https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9b/79...9108e0aa76.jpg
Printable View
SIMPLE VERSION:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1
Bad teacher
LONG VERSION:
Having has nearly two decades personal experience with CGI math (which is embedded in the “common core”) and many of those years leading inservices and/or focus groups, I have found that teacher after teacher makes the same mistake: “This way bad, this way good.”
What a knowledgeable teacher understands is that math should involve four steps:
-thinking about the problem
-evaluating the easiest method for the situation
-getting the answer
-explaining their reasoning (aka metacognition)
More importantly, a knowledgeable teacher knows that the “easiest method” may be different for each student.
To “force” a student to use only one method (old, new, American, Japanese) basically devalues the 1st, 2nd, and 4th steps. Yet... many teachers fall into the trap that “old is bad”... when sometimes it is indeed the easiest method. More importantly, if it’s easiest for that student, then who cares which method they use (as long as they can explain their thought process).
Yes that's it exactly. My son understands the "old" way better than the long drawn out way. Just the way he processes it I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by teegre
That’s the beauty of CGI. It acknowledges that each brain is different. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1
******Quote:
Originally Posted by tom444
FWIW, that sucks that you and your son had to deal with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1
Outside Fenway Park:
https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/qQ...88b6159645bc08
The hardest riddle you will ever have to solve, brought to you by the Democratic party
1. The Democratic party and it's followers want to defund the police
2. They also won't take any action against violent left-wing terrorists who commit violent acts
3. Of course they also want to disarm the average american citizen and take away the right to bear arms
So how does the Democratic party expect we the people to protect ourselves from criminals?
They don't.... and they don't care. All they want is for the country to become Socialist/Communist so they can control you/us.Quote:
Originally Posted by st33lersguy
Anyone actually read any of the "defund" plans? Or just regurgitating preloaded talking points?
Most of them talk pretty specifically about the justified fears brought up here. And there are some fairly satisfying answers.
Most boil down to the average police force is asked to do too many different tasks with only one primary tool - the uniformed patrol officer. Plans are laid out to shift funds to social workers, mental health professionals, etc to off load some tasks to specialists.
Basically, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Perhaps, if municipalities could confront situations with an array of tools in their toolbox, better and safer outcomes for all could result.
Rather racist. I can see why liberals like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tom444
You lost me at social workers. Of course, that's because I associate them with CPS. Talk about an overfunded under-restricted program that needs to be cleaned out. A bunch of twenty-somethings on power trips who literally brag about the ability to take away children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
/rant.
Okay, the problem with defunding police for these other things is that the other people do not have the legal authority to go into the community, interact with someone, then take them against their will into government custody. And, if they did, then all we'd be doing is deputizing people who do not know enough of the law to do their jobs.
I say keep funding the police in all the ways they're being funded. In fact, fund them more. They are basically the tip of the spear on the domestic front. They get called in, and then determine who else needs to be called in if so needed. And, that is where I think the money should go. Make sure police officers know how to determine there is a possibility of mental illness. Then, if they see something, they know to call social services or a psychiatrist on call or someone else before it gets out of hand (unless it becomes a threat to others).
Taking away that responsibility from police officers is only going to make their jobs harder and the general public more unsafe.
Now, if you want to defund part of the police force, defund the militarizing aspects of the police. Take away their armored vehicles, automatic weapons, grenade launcher, and ... get this: bayonets. BAYONETS?! Why the flip does a police force need bayonets?
The last bit of your post is what is being called for in many plans. Then use that money to hire the other folks you are talking about. Because right now they don't exist in many communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craic
The proposals I've looked over don't deputize anyone else to perform police functions or invest them with legal mandates. They would be linked with police but not replacing them.
Largely many "defund" proposals advance the idea that police are well positioned to punish crime but not stop crime at it's source. Putting things and people in place that can address that (say drug abuse treatment; job assistance) and work with police (freeing them up to do actual police things) appears to have a potential to both ensure public safety and build infrastructures to actually improve communities.
Agree or disagree. That's fine. Personally, I am not sure. I still need to see more details. But it is pretty clear that many of the loudest critics heard the word "defund" and just started yelling.
Your well reasoned rhetoric is a far cry from what you hear coming from the actual mobs in the street. They are 1000 times more likely to chant "F@ck the Police" and "Abolish the Police". They want to live in a world without police.
Unfortunately the police have proven to be unable to use their firearms properly. Don't defund them, disarm most of them. Do what they do in London where there are small special groups of police who carry per section of the city.
Quote:
Today only a small proportion of officers are authorised to use firearms. Latest Home Office figures show there were just 6,653 officers authorised to use firearms in England and Wales - about 5% of the total number.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551Quote:
The Metropolitan Police, which covers most of London, was founded in 1829 on the principle of "policing by consent" rather than by force.
Most of the "defund the police" proposals can be summarized in two words: "Wishful thinking."
If people want to put more effort into providing meaningful social services of the types they suggest, that may be a worthwhile goal, but it is a totally separate project and a totally separate issue from the police. If they are talking about replacing police with that to any degree and just hoping it works out because human nature is fundamentally good and just needs a helping hand - they are out of their minds.
What it really looks like is an attempt to blame the problems associated with BAD NEIGHBORHOODS on everyone else but the people who actually cause the problems, because of some imagined societal injustice, in typically lazy Democrat fashion. Police and "institutional racism" are the scapegoats this time.
Notice how deliberately vague the term "institutional racism" is. Just an open-ended proxy for demanding to enforce your own social engineering on whatever you want, whenever you want to.
Of course if you put more social workers, or behaviorists, on the street, the police will just shoot them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqBAOX6Qegk
Again, have any of those that post easy and simple criticisms of either the protestors or the defunding idea actually taken the time to read the proposals and platforms of how these ideas would work in a real world scenario?
From the comments so far offered in this thread, the clear and obvious answer is "not a single word". I am not asking anyone to agree with the idea or the proposals, but to just blindly criticize something you have not even looked into (aside from taking an internet personality's word for it) is cheap and lazy.
For instance: "An average of 10% of law enforcement agencies' total budgets was spent responding to and transporting persons with mental illness in 2017." (https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter....mental-illness) -- so the idea becomes to take cops out of having to deal with these non-violent, non-criminal mental health scenarios. Siphon off a portion of the budget and have it be mental health professionals and medical folks who respond to these issues. Some have spoken about coordination with the local PD (in case the individual was violent or criminal as well). Then, the police could be released back to their regular duties (each mental health case involves transport time, often over a 2.5 hour wait time for the cop, and then mountains of paperwork -- none of which has to be police work).
Other studies have documented the same issues when it comes to how much time, money, and effort most police departments put into dealing with non-violent and non-criminal (or at least not above the level of misdemeanor offenses) homeless in medium and large cities. Can some (or all?) of that burden be offloaded to individuals and agencies better suited to spending their whole day dealing with it rather than law enforcement?
Here is former Dallas Police Chief and other officials talking about how most of what they do isn't what most of us would consider police work: https://www.kltv.com/story/32603243/...for-everybody/ -- "We're just asking us to do too much," said Brown. "Every societal failure, we put it off for the cops to solve. Schools fail, give it to the cops. 70 percent of the African American community is being raised by single women. Let's give it to the cops to solve that as well. That's too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems." (bold is mine for emphasis)
I still think most of the plans I have heard and read are a bit too extreme and not well worked out. I certainly don't think that the 50% of a cities general fund to just under 6% is a workable idea. In fact, I am not sure that the entire concept is possible right now. However, it is very easy to read and find information that says the basic principles are not to be laughed out of the room. Like Craic said, why does some small town sheriff's department need enough military surplus gear to fight a small war? Why are we asking police to do things that, to me, aren't their problem or their skill set?
But, I get that few on here care about that. They will just continue to blindly offer definitive statements against the concept with no actual thought or knowledge.
Here is a thought provoking essay by a former cop that argues that police work is more than a bit broken across the United States - https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confess...p-bb14d17bc759 -- But even ignoring the anti-cop tone of the piece, this quote stands out for me in regards to the current discussion:"When I was doing my best work as a cop, I was doing mediocre work as a therapist or a social worker. My good deeds were listening to people failed by the system and trying to unite them with any crumbs of resources the structure was currently denying them." (again, bolded emphasis was added by me).
So if most cops are spending a quarter to half their time (from the same survey in the first link "survey respondents report utilizing an estimated 21% of total law enforcement staff time responding to and transporting people with mental illness.") doing mental health or social work -- maybe we create methods and funding to have actual mental healthcare providers and social workers do those jobs and cops can be freed up to do actual cop shit?
Yeah, I agree with all of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Or it might be that that claim is a bullshit talking point created to keep you afraid and unquestioning of the status quo. Or it might be that "Divert some police funds to mental health and help cops go back to solving actual police matters instead of being drowned in healthcare administration and paperwork" is not really an effective slogan to grab attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheezheadsteeler
Or it might be because all they want is a BS talking point. The two sides are more interested in putting each other down rather than thinking. It's just easier to say, "yeah, defund da police ya dumb sh*t."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
I'd ask you explain why you think it's racist, but what's the point? I know what you're going to say, and why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeldude
Wait, so the whole time, all these riots and looting have been about increasing funding for mental health? All those people were smashing windows, and setting fires, and attacking people on the street, and fighting the cops, and spray painting "FUCK THE POLICE" and "KILL ALL COPS" ... that was actually because they want to HELP the police so they can do their jobs better!
Man, I TOTALLY misunderstood them! It must be because I'm a white supremacist and I hate change.
Bullshit talking point? I have seen/heard videos of crowds actually chanting those things and seen those things spray painted on buildings. How is it a bullshit talking point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=893&v=K4kHiUAjTvQ&feat ure=emb_ title
30 plus years ago, and its like reading today's headlines.
Sweet googly moogly. This is like when folks get all out of shape when a coach comes out and lauds an under-performing player instead of just shitting all over their starting CB or something. Was the 2016 GOP platform solely "Lock her up" and "MAGA" because that was what was on the signs and what the crowd was chanting. Last I checked, there was a far more detailed platform than just that.
It isn't like I'm just making shit up - https://www.foxnews.com/us/de-blasio...ocial-services
https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/what-...explained.html
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...it-have-merit/
https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/0...uld-come-next/
And of course if we are really wanting a definitive take, we shouldn't leave Eazy and the fellas out of it: https://youtu.be/c5fts7bj-so
Long article with many links that covers the good and the bad and the dumb wrapped up in the defund idea: https://www.vox.com/2020/6/18/212937...olicing-review
Like any other proposal for extreme change, it contains elements on a spectrum from damn good idea to totally ludicrous that anyone would even put that into words.
Hopefully, it would be possible to have a grown up conversation about all that - but about 5 minutes spent around here proves how and why that is impossible.
Here is the funny thing, I personally think the idea is pretty flawed and needs a ton more work; if for no other reason is the policing budget isnt enough to fund all the things proposed to replace it. But, also think just snarkily dismissing something without understanding it is even more worthless.
Well, it gets snarkily dismissed because the "protesters" have completely annihilated their credibility through incredibly violent actions and hateful rhetoric. So yes, you will find many, many people who are then unwilling to engage their side in thoughtful discussion about the finer points of their plan for radical change. It is not because those people are childish and shallow, but because they are OUT OF PATIENCE for BULLSHIT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Sorry, but you hitched your wagon to that, and most sane people want nothing to do with it, no matter how much you insult their intelligence and call them closed-minded. It is just a natural consequence.
If you want to go through life totally not curious about the events and ideas around you because you find snap decisions and knee jerk reactions comforting; good for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
Me? I'm not going to stop trying to undestanding why things are happening in the world around me. Further, I like to learn new things and find new information.
Learning from the world.
Quote:
What the World Could Teach America About Policing
Examples abound of reforms that are seen as “radical” in the United States.
Yasmeen SerhanJune 10, 2020
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/...m/original.jpgAdam MaidaIn the weeks since George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer, nationwide anti-racism protests have called for, among other things, defunding the police. But the members of the Minneapolis City Council decided to go further, announcing their intent to dismantle their police department altogether.
Such a promise might have been deemed radical only a few weeks ago. But as the demonstrations following Floyd’s death have grown, and as police violence against peaceful protesters and journalists has been thrust into the national spotlight, the question of how police forces should protect and serve their communities—and what should become of those that don’t—has become all the more urgent in the United States.
So far, proposed answers have ranged from reforming and reprioritizing law-enforcement funding to disarming and disbanding departments for good. As radical as such recommendations might seem in an American context, they have been tried and tested elsewhere. Here are some of the lessons that the U.S. could learn from other countries.
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ritain/612820/
As for insulting your or anyone else's intelligence, it is the opposite. Everyone who posts here has demonstrated the ability to rub more than two brain cells together. But seems to consistently stop short of doing much beyond seeking out preformed opinions and content that is carefully curated to confirm what they've already concluded. Why not seek out the other side and try to understand it?
I think the current administration is intellectually and morally deficient. But whenever they announce a new policy or legislative initiative, I try to read and research as much as I can to attempt to understand why the proposals are the way they are. Sometimes it changes my reaction, sometimes it doesn't. For instance, I don't believe tax breaks serve the stimulus function it is argued they do. But I do understand the logic and rationale for why others think stridently different.
Further proving my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Trust me, it's not that we have no desire to understand how the world works or seek out new information. It is that we have no desire to engage with people who have repeatedly proven themselves unreasonable, and relentless about promoting a horrible ideology of misery and gloom.
There is a HUGE difference between "I am dismissing your idea because I refuse to consider it" and "I am dismissing your idea because I did consider it, and it quickly became evident that the entire premise was meritless and unworthy of further investigation or discussion" ... or what is becoming increasingly relevant today: "I am dismissing your idea because I considered YOU and/or the people backing the idea, and I don't have any faith that you could be trusted to make it turn out positively." The left doesn't get that, so they double down on name-calling.
Like, maybe it makes you feel superior to gather a ton of sources to cite in order to justify your preferences - but 99 times out of 100, the initial yes/no triage of "Does this idea suck so badly that it is not even worth consideration?" or "Does this person suck so badly that his/her ideas are not even worth consideration?" can be done without a PhD or any in-depth investigation. Just because they end up on the side of that decision that you don't like does not mean the ones making the decision were ignorant, unqualified, or otherwise lesser than you. Many times, they are absolutely right.
What happened to which party?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv9sH5ptgRA
The revolutionary army defeated the British by bombing their airports with invisible jets.
The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. M.D. (Author), Bob Spear (Author), George Foster (Illustrator.
The Liberal Mind is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship.
Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life.
Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains. [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD] Just know I make no money sharing this info with all of you. We need to educate ourselves about what is really happening with antifa aka fascists. Where to buy here's the link below.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-.../dp/0977956318
3
- - - Updated - - -
http://youtu.be/qw9k2F9OPVE