment why should they be forced into providing alternativeves with out strong compelling reasons for doing so? Wanting to teach or expose students to a specific concept or point of view is not the same as indoctrination.

You're example demonstrates my point. O'Henry did use dialect in some of his short stories. The point here is that the instructor may chose Twain because he used the same devise more affectively then O'Henry did.

But OK, fine, what if they do give O'Henry as a weaker alternative to teaching dialect vs Twain? I'm sure there's something to offend someone there too. In fact, I'm reasonably sure Dixie and SM would be quite offended at the portrayal of southerners in the Kidnapping of Little Red Chief (where O'Henry uses dialect). So the point remains. The literature teacher is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Why shouldn't their professional judgement be respected in this subject as a science or math teachers would?
Click to expand...
Except there is, being a teacher does not allow you to remove rights from another. There are more literature choices. Allowing choice is good, but "damned if they do and don't" is a rubbish argument while at the same time you support their "right" to not be forced to read something that may offend. Flippantly stating they can just "not read it if they don't like it" while at the same time stating that there is no other reasonable alternative to actually support that right in the classroom.

The reasoning is circular because first they have a right then at the very same time they don't because it would just be too hard on the teacher to provide choices. Your first reaction was to tell us all that they can "change the channel" if they don't like it, then to give reasons why changing the channel cannot be allowed if a teacher says they should watch it...
 
T&A said:
OMG Stop falling for Asshate terminology. There is no such thing as global fascism, as it is a strictly nationalist ideology!!!

Thanks.
Click to expand...

No it's not. With the advent of multinationals and the concept of world citizenship, global fascism is quite understandable.

you cannot win arguments by trying to destroy accurate labels.

You can try, but you will fail.
 
T&A said:
OMG Stop falling for Asshate terminology. There is no such thing as global fascism, as it is a strictly nationalist ideology!!!

Thanks.
Click to expand...

dude, there's this new thing called 'one world order'. we've been preaching about it for......at least years. there will no longer be 'nations', we're all one world, one people, and when the global fascists are done, we'll have one ideology.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No it's not. With the advent of multinationals and the concept of world citizenship, global fascism is quite understandable.

you cannot win arguments by trying to destroy accurate labels.

You can try, but you will fail.
Click to expand...

Yes, Multinationals exist.
Yes, Fascism exists.
Yes, Multinationals are going to exist in countries under Fascist control.
However, Multinationals also exist in countries not under Fascist control.

Therefore, it is still true that Fascism is uniquely nationalist and not an internationalist ideology.

Class dismissed.
 
T&A said:
Yes, Multinationals exist.
Yes, Fascism exists.
Yes, Multinationals are going to exist in countries under Fascist control.
However, Multinationals also exist in countries not under Fascist control.

Therefore, it is still true that Fascism is uniquely nationalist and not an internationalist ideology.

Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

Even in allegedly "free" nations, multinationals are firmly in control of policy.

They coordinate the policy which favor them through corrupt politicians, media control, and money.

you can try to destroy my label, but the phenonomon exists.

It's most accurately labelled internationalist fascism.

You phail.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Even in allegedly "free" nations, multinationals are firmly in control of policy.

They coordinate the policy which favor them through corrupt politicians, media control, and money.

you can try to destroy my label, but the phenonomon exists.

It's most accurately labelled internationalist fascism.

You phail.
Click to expand...

Dumbass, countries large and small will generally bend over backwards for multinationals because they know it will be a serious boom to their economies! How hard is that to understand? When someone holds out a wad of cash (or potential wad of cash), most human beings will take it. Why the hell do you think so many Americans are fed up with lobbyists?
 
T&A said:
Dumbass, countries large and small will generally bend over backwards for multinationals because they know it will be a serious boom to their economies! How hard is that to understand? When someone holds out a wad of cash (or potential wad of cash), most human beings will take it. Why the hell do you think so many Americans are fed up with lobbyists?
Click to expand...




And it's called internationalist fascism.
 
Yurt said:
so we force them to take money?

and what exactly is "inter"nationalist fascism?
Click to expand...

The elits of a nation are bribed heavily to provide business favorable conditions FOR THEIR COMPANY regardless of the impact on the rest of the population. Whether it's opening borders to lower labor costs, or creating environmental standards which will kill domestic manufacturing, or .. on and on.


Internationalist. International with an "ist". Fascism. The alliance of huge corporate interests and the state is fascism.

So we get Internationlist Fascism to describe state of the human political system at this juncture.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The elits of a nation are bribed heavily to provide business favorable conditions FOR THEIR COMPANY regardless of the impact on the rest of the population. Whether it's opening borders to lower labor costs, or creating environmental standards which will kill domestic manufacturing, or .. on and on.


Internationalist. International with an "ist". Fascism. The alliance of huge corporate interests and the state is fascism.

So we get Internationlist Fascism to describe state of the human political system at this juncture.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't work, because fascism ends at the borders of country x. Thanks for playing.

BTW, what's really wrong with a company lobbying the local government?
 
T&A said:
Which doesn't work, because fascism ends at the borders of country x. Thanks for playing.

BTW, what's really wrong with a company lobbying the local government?
Click to expand...

You lost.

Fascism is internationalized now.

Companies lobbying government is corrupt, you douche.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The elits of a nation are bribed heavily to provide business favorable conditions FOR THEIR COMPANY regardless of the impact on the rest of the population. Whether it's opening borders to lower labor costs, or creating environmental standards which will kill domestic manufacturing, or .. on and on.
Click to expand...

that is not fascism.....that is corruption

Internationalist. International with an "ist". Fascism. The alliance of huge corporate interests and the state is fascism.

So we get Internationlist Fascism to describe state of the human political system at this juncture.
Click to expand...

i don't see, what you are saying is fascism as fascism....rather, human greed and corruption
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top