Contributors

Monday, June 20, 2011

The Conversation (Part The First)

I have two friends that are evangelical ministers. The first one is my friend from the gym (Edward) and the other is a guy named Jim. Jim is married to my first ever girlfriend and lives in a different state. He and I are Facebook friends and we often have political debates. He is very, VERY conservative and I've noticed our debates usually follow a similar pattern as they do here.

This is a real drag for me because I'm far less obnoxious on FB than I am here and I really like the guy. I have made a concerted effort to be as fair minded as possible but I've sadly come to the conclusion that when someone (liberal or conservative) knows less about a subject AND is very passionate about it, look out! That's when things become seriously FUBAR.

We recently had a debate about education and, as it usually does, I pointed out some of his BS and the conversation degenerated from there. What's even more odd is that he has told me several times (on FB and in person) that he is sick and tired of people being offended by everything. He couldn't stand it, for example, when Juan Williams got fired over his airplane comment. Being PC is not his thing yet he still reacted the way he did when I was critical of him.

The whole conversation was very confusing so I figured I'd share it with all of you and hear your thoughts. The topics in education that are raised are reason enough to copy and paste it. In addition to being a "voice inside of my head," I think it is very illustrative of several things which I will comment on as we go along. Jim's posts are in blue and mine are in red because I'm a communist who wants to pollute children's minds with leftist views and propaganda meant to destroy the very fabric of our culture.

He started with this post followed by a  link.

Jim: As Albert Shanker, the late, iconic head of the UFT, once pointedly put it, 'When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.'

The Failure of American Schools


The failing schools meme is getting quite tiresome to me. Nearly all of the examples given aren't fully illustrative of the various complexities involved with the challenges in education today. Worse, they ignore the success stories because they don't fit the narrative.

Mark: There's a much larger issue here than just the go to whipping boy of unions. The way our children are being socialized has been over run by the corporate owned mass media. With many parents checked out for a wide variety of reasons (good and bad), educative and community leaders can't compete with the glitter of materialism. As an educator, I know I lose every time against LeBron James and Beyonce. Until parents and community leaders re-assert themselves as the primary agents of socialization, union problems won't matter.
That's why what you do in your community is so important, Jim. You and I are on the front lines. Now we need more people like us to make it better!

Jim: I agree that a materialistic culture and uninvolved parents are part of the problem, but it's pretty discouraging (although not surprising) to hear a teacher blithely dismiss the massive problems with union cronyism, self-interest, protection of terrible teachers, and total unconcern with educational outcomes.

Please also note that charter schools operating with the same demographic mix and social realities of public schools have produced embarrassingly better outcomes.

Mark: Of course they have because the parents are more involved. Parents that send their kids to charter schools are the same ones that put in the effort. That's why I've always been supportive of home schooling because the parents are pro-active. Honestly, we need more of it.

I think your example here is an outlier although there are problems with unions. The biggest one is tenure. I also support the president and Secretary Duncan in their efforts with Race to the Top and CORE. Under performing teachers need to be fired immediately.

In the final analysis, though, it comes down to parent and community involvement. Our children's school works well because people are involved.

Not so bad so far but I could tell from past experience that once I pointed out to him the fact about charter schools, things weren't going to go well. Someone else in the thread also pointed out that fired teachers in public schools sometimes end up in charter schools. Being wrong=big no no!

Now we get to the good stuff.

Jim: And key roadblocks to the parental involvement which contributes to to academic success are intransigent unions, self-serving politicians, and a bloated educational bureaucracy. There will always be a percentage of dysfunctional families or disengaged parents. The current failing system discourages and disenfranchises the parents who could be involved and making a difference in their kids' success. And that failing system is set up to protect the interests of unions, politicians and bureaucrats who rabidly attack any attempt to change the status quo.

Mark: Well, now you are slipping into conservative propaganda and I'm going to have to disagree with you that this is the totality of the problem. Unions discourage parent involvement? That's simply not true. Ask a few teachers if they find themselves doing more parenting these days. Ask them what they think about that

Again, I will agree that unions have problems and tenure needs to go. I will also wholeheartedly agree that more money is not the answer. We need the right people willing to put in the time with the right attitude which is looking at themselves like overpaid missionaries and not underpaid teachers. Have you examined the efforts of the president and the education department?

Jim: Mark, I can't take you seriously when you respond with silly comments like "You're slipping into conservative propaganda." You're hearing what you want to hear and filtering my comments through your own biases.

You say in one breath that unions and politics are part of the problem, but then turn around and say that getting rid of them wouldn't make any difference. That's incoherent. If you really believe that we'd have the same problems in education without self-serving unions, political cronyism, and entrenched bureaucrats, then there's no point in talking.

After this, I left a comment which I regret not cutting, pasting and saving because he deleted it.  The gist of the comment centered around how schools would look without unions, how I was tired of union bashing, and how he should try to not narrow his focus so much and look more at the complexities of the situation. He then sent me a FB message which said this.

Jim: Mark, I deleted your last comment. You clearly communicated that your positions have been arrived at through careful thought, open-minded investigation, and big-picture thinking (like most liberals), while my positions are merely small-minded, single-focus repetitions of "conservative dogma." You've not even attempted to fairly read what I wrote, but simply read it through the filter of your own preconceived biases. This has become par for the course.

I'm not offended that you disagree with me; it's that your disagreement is consistently unlined with an arrogance which says I would agree with you if only I thought a little harder and expanded my vision. There's no ground for friendship or even working together from that starting point. You tell me you respect me and what I do, but you consistently interact with me as though I'm an ignorant fool who can't have arrived at his positions through thoughtful reflection.

I'm telling you this because I like you and seem in many ways like a genuinely good guy. But your intellectual arrogance, uncharitable reading of what I post, and cavalier dismissal of differing viewpoints are rude and offensive. It makes it hard to have any kind of relationship other than that of a sparring partner, which I'm not looking for.

We're coming at issues from different starting points. I suggest you read Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" if you haven't already. It's helped me understand why liberals think the way they do. It would help you understand how conservatives think, so you might be less likely to dismiss, disdain, and scorn their viewpoints because they're different from yours.

Ah, Sowell. He had to come up, didn't he? I also knew that things were going to get worse when I started talking about the corporate owned mass media. I'll never for the life of me understand how people have mixed capitalism and Christianity. Any sort of attack on corporations is considered heresy. It's fucking nauseating.

I'll have the rest of the conversation up tomorrow.

11 comments:

burgermeister meisterburger said...

How completely expected to see that your other attempts to debate are met with the same ridicule you get here.

Tell your minister friend that he is sucking a corporate cock. That'll get him to see your point of view.

juris imprudent said...

You post all of that and get nothing from it about yourself. It is all about how narrow/closed minded the other guy is.

And how proudly you speak about how self-reflective you are? You are self reflective about like Narcissus.

Or consider what a rambling mess your last paragraph is - not related at all to what you were discussing with this other person (or should I say - what you were haranguing him with).

The reason you fail to communicate with him is the same you do with me - because you so rarely actually comprehend what I have to say. You distort it through your filters to make it conform to the dialogue you carry on with the voices in your head. Then you get mad when I refuse to accept that (just as your FB friend does).

Santa said...

Yet he still put it up here for all of us to see, right juris? I think that says a lot about his own capacity for reflection.

Mark, The way I see it is that your friend Jim gets offended when he is wrong about something and then takes it out on you personally. Is it your fault that he is single minded? No. This is the same problem that you have with others here. They take great offense when you are more knowledgeable about a particular topic. It's pretty strange if you stop and think about it.

juris imprudent said...

Yet he still put it up here for all of us to see, right juris?

Yes, and people who go on Springer think that being on TV validates them no matter how fucked up their life is. It is strange indeed.

The way I see it is that your friend Jim gets offended when he is wrong about something

Perhaps he was offended not by the disagreement or even being wrong, but by the characterization of his position as conservative propaganda? Was that necessary to advance the discussion, or did someone think he could win the point that way? Would you all like me to dismiss you as unconsciously (or not) spewing leftist propaganda? Would that be beneficial to our discussion of any issue? Might that cause you to see the light, the holy goodness of my belief?

I really can't stand Ann Coulter, but by god she just might be onto something when she says liberals are insane.

Jim actually agreed with M about parts of the issue. Perhaps he was wrong by overly focusing on teachers unions (I would say he was). But are you all so fucking delusional that you think you will win him over by casually throwing out that he is a propagandist? If he really is, what is the point of talking with him about anything? If he isn't - wouldn't you expect him to take offense? Are you such faithful adherents that you expect him to fall to his knees and praise secular liberalism for removing the scales from his eyes?

Larry Craig said...

"...what is the point of talking with him about anything?"

Doctor, heal thy own mote in the eye, or something like that....

What is the point of talking here about anything?

Anonymous said...

You all called him on the first half of the sentence, but nobody called him on the last half.

Well, now you are slipping into conservative propaganda and I'm going to have to disagree with you that this is the totality of the problem. (Emphasis added.)

Here you have not only put words in his mouth, you have put a bald faced lie in his mouth. Or is there some part of

Jim: I agree that a materialistic culture and uninvolved parents are part of the problem,

that you didn't understand?

It's funny to me that your liberal commenters (and so far as I can tell, you too) seem to consider

You clearly communicated that your positions have been arrived at through careful thought, open-minded investigation, and big-picture thinking (like most liberals), while my positions are merely small-minded, single-focus repetitions of "conservative dogma."

to be "taking it out on you personally"... although I bet you can't find anything in that statement that is inaccurate. And yet comments about "having a corporate cock in your mouth" apparently don't make you feel as if you have crossed any lines, or have "taken it out on them personally".

"I'll never for the life of me understand how people have mixed capitalism and Christianity."

But they're the ones who are responding from prejudice rather than actually thinking. Riiiight.

...and tenure needs to go.

This puts you outside the mainstream of teachers union opinion, does it not?

That's why I've always been supportive of home schooling...

This sure as hell puts you outside the mainstream of teachers union opinion.

And yet because that's your opinion, you treat it as if it's the majority opinion of the teachers unions. So in what particulars does that differ from

...blithely dismiss[ing] the massive problems with union cronyism, self-interest, protection of terrible teachers, and total unconcern with educational outcomes.

Hmmm?

Perhaps he was offended not by the disagreement or even being wrong, but by the characterization of his position as conservative propaganda?

Wow, what a bold course, to think perhaps he was offended for the reasons he stated he was. I wonder why none of the reflective, critically thinking liberals thought of this approach?

Anonymous said...

Ah, Sowell. He had to come up, didn't he?

Is the right bringing up Sowell any different from the left bringing up Krugman? Why or why not?

You routinely cite Krugman in support of your positions, and get frustrated when he is dismissed out of hand, but you routinely dismiss Sowell out of hand as well. What's the difference, other than the importance you assign to one and the lack of importance you assign to the other?

Your definition of "critical thinking" apparently demands that others assign the same importance and relevance to each bit of data bearing on a given problem that you do. In short, it demands that everyone agree with your prejudices.

Anonymous said...

I think Jim's last paragraph was a pretty accurate summation of your character/behavior, M.

juris imprudent said...

I wonder why none of the reflective, critically thinking liberals thought of this approach?

Humpty-Dumpty syndrome - words only mean what they want them to mean, in that particular instant. In the next instant, they are disposed in the memory hole.

Anonymous said...

Run [threadskill]

subroutine = /unaswerable (rem; with data base .0001)

update [run update]

run [threadkill]

jeff c. said...

Any time now, Unix. Stop being so cowardly.