DMC

LOL. I definitely did not forget the other time you were annoyingly anal. I don't know if it's "cool," but anyone trying to tell me that "wokeism" or leftist politics or whatever is a problem anywhere near the level of actual concerns we have with American democracy clearly does not have their priorities straight. And, yes, for the most part that usually is whining about outlier or ineffectual cases. If you disagree, please specify. Er, no I haven't. I pointed out why I think all of the ideas I listed are not only dumb, but also absurd and/or pathetic. Which is exactly what you asked me to do. Now you're playing the game of not actually engaging with any of those topics, but instead arguing about arguing. Apparently it's contagious. And frankly very sad you're echoing such horseshit. But, go ahead, have the last word.

It was a lot of points about people not necessarily being dumb that I didn't feel it was necessary to go over because instead of them being "stupid" or "dumb," I'd qualify what was mentioned as "absurd." Which was clearly part of the "etc." considering past posts upthread. Even if it wasn't, the definition of "screed" is decidedly nebulous. But thanks, didn't know you also were the dictionary police. Well, let's look at @Knight Of Winter's post, which apparently is how you decided to get involved. And to be clear - Knight Of Winter - I'm not suggesting what I will say forthcoming is what you meant. Just using it as a convenient example. I apologize in advance, but I'm lazy. Anyway.. One would be equating leftists with communists or even socialist regimes throughout South America. This is an absurd equivalency that in actuality has gained traction among many voters in the US despite the fact there's no practical connection. Two would be equating "wokeness" with a handful of idiots that are clearly bad actors. As if every ideology, movement, or even general value does not have a handful of bad actors within their midst. If you wanna point that out as a gotcha, ok. But when you present it as "how to talk to lefties," it's absurd and pathetic. Third would be thinking all Trump voters are dumb. Of course all of them aren't dumb. Why they support someone that most reading this view as a demagogue may seem stupid, but very smart people can support somebody if they give them what they want. Was just going over this in lecture with the evangelical right - they got what they wanted in terms of judges, highlighted by the three SC justices. So, that's not "dumb" or "stupid," but it still remains an absurd arrangement on its face. Four would be the ecological fallacy that presumably motivated this thread. Yes, there are some leftists that behave in ways any reasonable person would object to. But this is an infinitesimal portion of the population. And most importantly, it's absurd and pathetic to continue whining about such when there are so much more crucial issues we all need to address. Bottomline, throughout history, people have been motivated to abide by dumb, absurd, and/or pathetic political beliefs. That does not necessarily mean they themselves are dumb, absurd, or pathetic. But by the same token, it's paramount to point out when they are espousing dumb, absurd, or pathetic beliefs.

Yeah your screed here clearly seems to be missing the etc. aspect of my statement.

I assure you my ego is just as bruised as it was before.

No, they're not. But please tell me any time you've strongly disagreed with someone politically and didn't internally think that person was stupid or..etc? If I think an argument is absurd or pathetic, that means I think the argument is absurd or pathetic. I have an open mind, but we're talking about evaluating arguments after the fact, not before. Of course it won't in terms of persuasion. It's an absolutely horrible method to take. So? Again, I'm not concerned about that when posting on this forum. As for "learning" from each other, I think I do that quite a bit and throughout the years on this forum when it comes to political discussions. But when I see that's really not in the cards, I'm going to say so. Same answer every time - cuz I'm bored.

The dumbass Powers That Be deleted both my and your most recent responses. So, if you want to continue, take it to DM. Or, ya know, just respond to the direct questions I asked repeatedly.

It genuinely was sincere. Seriously, I know I can go overboard and be a dick and that was one of those instances and I'm sorry. But again, that doesn't change the fact you are demonstrably unwilling to engage in an actual substantive discussion and instead continue to belabor this point. Which is eminently ironic considering the title and purported effort of this thread you started. It is a sad reflection on you as a public poster. That was my point, and will continue to be until you actually say anything worthwhile. Just checked. Yeah, you didn't say anything in DM that you haven't said here. Which is fine! Even appreciated. But I don't know why you're bringing it up. I did! And for the umpteenth time you ignore the direct questions I asked you and reposted that clearly do not entail everything you're whining about. Hell, @DanteGabriel restarted this by pointing this out. But instead of addressing those questions, what do you do? This. It's a very clear reflection on your character. You want to know why I use such mean rhetoric? This is why. You keep on telling me - and other posters - that you're happy to answer questions. But you never actually do. Which is, ya know, blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain...Well, anyone with a brain and is willing to follow this thread.

This - quite obviously - has nothing to do what I was talking about. You reflexively complain about people taking your words out of context. This is a brightline example of such. As for Trump "degrading" political discourse, yeah, that's not his problem. Hate is hate. We can identify it as such because it's manifest. Equating what I'm asserting with his rhetoric is a flagrant false equivalency and determinatively irrelevant. Trump didn't start people being angry at each other when they have political discussions, you're giving him way too much credit. In private/casual conversation? Uh, yes. Unequivocally. I think the main problem here is we view this board in diametrically opposed ways. This is a place for me to vent. It's not a place for me to try to write a research paper for publication. Yes, I was mean to you. Are you still fishing for an apology? I'm sorry. Honestly, you're right, my response that generated all this was overly aggressive. That still doesn't change the fact there was plenty in there that you continue, after weeks, to evade. Unless or until you actually address the substance of what I said - repeatedly - the logical conclusion to reach is it just smacks of another tedious example of trolling.

It's telling enough you refer to the instructor of a classroom as "the guest." That's just..I don't even know what to do with that. Yeah it sucks. Winning elections among the American electorate is a smarmy business. I'd say, though, that everything we were talking about does not entail allowing such hate to be legislated - nor any part of policymaking. It may be about trying to get the votes of some people that are alright with that shit, but that doesn't mean it should be part of the platform. At all.

A number of countries have flat income taxes one way or another. They are all countries nobody should want to emulate.

Are you posting from a frat house? No, I don't "shred" the student. I clarify why they are wrong. You acting like it's about being "passive" necessarily assumes you should be "aggressive" towards students' opinions. Which is a clear indication, again, that you really don't get it. Please never teach!

Ah, so..let me get this straight. You want me to flex because of "what you've seen?" Wherein "taking down" students is totally cool bro? On behalf of the educational system of the United States, please do not join it.

Yeah, no, you wouldn't "crush someone" if it's your student and you want to keep your job.

I can only speak for myself, but there is no difference. Participation is part of my students' grade, but it can be anything from A to Z. As long as there are no demographical slurs (meaning racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation), and they are not directly attacking another students' statements, the participation is evaluated equally. This, I think, is important to encourage participation. It's hard enough to get students to say something out loud in a face-to-face classroom. I suppose I'm particularly empathetic because as an undergrad I never participated in class either unless I was really wasted. Just the effort is enough, as long as it's relevant. In terms of online courses, it's a bit different in evaluation and I require the students to demonstrate more substantive understanding of the material. But, if you couldn't tell by my posting, I'm a pretty damn lax instructor on grading discussion posts too. The hard part with my courses is the exams. I expect students to understand all the material I put on my powerpoints, and test them accordingly. Unsurprisingly, I have to curve the class averages to get it to 75.

It was just a random example from a community college student guys, hold your horses. In another class I got a smartass who has continually insisted on the US becoming a "direct democracy." When I went over representation theories yesterday, he suggested members of Congress should be automated based on the constituency's wishes. I'm pretty sure Skynet sent him. Another student in one of my online classes - sorry at this point I'm venting - responded to a discussion question I posed about mitigating the incarceration rates in this country with (paraphrasing), "I agree we should not put as many people in prison. It's not an adequate deterrent for many. A thief should simply have his hand chopped off." These are my students.