• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

728 Excellent


About MalletFace

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 01/21/98

Personal Information

  • Species
    Fascist Dictator

Recent Profile Visitors

908 profile views
  1. When teachers don't love their subject. Or when they hate kids. Or when they hate teaching theory. Or when they hate other teachers. Or when they hate teaching practice. Or that this is all so common. Like, what are you even trying to do?
  2. When people repeat the idea of the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" over and over without having actually read anything on it, especially the original article.
  3. How education currently works at lower levels + how many people want to change it + how many people actually do anything about it because they think teaching should be apolitical Education is an institution situated within, defined by, and acted out through our culture that socializes a huge number of people in the way educators define (or fail to). Education is inherently political. Stop letting people tell you not to do what's right.
  4. How, even with things like what is currently happening in Catalonia or what has happened so often elsewhere, people can think the police exist to protect the people when their actual purpose is to protect institutions.
  5. I don't think hate describes this well, even though it was a word used. Hate has caused a lot of good through history. As Elie Wiesel eloquently said, "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference." The person full of spite can change the world for the better just as much as a person full of love for others can take it a step back; the only constant is the person indifferent to it all. These are good questions. One should ask these kinds of questions about any group. Would you be okay with clearly answering each one in your words? That would actually be pretty cool. I wanted to break this whole section of thought down and ask specific questions, but I am not sure how to do that. If nothing else, could you try and explain the last two sentences? Are you talking about how people like Elves/ELFS and related groups were and are treated and them being called the biggest terrorist threat right up until they decided it was actually groups like Al-Qaeda simply because groups like that were hurting corporate profits? Much of the fact that the human population is increasing at all in any place rather than decreasing is socioeconomic. This would suggest correcting the socioeconomic positions and relations that cause population growth with the socioeconomic positions and relations that cause population decline would be the best way to fix this. The idea that human overpopulation is a problem that cannot be solved without population control - like breeding limits - started with Malthus as kind of a precursor to some of the tenets of Social Darwinism. As you might know, Social Darwinism isn't even discussed much in modern philosophy, anthropology, sociology, or biology simply because it is an idea with no backing, no true hypotheses or predictions, and very little support from any credible individual in any related field. Most of Social Darwinism's supporters are economists and political writers. Why do you think population controls would work, though? Was this just something you thought would be common sense? If so, it is okay to start there, but I would recommend you look into it. I understand your emotions on this issue, but I can tell you might not have looked thoroughly into this. Be careful when talking about things you hate. It is okay to hate them, but understand them. Be an expert in them. Know everything about things you hate so you can do the best possible work in deconstructing and eliminating the things you hate. Just to emphasize that point - as somebody has already noted - hunters don't shoot deer in the face. It can be kind of frustrating trying to understand something you hate, but I don't know of a better way to get started on fixing the things you hate. Forget hunters for a second. If you really want to see that, I tried to find it for you. I just found stuff on reddit, but I tried to do this stuff fast. If you want more stuff, I can try and find more for you later. And if this isn't the right kind of stuff, that's fine. Here's r/Restoration_Ecology, which might fit that bill at times. Maybe other ones like r/Conservation would help? Would you possibly be interested in ways people are trying to limit their impact on other life? Many of the people sitting over at r/Aquaponics seem to be into it exactly for that. That's just environmental stuff, which I am not really well-versed in. I should try more. If you want humans doing well for other humans, though, I've got you on that if you want to see it. I understand that hate can surface like this, but this is not a good thing. As you noted, you know this. If it helps, many of the people suffering through the hurricanes want the world to be a better place. If you look at r/Aquaponics, you'll actually find that quite a number of the people there are getting into aquaponics as a way to limit their environmental impact, and many of them were right in the paths of the hurricanes. These are good people doing something to fix the world, and they got hurt. As another example, Food Not Bombs is doing as much as they can - as far as I am aware - to feed individuals impacted by the storms. While that not be of much interest to you, they try to do this through using food that would otherwise go to waste in an effort to limit the waste through the whole system of production and supply that would have otherwise happened. I might help you feel even better if you knew that FNB was literally feeding people food that would have otherwise gone to waste for no reason in order to protest war, poverty, and greed. If I can impart any knowledge onto you, let it be that talking about any kind of constant human nature is a quick way to miss a lot about the world. As far as I am aware, no biologist, sociologist, anthropologist, or even philosopher knows of any consensus on the question, "What does it mean to be human?" We were not made to destroy the world. We were not made to bleed the world dry. We simply are. What causes us to do these things are the cultures and societies we have built. An amazing thing about those cultures and societies is that their construction means they can be changed. People resist those changes to their death, but it can happen. Do you want to make it happen? What are you doing to make it happen? What will you do? This is one thing to do, but it isn't going to be enough. Is there something else you can do? Can you help local groups in other ways? Can you start your own groups? Remember, though, that many of the organizations that act for people are also acting for the environment. Food Not Bombs is a great example again. While they feed people, they explicitly state "Food Not Bombs is trying to inspire the public to participate in changing society and focus our resources on solving problems like hunger, homelessness and poverty while seeking an end to war and the destruction of the environment." They are helping people, but they are also using the aid they provide to direct the people they help to become activists for the environment. I severely doubt this. I don't know what else to say about this, but I doubt the notion. I think one of the reddits I linked to might have examples of this kind of thing, though. I'm severely concerned that you have so routinely encountered horrible people. This seems like a severe combination of cognitive biases and unfortunate situations. What kind of environment are you in in real life and online? I'll admit that you are a person that is very hard for me to understand sometimes. I think it is mostly because I tend not to interact with the threads you do. Sometimes I just have to agree with you when our paths cross, though. I also think this might have to do with your environment. I can't escape hunting where I am, and I get targeted advertisements for hunting even though I very much don't advocate hunting for any people that does not need it to survive. Most major malls around here even have entire stores dedicated to hunting, and most "superstores" have a huge section dedicated to hunting that is constantly being used. I'll usually try at least once to be nice and help if I know how, but knowing this and some other stuff almost made me not do that in this case. Fine if they're a gay person asking others not to say that word in any way. Gay individuals everywhere are a marginalized group because the nature of nearly all the institutions they use and inhabit involves their exclusion in some way. Asking people that aren't gay to limit their use of the word to limit the exclusion gay individuals experience in this case is okay. But as a fucking furry acting in the interest of furries? No. "Almost" because maybe, I hope, this is somebody that is either a troll or simply does not know. If not for them in the first case, I'd like whatever information I thought would be useful for them to get out there. I do not approve of metaphysics and alternatives being mentioned on this forum in any way at all, be it in passing, by accident, or in honest discussion. That is not allowed. Unless it is in the post in which I discussed them a while back. Because I am allowed.
  6. I respect the point you tried to make, but I sorely regret you not immediately posting one of the songs most celebrated as patriotic literally saying private property should be abolished. I also happen to prefer other songs he sang / the almanac singers performed about fighting fascists, but that's just my opinion. "We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations. Such is the logic of patriotism." - Emma Goldman from What is Patriotism? Like did the people in the thread conspire to make this century-old quote so relevant?
  7. Arpaio getting pardoned for a crime he actually committed that nearly all people agree should be something people get punished for. The dude was holding people illegally in inhumane conditions under suspicion of being hispanic in the country illegally, and he was ordered to stop. But he didn't and he became a convicted criminal. So Trump pardoned him. Because Arpaio "continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration" by literally causing many people to suffer and/or die. He committed and ordered people to commit awful crimes. So he got a pardon. The first pardon of this president. I hate it.
  8. So after a white supremacist banner got put up (and swiftly removed), most of my university has been actively making sure people like that don't feel welcome here. Like they're not doing anything illegal. They're just letting them know that's not okay. I love it. You realize in that post he called Neil DeGrasse Tyson's claim that the methodology and instruments used to predict the solar eclipse are just as accurate as the ones used to predict climate change a "logical fallacy," right? The man said he wasn't anti-intellectual, and then proceeded to say an astrophysicist is wrong about his field of study. You know Mike Rowe denies climate change, right? The man who says he is not anti-intellectual tells professionals they are wrong about their fields. And you realize he complained about universities, and then proceeded to plug mikeroweWORKS, which partners with UTI - a for-profit college that the Senate found provides worse education than any normal community college or university for more money - to train people in trades, right? Like... the dude was called out for being anti-intellectual and for just looking to make money, and he responded by saying scientists are wrong and by plugging a partnership he actually makes money from. Do you not see the issue? I'm amazed that this is a thing. And I looked it up and it isn't too pricey. What is this?
  9. Do you not see them? Pretty sure them chanting blood and soil is a pretty Nazi thing to do, even if it wasn't in German. Oddly enough, they also did it at a torchlight rally, which also seems pretty familiar... I think the calling for genocide thing is new, though. That has no connection to real nazis. I mean mass deportations based on citizenship usually have an ulterior motive. Like when the Germans were deporting "Polish citizens" but were really just deporting Jewish people. Or like when the U.S. decided to repatriate Mexicans in the U.S. but were really just targeting anybody vaguely Mexican-appearing as scapegoats for the Great Depression. That might be why the U.N. has largely concluded that mass deportations are usually crimes against humanity, even against individuals illegally in a country in many cases. It is almost like it is inhumane to just say "We're going to expel this many people back to conflict-engulfed and resource-deprived regions from the world just because we decided they weren't valuable enough to us and we are racist fucks because their paperwork doesn't add up." HAWT I totally agree with the sentiment on nonviolence, but... As far as it goes, most antifascists and related organizers I know don't condone just showing up and beating the shit out of nazis. That's a bad idea. That's why they didn't just do that in Charlottesville, and that's why they don't do it even when they outnumber nazi protesters. I mean it is a really bad idea, especially since police already side with the right. I believe what most antifascists believe is that one must confront oppressors or those that seek to oppress in any way you can. I see a lot of praise for this guy from antifascists for that reason: His name is Martin B├╝hler, and he is a historian that has taken to documenting police brutality. He literally just dresses nice and stands in a place where police/fascists/whatever will have to hurt or remove him to get to the people he is protecting. I've actually heard of organizers advising white guys to dress well and do exactly this because it prevents police brutality. I've never heard of an organizer advising white guys to just beat the shit out of nazis or police. That gets police involved and a good movement ended real quick. Maybe even some injuries/deaths on their own side. People excited about getting to reenact WW2 might get excited about punching nazis, but I've never met anybody seriously in that movement advocating just beating the shit out of nazis as a first resort, especially during an event like Charlottesville. There's a reason people on that side are calling Heather Heyer a martyr even though she didn't lay a finger on a nazi. Not to say they don't advocate violence at some point, just saying that I've never seen them advocate just yoloing in to beating shitheads before trying to do something else.
  10. You would think. The worst part is that there are a few gay and Jewish future educators in the program I am in and a few future educators of color. And they only say these things in front of us if they don't know that one of these people is around them. So they are just trying to feign empathy and respect to benefit socially with minority groups and then turn right the fuck around and shit on them because it won't hurt them at all. This isn't abnormal at all around here, so I have no idea why I thought teachers would be different. On a more positive note, there are future educators here that are quite opposite. They are mostly of those minorities, but who needs allies when you have will? EDIT: I take back my happy moment:
  11. Why are people so ill-informed about this? I see you haven't seen Godwin's Second and Third Law: You know they marched on a synagogue and churches, right? The synagogue was fine aside from the realistic fear the nazis presented, but as far as the church went, the clergy thinks you are dead wrong. Like I've put videos from reporters on here of the alt-right dudes screaming that they are about to go beat down antifascists, which they proceed to attempt. I'm also pretty sure nobody was beating on James Fields before he plowed into protesters in his car. Plus antifascists didn't show up en masse until day two. On day one, the alt-right marched pretty uncontested, except for about 30 peaceful counter-protesters standing around a statue. They beat the fuck out of those people pretty easily, by the way, as there were about 250 of them. Antifascists showed up on day two largely to counter that. You know people have been consistently doing those things with them since the first nazis and fascists started popping up. It... it didn't really work. I'm not sure why anybody thinks you can reason with people calling for genocide. Where does the idea that this is the position of a reasonable person come from? We kind of had to vandalize property and club wrong-thinkers to get rid of them, if you don't recall... One of the groups wants genocide and the other one wants not genocide. They're both willing to fight for their goals. What is everybody's difficulty here?
  12. In just one week among future educators I've heard so many slurs and other hurtful things that I never really thought were so prevalent among future educators. "I done Jewed that up" "I'm not racist, but there's a difference between a n*****r and a n***a just like there's a difference between a white guy and a honky" "I just made myself look like a faggot" "What do you guys look for in a perfect roommate?" *across the room* "Not gay" I mean I guess I see why things like bullying and depression are so poorly handled in education; these fuckers help or are sympathetic to the shitheads. My principal was homophobic, transphobic, and racist in high school but I thought she was just the oddball. Do I really belong in education? How much good can I even do when the people the kids are supposed to go to are like this? How much good can I do if my coworkers might try to get me fired because I'm not like them?
  13. I only learned about it because I got really into learning who let the Holocaust happen. My conclusion: The only people that are absolved from the blame were those that fought the Nazis in every way that was possible for them, as everyone else - intentionally or accidentally - paved the way. I also got really into learning about the Spanish Civil War, and the Republicanos were full of groups openly calling themselves movimientos/milicias antifascistas. This is the kind of idea that makes John Brown a villain. John Brown took up arms and was willing to kill to stop this: Yes, he threw the first punch as far as open battle goes, but can you tell me in all honesty that his violence makes him a bad person? Does that violence he enacted so that former slaves could be equal to himself make him a worse person than the person approaching the power to start ending slavery and start delivering equality to the slaves that said, Which one of these two people is the real hero? Which one of these two people is the better person? What truly makes the two different, where one fought for good before those supporting evil could throw the first formal punch, or the one that only did any good because they were forced to? Additionally, could one not also argue that supporting/building/continuing the institution of slavery is a first punch? What about with other forms of oppression? With racism? With homophobia? When people call for these things, are they not inciting the people to put them into action? Are they not stating their intent to make evil possible? What about when people call for genocide - genocide we know is possible on industrial scales and has happened in one of the most liberal states in the world - is that not a first punch? When do their efforts shift from harmless nonsense to real, tangible, harmful attacks? When their words lead to families disowning their children, causing those kids to die on the street? When their words lead to activists screaming "never again" getting beaten on the street? When? When do we have the right to stop them? After my classmates are consistently placed at a social disadvantage because they are Jewish? After my boyfriend gets choked by his dad for being gay? After my friend gets put on the street for being trans? As I said, when does it become self defense from physical harm? After you - a person probably nowhere near the receiving end of most of their aims - decide? Does the well-treated and cared-for slave have no right to rebel? Does the Russian serf who has never even seen an image of the Tsar have a right to rebel? Should the Nazi elite have been left alive? Many of them never even explicitly called for anything illegal, and many certainly did not do any killing themselves. When do we the people have the right to give up the moral high ground to defend our existence, I ask you, oh Holier-Than-Thou. How? It gives them a platform, and it makes them equal to any other beliefs that may be spoken in public, does it not? And, if they are given a platform, does it not allow them to spread and become norms and values? And, if they become norms and values, does that not pave the way for people to begin acting on them in their own lives or on the national stage? Do we really need to risk going down that path again just to let nazis feel safe calling for genocide? But how does telling them they are wrong stop them? How does telling them they are wrong keep them from acting out evil? How many nazis stopped calling for genocide because they saw a good sign? How many nazis stopped calling for genocide because of a statistic? On the other hand, how many Holocausts were stopped by men with guns and tanks? Belief that the law upholds morality may be right in some ways, but it misses a lot. The law upholds the morality of the person that made it. This used to be law: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." It was law until violence ended it. One side is calling for genocide and punching people telling them to stop so they can act out the genocide. The other side says genocide is bad and is punching the people calling for genocide so they stop calling for genocide. Not completely siding one way or the other is cowardly. How can you not take a side? Why is this so hard? Right after the U.S. decided the USSR was no longer an ally, and with the Second Red Scare, the U.S. government played a long campaign of trying to paint the nazis as the antithesis of the U.S. This meant everything from underplaying the fact that the war was really won by the dirty people of the USSR and Red China to painting the nazis as left-wing. It really didn't hurt that the nazis loved people thinking they were left-wing and did everything they could to look left-wing - it meant that they could get people that would normally oppose them simply by putting on a nice smile. When you do that kind of thing, it really opens the way for a nationalist movement already heavily based on pre-existing American ideals to take hold, especially after any type of surge in left-wing thought, as happened during the Civil Rights movement or during the rise of things like BLM. I promise I'm not actively trying to ignore or contradict the economic portion of this. I really don't have much to say about the information you presented. I will say that it is really important to remember that economics, culture, and their history cannot be separated. Attempting to do so is just... revisionist, for lack of a better word. Yes, yes, yes. While I will never disavow violence against people that want me dead, by all means, make them look like fools. Remember to remind people that they aren't harmless, though. A fool can still kill me. Also on the topic of Charlottesville, I just want to remind everyone that Heather Heyer, the woman killed by the dude in the car, was a socialist, and she was there to fight racism and capitalism in her own way. It seems many news outlets are erasing that. Not too many liberals at that event; the nazis have a right to call for genocide, after all, and the counter-protesters didn't get a permit. I will also note that James Fields was a racist, white-nationalist, nazi who was trying to incite a race war in his own violent way. It seems many right-wing sources are trying to claim he was creating a red flag of some sort through being one or more of a Jewish person, a socialist, or a BLM activist.
  14. The only unified belief or value of antifascists is resisting fascists and nazis. If that echo chamber is something people ought not be pushed into, I'm not sure why people get so defensive about how much their countries contributed to beating the shit out of nazis in World War 2. We made those nazis dig graves for the dead of the Holocaust, and the only rest they got was lying in those selfsame graves. Now we let the new ones carry tiki torches through Charlottesville wearing polo shirts and MAGA hats. This is because violence is a good political strategy. All successful groups in history have employed it. I'm pretty sure it is what stopped the nazis and fascists in Italy in Germany, as a matter of fact. It almost stopped them when the parties first formed in Germany and Italy, but those countries preferred helping the nazis and fascists crush the antifascists to helping the antifascists crush the nazis and fascists. Put that statement into context for you. Liberals suck. Luckily enough, people actually on the left have been doing this kind of thing for a long time and know not to listen to liberals. Because violent mobs never solve anything, like when they got rights for some of the lower classes in Rome. Or when they overthrew the French monarchy and instituted democracy. Or when they pushed for constitutionalism in England. Or when they helped push the Thirteen Colonies away from the monarchy. Or when they forced the Tsar to abdicate and formed the provisional government. Or when they provided leverage for the Civil Rights movement in the United State. They sometimes fail, though, like when those Jewish people in whatever Polish city did the whole violent mob thing and got shut down by the law, as they should have been. Put that statement into context for you. They were aware of them when they were being put up, but considering they were put up during periods when confederate-sympathizers were winning, they couldn't do much about the whole mess. Listen: It would not be okay to hit even Hitler unless it was legal. Everybody knows the law is the ultimate source of morality. This is why gay people stayed in concentration camps after the war; they broke the law. Is that really hard to understand? Honestly, that people don't know this probably has something to do with how we educate about fascism and nazism in early 20th century Europe. Like we're taught that the nazis and fascists were brutal meanies that forced their way into government, but they were actually supported by moderates - and even by what would be modern liberals - who preferred the nazis and fascists to the left. Antifascists tried to beat the crap out of the SA in Germany. Antifascists tried to kick the teeth in of blackshirts in Italy. They might have, too, if it had not been for the meddling government and their stupid arms. We. Have. To. Compromise. Instead of either genocide or a tolerant society, let's create legal, cultural, and societal systems that put those that are not straight, cis, white men at a disadvantage but say that the system is fair and moral in the end. We'll write off the many people hurt by these systems as the natural costs of a just system. To be fair, you guys did wait until the Germans had fucked over half of Europe and let the Italians do whatever the fuck they wanted in Ethiopia and Albania. Plus there was the whole Japan annexing swathes of land in China without much retribution, but I guess that really doesn't count as part of the World War because it was only millions more Chinese people dying than English speakers from the Commonwealth and U.S. combined. Even if you don't agree with them, your actions can still lend support to them. Hindenburg and Hugenberg didn't support nazis, but they did a lot for them. Emanuele III didn't support the fascists, but he did a lot for them. It was really sad that the Americans killed all those guards in Dachau when they found out that the people calling for genocide were actually committing genocide once they got power. It is almost ironic that those dogs, frothing at the mouth to spill the blood of genocidal maniacs, screamed "Let's get those nazi dogs!" Do you really think anybody that wants to do this or can do this deserves to be kept from doing this in any way possible? I thought not. That would just be savage, not civilized. We should honestly restrain ourselves from keeping whtie supremacists out of power and instead let them use any legal means they like to get power as long as they super promise not to genocide.
  15. Welp. I'm at my university, and boy do I feel out of place among all the straight, super-christian, white girls in education.