- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Not this ridiculously stupid idiocy again, please. Antifa literally stands for "anti-fascism". The "expression of ideas with which they agree" is your doublespeak for FASCISM.
Suffixes matter, in this case, the suffix, -ic, which means "relating to" or, as I applied it, "having the form or character of". For example, if I say my daughter is angelic, I am in no way saying she is an actual angel, but rather that in some way she has the form or some characteristic of an angel (beauty, purity, or some other trait attributed to angels.)
Likewise, when I write that ANTIFA is fascistic, I am saying they exhibit characteristics fascists were known for. Face it, we don't hate and fear fascism because we don't want a command economy. We have a serious problem with Fascism (and fascism) because of how the Fascists treated people who disagreed with them. The Fascists shouted down dissenting voices, then excluded independent thinkers from universities and employment, then used violence and fear tactics to silence those who continued to openly display affinity to ideas with which the Fascists disagreed.
When a bunch of people in ANTIFA smash windows and start fires in order to prevent a conservative speaking engagement, they are exhibiting characteristics of the Fascists in 1930s & 1940s Italy and Germany.
When some ANTIFA jerk punches a guy for nothing more than wearing a MAGA hat, that is right in line with how the Fascists treated people.
Furthermore, you are inaccurately describing the fascist regimes in the first place, which were actually so successful because of the MASSIVE WAVE OF SPIN AND PROPAGANDA which accompanied everything they ever said and/or did.
You are absolutely right. These are marked characteristics of Fascism. Two perfect examples of non-Fascists using spin and propaganda blitzes in a fascistic way to disguise their trampling individuals rights to freely and safely disagree are the Soviet use of propaganda to justify the police state and gulags, and ANTIFA calling themselves "Antifascist" when they are no more in favor of freedom of thought and expression than were the Fascisti and the Nazis.
You bring up the important point that what things are called has nothing to do with what they are, particularly in politics.
Well, both parties ARE engaged, and Trump has turned this Into a "sham republic". Republics with "strong leaders" have great reputations! The Republic of Iran; the Republic of Cuba; The Peoples Republic of China; The Union of Soviet Socialists Republics; on and on.
China, Cuba, and Iran are not republics; they just call themselves that.
The Democratic Republic of Congo is a lot of things, but democratic is not one of them.
By the same token, Trump is not really a Republican in many aspects. He just ran on the Republican ticket. In many (not all) ways, his policy goals and practices are very much in line with 1990s Democrats, particularly with regard to immigration, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and staying out of foreign nations. He is a remarkable example of being a moderate patchwork of both traditional Republican and traditional Democrat policy goals.
Ironically, ANTIFA employs the particularly fascistic tactics of violence, intimidation, and concerted efforts to silence free expression of ideas with which they disagree.
So-called "liberals" have come to push for policies and rules that run counter to individual freedom, especially in universities.
Banking "regulation" by both Democrats and Republicans is not aimed at actually implementing real control over banks.
And on and on and on.
Now we have our own "strong leader wannabe"! Both parties BETTER RE-engage, or, we WILL become another "republic with a strong leader"!
Forgive me if I misunderstand your intent, but it your quotation marks imply Trump is attempting to institute a strong man basis for authority.
Your quotation marks are misplaced. Every time there has been a legal or Congressional challenge to any of his policy actions, he has only used mechanisms of the Constitutionally created government, or of the First Amendment.
Absolutely he is bombastic, but he subjects all executive policies and actions to the checks and balances instituted according to the US Constitution.
Trump did not use members of the executive branch (e.g., FBI or the IRS) to harass opponents, arrest associates of opponents, or refuse to charge allies for crimes opponents' associates were charged with. Neither did he nor his allies intentionally mislead the FISA court to circumvent judicial oversight.
These things were in fact done by Trump's opposition.
Protect our democracy! VOTE AGAINST THIS TREND!
Absolutely! We agree on this.
Neither option works for this question because there are some VERY big differences in how different people came to be homeless.
Most homeless people are mentally ill or addicted to illegal drugs. The rest made some poor decisions, did not plan ahead, etc.
Only the first groups has a problem they cannot address themselves, and need the government's help to solve it. In the case of people who are mentally ill to the degree that they cannot run their lives, yes, that is a situation where government intervention is appropriate, including housing and psychiatric care.
In the case of drug addicts, they alone can solve the root problem, and until they do, government housing is just a warm, dry place to get high. Taxpayer-paid housing is just a waste of money that will not solve the problem.
In the case of those folks who did not plan well, and hit some bad luck, they tend to be able to get off the street reasonably quickly without more help than being left unmolested.
Laws against homelessness are too unspecific to be useful. I understand it being illegal to trespass, defecate or urinate outside of a toilet, start a campfire outside of a designated firepit, block a sidewalk, etc., but outside of that, anti-homelessness laws tend to be unreasonably intrusive, and merely make it unreasonably difficult to solve the problem of being homeless. There is no benefit to a society by making it illegal to sleep in your car UNLESS YOU ARE DRIVING while sleeping.
Sane adults should be held responsible for supporting and caring for themselves, but they should also be left alone to run their own lives.
To start with, I want to draw a distinction between transgender and transsexual. Transsexual involves surgery, artificially set hormone levels, etc., whereas transgender merely entails choice of hairstyle, wardrobe, and pronouns, etc..
By the same token, I want to distinguish between mental illness and a mental disorder. The distinction is primarily one of degree, particularly with respect to how damaging it is to the individual.
Illness comprises an intrinsically damaging condition that has detrimental physical consequences, whereas disorder is merely unhealthy to the degree that it creates psychological or social discomfort, but does not impede basic physical and social functions.
Absolutely transsexuals are mentally ill in the same way as people who feel driven to have healthy limbs amputated, and people who want to undergo elective plastic surgery to realize some unrealistic body image (eg., look like a Barbie Doll.) They are denying their biology to the degree that they damage themselves in order to try the impossible task of changing their sex.
Transgenders, by contrast are not seeking to deny or change the physical reality of their sex, but rather the social role encompassed by gender. There is a wide range in these folks between the most and least unhealthy behaviors. Those who insist they were "born into the wrong body" are engaging in a delusion similar to that of middle-aged men who think they can still do the same physical feats they did in their teens. (Certainly the delusion of such middle-aged men are more likely to result in physical damage than are the delusions of transgenders.)
Face it, we ALL engage in self-delusion, about how attractive, intelligent, competent, likeable, etc. we are. We tend to see the world as we want it to be, not as it is. This is DEFINITELY a mental disorder.
However, so long as our delusions do not negatively impact anyone else, or create an involuntary obligation on anyone's part, they are nobody else's business.
The Union was obviously not fighting to free slaves as a primary purpose; otherwise they would have led with the Emancipation Proclamation, instead of waiting years after the start of the war to declare it.
The Confederacy was not primarily fighting to maintain slavery; otherwise the Confederate forces would not have been glutted by subsistence farmers who would never be able to afford a slave.
The core issue for both sides was states' rights, and what the rightful limits should be on federal and state authority.
Undoubtedly, the issue of slavery brought this issue into stark relief, but so did the issue of tariffs designed to favor industrial states with denser populations over agrarian states with less dense populations. Both these issues brought to light fundamental differences in a vision of the structure of the nation. On the Union side was a concept of states as mere provinces, and on the Confederate side was a concept of states as the primary seats of political power (more in line with the structure of the European Union.)
Neither of these has the simplicity that makes for a clear and easy explanation to grade school children, nor the moral element required to construct a historical narrative of a struggle between good and evil that undergirds an otherwise unsubstantiated belief that our nation is consciously struggling to develop into an increasingly virtuous enterprise.
I would like to see Confederate statues, like statues of Revolutionary war heroes, civil rights leaders, civic and government leaders (even those who have since been disgraced) remain in the public square.
We often acknowledge and are taught to be tolerant and understanding of cultural differences with people in other parts of the world who have other values and beliefs. The same should happen with people who held other beliefs because they lived in a different time. Hiding history only makes it easier for people to lie to us about what happened, or oversimplify complex dynamics, or mistakenly assert that our current moral sensibilities are based in some universal and eternal sense of right and wrong.
The Civil War was not only, or even primarily, about slavery. Civil War generals were real and complex people who were about more than just preserving the Union or defending the Confederacy. Too often these statues and monuments oversimplify history, and too often the impetus to tear them down or hide them in museums is equally aimed at oversimplification. It is small-minded to believe that only our own, often ephemeral views are correct, discerning, or moral.
We forget that good people do bad things, that bad people do good things, and that the long-term effects of actions are unpredictable. We also forget that often the same admirable qualities motivate adversaries to take opposing positions. We can disagree with a position or an action, yet still admire those with whom we disagree, and celebrate their courage, skills, dedication, and sacrifice.
Instead of removing these statues from the public square, I would like to see additional statues, monuments, and plaques be erected to balance the perspective, explain pertinent details, add another viewpoint, or draw attention to how things have changed. This would contribute complexity to the public display of history.
Remember, if we stop preserving our past monuments' place in in the public square, our current beliefs may likewise be eradicated from incidental public view in favor of some future sensibility.
You forgot to mention that Joe's mother, aunts, sisters, wife, and daughter voted in the last election because Republicans fought to pass a constitutional amendment that gives women the franchise, despite strong opposition from the (ironically named) Democrat party.
A poorly run classroom with excessive disruption would make it difficult for even attentive students to learn the material. Would you disagree?
I thoroughly agree with you on this. Classroom management is a large part of what is entailed in making productive connections in the classroom.
- 1 - Some of this is about having students at the right level for their abilities.
My experience is that the vast majority of discipline problems start with a mismatch between student ability and curriculum difficulty. Students who have not mastered prerequisites misbehave because they are frustrated and would rather look like clowns or jerks than look stupid. Students who are bored because the information/skills are not new or challenging misbehave because they are bored.
This is a major problem in most of our public schools because social promotion regardless of mastery is now standard practice. Right-sized curriculum is most of why private schools and charter schools outperform traditional public schools. The kids behave better, so more of class-time involves teacher-student and student-student connections that promote learning.
The other reason private and charter schools outperform is that they don't admit students who are unwilling to do the work.
- 2 - To manage a classroom, the teacher needs to develop a relationship with the class as a whole, in addition to relationships with individual students.
There is no sure-fire way to do this. Weird things factor into making a connection with a group, and what works with one group may not work with another group.
Having a strong voice helps, but is not required. Being able to move only one eyebrow at a time can be a powerful tool.
Most of it boils down to simultaneously convincing 50 people at a time that you know what you are doing, that you are in charge, and that you love them, so they might as well get on board.
There is no teacher preparation course for how to do that.
- 3 - Once students are in a classroom environment that is not chaotic:
- The half or more of students who are curious and willing to work can do the independent (and sometimes self-directed) learning. All the teacher has to do is provide helpful resources and arrange for useful activities. Easy peasy!
- The students who are disinterested and unmotivated can get the attention from the teacher that can forge the necessary connections to help the kids learn.