|
|
Post by merh on Aug 24, 2021 8:06:16 GMT
2. And we all know that Wonka did nothing
3. I think you used to be more open to ideas and discussions. Trump gave you the ability to disengage from polite discourse and you took it.
2. Wha? He made delicious candy.
3. I'd like to think I'm open to discussions the same as ever. If I'm cruder or more harsh than before, couldn't that just be because after 20+ of discussions, it seems pretty apparent that people are rarely changing their minds on anything anyway. ![[giveup]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
I'm sure that's how merh thinks of me.  "How dense is this guy anyway?" "How does he sleep at nite or even look in the mirror?"  No. You aren't Jammer or Judgedredd or Trashcan. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 24, 2021 8:58:47 GMT
No. You aren't Jammer or Judgedredd or Trashcan.
I can have my moments and go off on someone when exasperated enough. 
I just normally choose not to because what difference does it really make?
I don't wanna get that upset. I just wanna spout my opinions and have a few laughs
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 24, 2021 11:53:22 GMT
2. And we all know that Wonka did nothing
3. I think you used to be more open to ideas and discussions. Trump gave you the ability to disengage from polite discourse and you took it.
2. Wha? He made delicious candy.
3. I'd like to think I'm open to discussions the same as ever. If I'm cruder or more harsh than before, couldn't that just be because after 20+ years of discussions, it seems pretty apparent that people are rarely changing their minds on anything anyway.
I'm sure that's how merh thinks of me. "How dense is this guy anyway?" "How does he sleep at nite or even look in the mirror?" 2. No. His slaves did
3. I disagree
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 24, 2021 12:34:29 GMT
2. Wha? He made delicious candy.
3. I'd like to think I'm open to discussions the same as ever. If I'm cruder or more harsh than before, couldn't that just be because after 20+ years of discussions, it seems pretty apparent that people are rarely changing their minds on anything anyway.
I'm sure that's how merh thinks of me. "How dense is this guy anyway?" "How does he sleep at nite or even look in the mirror?" 2. No. His slaves did
3. I disagree
omg
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 25, 2021 2:22:16 GMT
2. No. His slaves did
3. I disagree
omg
African pygmies (read the book) brought from Africa to work for food. They work and they sleep and they are never allowed to leave the planta... factory.
Dahl even positions this movement from their homeland as "saving them" and giving them something "worthwhile" to do, typical "white savior" and "white man's burden" tropes.
The obvious racism of the book was one of the reasons the Oompa Loompas were portrayed by white dwarves with orange skin and green hair in the Gene Wilder movie. In the Depp remake, they go to great lengths to point out that the Oompa Loompas were being "paid" with cocoa beans rather than just being given them as food as in the book.
Feel free to continue to enjoy the movie(s) - I do - but never forget that Dahl was a racist, antisemite ("even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason."), and a misogynist.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 25, 2021 2:47:22 GMT
African pygmies (read the book) brought from Africa to work for food. They work and they sleep and they are never allowed to leave the planta... factory.
Dahl even positions this movement from their homeland as "saving them" and giving them something "worthwhile" to do, typical "white savior" and "white man's burden" tropes.
The obvious racism of the book was one of the reasons the Oompa Loompas were portrayed by white dwarves with orange skin and green hair in the Gene Wilder movie. In the Depp remake, they go to great lengths to point out that the Oompa Loompas were being "paid" with cocoa beans rather than just being given them as food as in the book.
Feel free to continue to enjoy the movie(s) - I do - but never forget that Dahl was a racist, antisemite ("even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason."), and a misogynist.
I did not read the book. Shocker, I know. I was basing my view off the movie which I'd guess far more people have seen and reference. Gene Wilder's character claimed to have offered them to come and live in his factory in peace away from all of the dangers they faced in their home areas. Sounds like a more voluntary type of barter system to me.
Well, then color me a naive child yet again........cuz I never got that impression out of the movie. In my mind it makes no difference to me how a person is compensated as long as they are in a voluntary situation. Room, board, care in exchange for work is every bit as worthwhile to some people as being paid #Cash, but then having to locate and acquire all of those other things on their own.
IIRC, Dahl was only recently in the news over some sort of controversy. Before that, I wouldn't have even known the author of the story, to be honest.
This reminds me of the recent 'outrage' over Dr. Suess, as well.
Since you're the avid book reader........care to offer us a comparison between the two? Like a lot of things now, using today's highly sensitive lense sorta leaves everyone in the past looking like horrible people. Except for the victims, of course. Those people are always saints. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 25, 2021 3:19:18 GMT
African pygmies (read the book) brought from Africa to work for food. They work and they sleep and they are never allowed to leave the planta... factory.
Dahl even positions this movement from their homeland as "saving them" and giving them something "worthwhile" to do, typical "white savior" and "white man's burden" tropes.
The obvious racism of the book was one of the reasons the Oompa Loompas were portrayed by white dwarves with orange skin and green hair in the Gene Wilder movie. In the Depp remake, they go to great lengths to point out that the Oompa Loompas were being "paid" with cocoa beans rather than just being given them as food as in the book.
Feel free to continue to enjoy the movie(s) - I do - but never forget that Dahl was a racist, antisemite ("even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason."), and a misogynist.
I did not read the book. Shocker, I know. I was basing my view off the movie which I'd guess far more people have seen and reference. Gene Wilder's character claimed to have offered them to come and live in his factory in peace away from all of the dangers they faced in their home areas. Sounds like a more voluntary type of barter system to me.
Well, then color me a naive child yet again........cuz I never got that impression out of the movie. In my mind it makes no difference to me how a person is compensated as long as they are in a voluntary situation. Room, board, care in exchange for work is every bit as worthwhile to some people as being paid #Cash, but then having to locate and acquire all of those other things on their own.
IIRC, Dahl was only recently in the news over some sort of controversy. Before that, I wouldn't have even known the author of the story, to be honest.
This reminds me of the recent 'outrage' over Dr. Suess, as well.
Since you're the avid book reader........care to offer us a comparison between the two? Like a lot of things now, using today's highly sensitive lense sorta leaves everyone in the past looking like horrible people. Except for the victims, of course. Those people are always saints. 1. Not shocked. Yes. "White savior" and "white man's burden" tropes are deliberately written in order to make things seem "voluntary" and benign.
2. As long as the person can walk away from the situation at any time, I'd agree with you... but the Oompa Loompas cannot. See the difference?
3. And yet you want us to believe that you are a "basically" well-informed person whose ideas should be considered by others.
4&5. Sorry, Abs. I don't think I have the time to write a treatise on the two writers nor do I have their collected works at my disposal to re-read and quote. However, I'm curious about this Dr, Seuss "outrage." To what are you referring?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 25, 2021 3:35:03 GMT
1. Not shocked. Yes. "White savior" and "white man's burden" tropes are deliberately written in order to make things seem "voluntary" and benign.
2. As long as the person can walk away from the situation at any time, I'd agree with you... but the Oompa Loompas cannot. See the difference?
3. And yet you want us to believe that you are a "basically" well-informed person whose ideas should be considered by others.
4&5. Sorry, Abs. I don't think I have the time to write a treatise on the two writers nor do I have their collected works at my disposal to re-read and quote. However, I'm curious about this Dr, Seuss "outrage." To what are you referring?
1. Would you ever agree with the argument.......that while the 'Sins of the Past' were universally agreed upon as bad........ that the end result in modern times is often times good or better?
2. Was that the case in the book? They were not free to leave? Again, i'm just going off my memories of the movie and it did not seem like Willy was a slavemaster or task master forcing them to work.
3. I am well-informed compared to the average person in the US, imHo.. But I am nowhere near as well read or informed as others. Does that negate my opinions on everything? Does your being more accomplished and educated earn you multiple vote credits? or a greater importance in the grande scheme?
4. They was recently a call for the banning of several of his books........as the artwork and some of the wording was viewed as inappropriate in today's woke times. He also did some questionable artwork during the time of the Nazis, as well. You can guess how this is being presented and where it's all going.
Cancel Culture
Why Dr. Seuss Is Worth Defending
Banishing him from library shelves is a slippery slope.
Robby Soave | 3.8.2021 9:52 AM
scott-webb-KesWZ9GyJ5k-unsplash
(Scott Webb / Unsplash)
Oh, the extreme places they'll go. Last week, when Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced that it would no longer publish six Seuss books said to contain racially offensive imagery, foes of cancel culture (this author among them) cried foul. Many others shrugged, noting correctly that this isn't an issue of censorship: A book publisher is free to decide it wants to cease publishing a very old book.
But now those books are being pulled from the shelves of some public libraries as well. "We are part of the broader community who have identified these books as being harmful," Manny Figueiredo, director of education for a school board in Ontario, Canada, said in a statement. "The delivery of education must ensure that no child experiences harm from the resources that are shared."
A journalist for the Toronto Star issued an impassioned plea for more libraries to take action—and for Dr. Seuss Enterprises to make amends for its historical failures.
It's not just Canada: The Chicago Public Library system agreed to remove the six books in question—And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, McElligot's Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, If I Ran the Zoo, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat's Quizzer—pending an investigation.
Disappearing books from library shelves gets us closer to the classic example of censorship, though of course a physical library possesses a finite amount of space and thus has to consider certain priorities. What's happening to Dr. Seuss is the result of a very specific kind of prioritization, however: One decided upon not by readers or the public at large, but by activist educators peddling a false narrative about the beloved child author's books and characters.
This narrative—the result of a highly misleading 2019 report on "Orientalism, anti-blackness, and white supremacy in Dr. Seuss's children's books"—has quickly become influential, motivating much of the recent shift away from Seuss among certain government officials, educators, libraries, and even private publishers. Learning for Justice, an outgrowth of the undeservedly well-regarded Southern Poverty Law Center, cited the report as evidence that it had misjudged The Sneetches, a Seuss story about a group of birds—some with stars on their bellies, some without—who eventually come to realize that their superficial physical differences don't matter at all:
At Teaching Tolerance, we've even featured anti-racist activities built around the Dr. Seuss book The Sneetches. But when we re-evaluated, we found that the story is actually not as "anti-racist" as we once thought. …
The solution to the story's conflict is that the Plain-Belly Sneetches and Star-Bellied Sneetches simply get confused as to who is oppressed. As a result, they accept one another. This message of "acceptance" does not acknowledge structural power imbalances. It doesn't address the idea that historical narratives impact present-day power structures. And instead of encouraging young readers to recognize and take action against injustice, the story promotes a race-neutral approach.
===================================
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 25, 2021 3:48:56 GMT
abbey1227, I have to do some housework - guests coming over tomorrow - and then I have to get to work. The kids aren't going to learn phonics and grammar by themselves. I'm going to leave this page up to remind me (for when I get home this evening) to read the article and do a little research into what prompted it and then I'll respond. I just don't want you waiting around for hours if you need to catch some shut-eye or go argue with someone else. ![[cheers]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 25, 2021 12:44:28 GMT
1. Not shocked. Yes. "White savior" and "white man's burden" tropes are deliberately written in order to make things seem "voluntary" and benign.
2. As long as the person can walk away from the situation at any time, I'd agree with you... but the Oompa Loompas cannot. See the difference?
3. And yet you want us to believe that you are a "basically" well-informed person whose ideas should be considered by others.
4&5. Sorry, Abs. I don't think I have the time to write a treatise on the two writers nor do I have their collected works at my disposal to re-read and quote. However, I'm curious about this Dr, Seuss "outrage." To what are you referring?
1. Would you ever agree with the argument.......that while the 'Sins of the Past' were universally agreed upon as bad........ that the end result in modern times is often times good or better?
2. Was that the case in the book? They were not free to leave? Again, i'm just going off my memories of the movie and it did not seem like Willy was a slavemaster or task master forcing them to work.
3. I am well-informed compared to the average person in the US, imHo.. But I am nowhere near as well read or informed as others. Does that negate my opinions on everything? Does your being more accomplished and educated earn you multiple vote credits? or a greater importance in the grande scheme?
4. They was recently a call for the banning of several of his books........as the artwork and some of the wording was viewed as inappropriate in today's woke times. He also did some questionable artwork during the time of the Nazis, as well. You can guess how this is being presented and where it's all going.
Cancel Culture
Why Dr. Seuss Is Worth Defending
Banishing him from library shelves is a slippery slope.
Robby Soave | 3.8.2021 9:52 AM
scott-webb-KesWZ9GyJ5k-unsplash
(Scott Webb / Unsplash)
Oh, the extreme places they'll go. Last week, when Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced that it would no longer publish six Seuss books said to contain racially offensive imagery, foes of cancel culture (this author among them) cried foul. Many others shrugged, noting correctly that this isn't an issue of censorship: A book publisher is free to decide it wants to cease publishing a very old book.
But now those books are being pulled from the shelves of some public libraries as well. "We are part of the broader community who have identified these books as being harmful," Manny Figueiredo, director of education for a school board in Ontario, Canada, said in a statement. "The delivery of education must ensure that no child experiences harm from the resources that are shared."
A journalist for the Toronto Star issued an impassioned plea for more libraries to take action—and for Dr. Seuss Enterprises to make amends for its historical failures.
It's not just Canada: The Chicago Public Library system agreed to remove the six books in question—And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, McElligot's Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, If I Ran the Zoo, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat's Quizzer—pending an investigation.
Disappearing books from library shelves gets us closer to the classic example of censorship, though of course a physical library possesses a finite amount of space and thus has to consider certain priorities. What's happening to Dr. Seuss is the result of a very specific kind of prioritization, however: One decided upon not by readers or the public at large, but by activist educators peddling a false narrative about the beloved child author's books and characters.
This narrative—the result of a highly misleading 2019 report on "Orientalism, anti-blackness, and white supremacy in Dr. Seuss's children's books"—has quickly become influential, motivating much of the recent shift away from Seuss among certain government officials, educators, libraries, and even private publishers. Learning for Justice, an outgrowth of the undeservedly well-regarded Southern Poverty Law Center, cited the report as evidence that it had misjudged The Sneetches, a Seuss story about a group of birds—some with stars on their bellies, some without—who eventually come to realize that their superficial physical differences don't matter at all:
At Teaching Tolerance, we've even featured anti-racist activities built around the Dr. Seuss book The Sneetches. But when we re-evaluated, we found that the story is actually not as "anti-racist" as we once thought. …
The solution to the story's conflict is that the Plain-Belly Sneetches and Star-Bellied Sneetches simply get confused as to who is oppressed. As a result, they accept one another. This message of "acceptance" does not acknowledge structural power imbalances. It doesn't address the idea that historical narratives impact present-day power structures. And instead of encouraging young readers to recognize and take action against injustice, the story promotes a race-neutral approach.
===================================
OK. I've read the article as well as the 51 page paper referenced in the article and I have a few things to say.
In an earlier post I said, "Feel free to continue to enjoy the movie(s) - I do - but never forget that Dahl was a racist."
Change "movies" to "books" and "Dahl" to "Seuss" but my first clause still stands: you should continue to enjoy them. In fact, you should be able to read them, as published at any time you wish and I am completely opposed to libraries removing them from their shelves. I'm opposed to the publisher discontinuing to publish them, but hey, that's their business.
A lot of this "cancel culture" stuff just seems like lazy parenting to me: "I don't know how to explain this to my child, so save me the trouble and don't let my kid ever see it!" ![[mad]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/XegTyANmgpBZDFPQoKTh.gif)
But that's not really true is it? There are plenty of parents that would love the opportunity to reinforce their own racism within their children. Reading those books would be an excellent opportunity to teach hatred.
A lot of what was in the paper had to do with counting the number of characters in the books and counting how many were white. It was 98% in case you were wondering and yes, the POC making up the other 2% were absolutely drawn as offensive stereotypes.
Let's talk about the "most of the characters were white" thing for a moment. A white guy wrote stories that featured mostly white people. White women write stories that feature mostly white people. 200 years ago, educated black people wrote stories that featured mostly white people. Black people weren't buying books and since the purpose of storytelling is to allow the reader to immerse themself in the fictional world and identify as the hero (usually) or one of the other protagonists, making the characters white was good for selling books.
How come no one ever bitches about Tolstoy not including black people? How come no one ever bitches that understanding Tolstoy is difficult when one doesn't have a firm background in Russian culture?
But I digress....
White authors writing stories with white characters is normal, natural, and preferred. I can't imagine black audiences sitting still for a white writer trying to write a story about a black protagonist as every word and description would be ripped apart to denounce the write for pretending to understand the "black experience." If black people want there to be more books for black audiences then they need to get writing. Were it an earlier point in time, I'd also have to suggest that some enterprising black person get out there and set up a publishing company as well, but this is 2021 and there are a number of publishing companies owned by black people who publish books written only by black and other non-white people.
Remember: it's only "racism" when white people do it.
Another thing that the paper brought up was that children can discern race by the time they are 3 months old. Oddly, the paper stated that "most North American White children" have a "notable racial bias" by the time they are 5 years old. The paper doesn't mention if children of other colors exhibit any similar bias leaving the reader to possibly conclude that children of color are just as non-biased as the day is long.
So I checked the paper that was referenced and 'lo and behold children of color exhibit the same racial bias with North American Blacks actually edging out North American Whites having a high percentage of racist children.
Information that doesn't fit the narrative is soooo troublesome. I'm sure the authors hated having to give a reference and hoped no one like me would come along and actually look it up.
BTW, the authors of the paper were quite open about using the two following methodologies in their research:
Critical Literacy: the method of digging for something offensive until you find it or can at least connect a number of unconnectable dots that the average reader can't parse for the sake of making an argument about why someone should hate a particular writer
...and... you guessed it!
Critical Race Theory: the notion that the narrative of what the "oppressed" feel is the truth is actually the truth regardless of objective facts so that they can feel justified in their hatred of white people and perpetuate said hatred without fear of reprisal.
In the end, here's the thing: I've read all the Dr. Seuss children's books as well as several of Dahl's books and I can't recall ever using their imagery to formulate my opinions of other races, but I suppose that's where folks such as the authors of the paper would say that it DID affect me, but I just never knew it. And again, I'd say, "Nope."
I guess I was just smart enough to know that cartoons weren't real... and even if I hadn't been, I had parents that would have adjusted my attitude real fast and explained to me how racism was bad.
And we're back to the topic of lazy parenting.
Speaking of lazy, I'm too lazy to write any more about this tempest in a teapot.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 26, 2021 0:35:53 GMT
Another thing that the paper brought up was that children can discern race by the time they are 3 months old. Oddly, the paper stated that "most North American White children" have a "notable racial bias" by the time they are 5 years old. The paper doesn't mention if children of other colors exhibit any similar bias leaving the reader to possibly conclude that children of color are just as non-biased as the day is long.
So I checked the paper that was referenced and 'lo and behold children of color exhibit the same racial bias with North American Blacks actually edging out North American Whites having a high percentage of racist children.
Information that doesn't fit the narrative is soooo troublesome. I'm sure the authors hated having to give a reference and hoped no one like me would come along and actually look it up.
BTW, the authors of the paper were quite open about using the two following methodologies in their research:
Critical Literacy: the method of digging for something offensive until you find it or can at least connect a number of unconnectable dots that the average reader can't parse for the sake of making an argument about why someone should hate a particular writer
...and... you guessed it!
Critical Race Theory
Now I did not have to read all of those papers and articles or even your post to conclude/guess that all people everywhere and their babies have similar views and natural inclinations. It's part of evolution and the hard wiring designed to keep us alive and safe.
And since I was born in a location and era where being more colorblind than probably any other group of people in history....... I also knew and believe that skin color doesn't make a bit of difference to me.
Dr. Suess even gave me a few early lessons in how people, especially in larger groups, act the fools en masse. So maybe it's just what one takes away from anything? We see what we wanna see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 26, 2021 0:37:58 GMT
Another thing that the paper brought up was that children can discern race by the time they are 3 months old. Oddly, the paper stated that "most North American White children" have a "notable racial bias" by the time they are 5 years old. The paper doesn't mention if children of other colors exhibit any similar bias leaving the reader to possibly conclude that children of color are just as non-biased as the day is long.
So I checked the paper that was referenced and 'lo and behold children of color exhibit the same racial bias with North American Blacks actually edging out North American Whites having a high percentage of racist children.
Information that doesn't fit the narrative is soooo troublesome. I'm sure the authors hated having to give a reference and hoped no one like me would come along and actually look it up.
BTW, the authors of the paper were quite open about using the two following methodologies in their research:
Critical Literacy: the method of digging for something offensive until you find it or can at least connect a number of unconnectable dots that the average reader can't parse for the sake of making an argument about why someone should hate a particular writer
...and... you guessed it!
Critical Race Theory
Now I did not have to read all of those papers and articles or even your post to conclude/guess that all people everywhere and their babies have similar views and natural inclinations. It's part of evolution and the hard wiring designed to keep us alive and safe.
And since I was born in a location and era where being more colorblind than probably any other group of people in history....... I also knew and believe that skin color doesn't make a bit of difference to me.
Dr. Suess even gave me a few early lessons in how people, especially in larger groups, act the fools en masse. So maybe it's just what one takes away from anything? We see what we wanna see.
At age 5, we see what our parents have trained us to see. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 26, 2021 0:44:19 GMT
Now I did not have to read all of those papers and articles or even your post to conclude/guess that all people everywhere and their babies have similar views and natural inclinations. It's part of evolution and the hard wiring designed to keep us alive and safe.
And since I was born in a location and era where being more colorblind than probably any other group of people in history....... I also knew and believe that skin color doesn't make a bit of difference to me.
Dr. Suess even gave me a few early lessons in how people, especially in larger groups, act the fools en masse. So maybe it's just what one takes away from anything? We see what we wanna see.
At age 5, we see what our parents have trained us to see.
ahhhh...........but you see HERE is kinda where I differ from many.
As a bit of a sociopath, or whatever the F I've got going on inside my head........ I very often viewed my parental units as something to learn from and do the complete opposite because their results were so very often a complete failure.
In a way, I'm thankful for that. But I also see that most people are incapable or unwilling to do the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 26, 2021 1:02:15 GMT
At age 5, we see what our parents have trained us to see.
ahhhh...........but you see HERE is kinda where I differ from many.
As a bit of a sociopath, or whatever the F I've got going on inside my head........ I very often viewed my parental units as something to learn from and do the complete opposite because their results were so very often a complete failure.
In a way, I'm thankful for that. But I also see that most people are incapable or unwilling to do the same.
You're talking about reacting based on what you've learned other than the actual learning of it.
I learned that "pink is for girls" but I have no problem confidently sporting a pale pick shirt with my gray suit... which chicks love.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 26, 2021 1:26:56 GMT
You're talking about reacting based on what you've learned other than the actual learning of it.
I learned that "pink is for girls" but I have no problem confidently sporting a pale pick shirt with my gray suit... which chicks love.
I can remember an ensemble I had as a youth that included a very sharp pink shirt, too. Yep, the ladies did like that one.
I'm not sure why you're distinguishing the methodology though? It's like that "Show your work" requirement in school. As long as I'd arrive at the correct answer, what difference does it make? |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 26, 2021 1:44:29 GMT
You're talking about reacting based on what you've learned other than the actual learning of it.
I learned that "pink is for girls" but I have no problem confidently sporting a pale pick shirt with my gray suit... which chicks love.
I can remember an ensemble I had as a youth that included a very sharp pink shirt, too. Yep, the ladies did like that one.
I'm not sure why you're distinguishing the methodology though? It's like that "Show your work" requirement in school. As long as I'd arrive at the correct answer, what difference does it make? Because that's not the point.
And you're analogy doesn't even address what you stated originally.
Let's go with something slightly weird but closer to the point.
Before you were 5, you saw you parents spending all of their money every month. When you turned 6, your parents start giving you an allowance of $5/week. You go out and the next day you spend the whole $5 on candy and comic books and have then spend a week getting pissier and pissier as you wait for your next installment... just like your parents and their paychecks.
At some point you change the paradigm and start saving so you can buy a larger, more expensive item.
Changing your paradigm didn't come from what you learned from your parents. It came from learning about a new paradigm (saving) and actively shifting away from what you learned from your parents towards something new that you learned from somewhere else.
Get it?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 26, 2021 1:49:08 GMT
Because that's not the point.
And you're analogy doesn't even address what you stated originally.
Let's go with something slightly weird but closer to the point.
Before you were 5, you saw you parents spending all of their money every month. When you turned 6, your parents start giving you an allowance of $5/week. You go out and the next day you spend the whole $5 on candy and comic books and have then spend a week getting pissier and pissier as you wait for your next installment... just like your parents and their paychecks.
At some point you change the paradigm and start saving so you can buy a larger, more expensive item.
Changing your paradigm didn't come from what you learned from your parents. It came from learning about a new paradigm (saving) and actively shifting away from what you learned from your parents towards something new that you learned from somewhere else.
Get it?
$5/week? at 6? Where did you grow up, Richie Rich?
So you consider shifting to another paradigm not actually learning?
I'd disagree, of course. I've always noted how often enough negative lessons stick with you longer than positive reinforcements. As people are wired differently, so too are the things they'll respond to.
That's why the One Size Fits All approach doesn't work for everyone.........even though I'd support a more basic approach that doesn't even try to fit everyone in public schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 26, 2021 2:35:13 GMT
Because that's not the point.
And you're analogy doesn't even address what you stated originally.
Let's go with something slightly weird but closer to the point.
Before you were 5, you saw you parents spending all of their money every month. When you turned 6, your parents start giving you an allowance of $5/week. You go out and the next day you spend the whole $5 on candy and comic books and have then spend a week getting pissier and pissier as you wait for your next installment... just like your parents and their paychecks.
At some point you change the paradigm and start saving so you can buy a larger, more expensive item.
Changing your paradigm didn't come from what you learned from your parents. It came from learning about a new paradigm (saving) and actively shifting away from what you learned from your parents towards something new that you learned from somewhere else.
Get it?
$5/week? at 6? Where did you grow up, Richie Rich?
So you consider shifting to another paradigm not actually learning?
I'd disagree, of course. I've always noted how often enough negative lessons stick with you longer than positive reinforcements. As people are wired differently, so too are the things they'll respond to.
That's why the One Size Fits All approach doesn't work for everyone.........even though I'd support a more basic approach that doesn't even try to fit everyone in public schools.
1. Shift+4, release shift 5. That's all
2. I consider that when shift paradigms when we learn something new
3. Of course you do. The one paradigm you seem unwilling to shift is that anyone knows something better than you.
4. You're off on a tangent based on things not stated. Have fun with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 26, 2021 13:23:13 GMT
1. Shift+4, release shift 5. That's all
2. I consider that when shift paradigms when we learn something new
3. Of course you do. The one paradigm you seem unwilling to shift is that anyone knows something better than you.
4. You're off on a tangent based on things not stated. Have fun with that.
3. OMG is that inaccurate. There are a ton of people smarter than me, better educated than me and have far more skills than I've managed to acquire. THAT's a given.
4. SQUIRREL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 26, 2021 14:06:41 GMT
1. Shift+4, release shift 5. That's all
2. I consider that when shift paradigms when we learn something new
3. Of course you do. The one paradigm you seem unwilling to shift is that anyone knows something better than you.
4. You're off on a tangent based on things not stated. Have fun with that.
3. OMG is that inaccurate. There are a ton of people smarter than me, better educated than me and have far more skills than I've managed to acquire. THAT's a given.
4. SQUIRREL!
3. You nailed it again! |
|
![[giveup]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
"How dense is this guy anyway?" "How does he sleep at nite or even look in the mirror?" 
![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)
![[mad]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/XegTyANmgpBZDFPQoKTh.gif)