And I also take issue with you characterizing a currently-active and successful pedagogical method as
It seems pretty clear that all those topics are allowed. The thing they’ll shut down is a topic with more sniping than genuine discussion. Frankly I think when limited to the original discussion topic there really wasn’t that much meat on the bone, so the actual topic died pretty quickly.
Of note too is that most of the oxygen for the topics came from what the bigoted Trump administration was doing with this wedge issue.
I was going to let this complaint from ZosterSandstorm to go unanswered, but he also bumped the tread where damuriajashi did get away with declaring all “woke” supporters of diversity as being idiots, with a “clarification” that he wanted to delete that line, the mod let it go. However IIRC that would not have flown in the past as it is clear that posters would use that “out” again and again, and it is happening when him and his group are still declaring other posters in favor of diversity or other progressive ideas as “woke”, the meaning damur gave to that word remains.
As for the ZosterSandstorm repeated claims that I post gibberish, more than once I admitted my grammar is a crime against nature, but it is clear the even DemonTree showed him that she does understand me, as many others do. Suffice to say, is that most grammar Nazis that me and many others in the SDMB have encountered before are the ones that usually get banned.
I and many others.
ETA. I wish I spoke your language as well as you speak mine.
In that thread you posted the ideas that: no high school student actually wants to take calculus, that anyone who is even slightly ahead of the average in math skill has a “social disorder,” that the purpose of the educational system should be to destroy the notion of “individual goals,” that solutions to global warming and pandemics will not involve knowledge of science, and, I think most egregiously by the standards of trolling, that the reason “the USA is in the state that it is” is because of too many children being taught calculus.
If trolling is defined as advancing arguments that
-it seems incredible for a poster to sincerely believe
-are designed to maximize the chaos in the thread, and/or
-hijack the underlying topic of the thread into something wildly different
then these certainly fit the bill. There is no way that going into a thread about whether the admissions process to a certain high school is fair and posting something as inflammatory, disingenuous, and off-topic as “we shouldn’t teach anyone calculus because it’s encouraging social disorders and is the problem with American society!” would be tolerated if it were of an equivalent degree but coming from a different ideological direction or a less established poster. Indeed, your repeated harping on these wild notions derailed the thread so far that it turned into a “mess” and a “dumpster fire” and it was subsequently closed, though only the people who attempted to keep it on-topic will be sanctioned as a result.
This should almost go without saying at this point, but: the Trump administration did not weigh in on the issue of TJ admissions at any point, and as usual no one knows what GIGObuster is talking about, but his attempt to re-litigate nonexistent issues from the original thread in this discussion while taking the opportunity to associate his opponents with Nazis will also be treated differently than if someone from the other side were doing the same.
WTF? Grammar Nazi is a well-known term:
More links upon request.
@GIGObuster, I never found your grammar to be off or stilted. I think you write very well and I wouldn’t have guessed that English is your second language.
That’s a somewhat ‘creative’ interpretation, although I found his real ideas egregious enough. The stuff about gifted/advanced schooling generally was a hijack, and I think @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness’s subsequent thread on the subject was much better and more constructive.
But I agree it would be good to have a place to put news of developments in the original topic. Perhaps @What_Exit would reopen the thread, or you could start a new one and link to the old thread?
No, I will not reopen that thread. If a new one starts, avoid the sniping between all sides. I know very little toleration will be given.
It’s inapplicable here. I don’t care that he uses an apostrophe in the wrong place, I care that he posts entire sentences whose meaning can’t be determined, frequent references to nonexistent conversations (e.g. some involvement of Trump in the TJ admissions controversy which apparently only he is privy to), responses to points that were never made due to misreading other people’s arguments, and other garbage that makes any kind of dialogue impossible. Whether it’s due to less than ideal English skills or some other reason really isn’t my problem.
Can you provide some clarity as to what is “sniping” versus “disagreeing” in a thread debating a political issue?
As others showed, this item is not true at all. It is not my problem that you also have trouble with idioms.
Sniping is when the posters start going after each other and not the issue. Those threads became half sniping in the opinion of the GD mods. It was pretty bad in fact.
As the rules say, Attack the post, not the poster.
Honestly, I would hope the difference was more apparent.
If what you mainly want to do is post updates, perhaps putting the new thread in a different forum would generate less fighting?
It’s a good idea to either engage in a productive way or if you think another poster makes that impossible, not continue. If you’ve been going back and forth with someone for dozens of posts and you don’t think it’s possible to have a productive conversation, why would you want the topic reopened?
This is life. The conservative leaning sites are no better. In fact i think they are a great deal worse.
You should be encouraged that these are the best “arguments” the other side of the argument has to offer.
So wait, is english GIGO’s native language. I suspected this and i asked but was met with derision.
If GIGO is not fluent, it would explain a lot.
I think it’s all part of the same dynamic.
What a perfect example. Anyone who can follow a normal English paragraph can see that the point here is “you claimed that people were just echoing Donald Trump in taking a certain position in that thread, yet this makes no sense because Donald Trump never made any statement about the issue in question.” The fact that you disagree with a totally different sentence in the post regarding your grammar is irrelevant to this claim. Again, I really don’t care about nitpicking irrelevant spelling and punctuation mistakes (which is what the phrase “grammar nazi” actually refers to) - I care about the fact that you repeatedly miss the basic communicative function of language and go off on wild tangents based on your fundamental misunderstanding of other people’s points, among other problems this causes.I care that any expression of frustration with this behavior, or any disagreement with your illogical conclusions about people’s motives that are based on total misreadings of their actual statements, is met with moderator action, instead of moderators acting to keep the thread usable in the first place. I care about the fact that your own posts often demonstrate a lack of basic coherence out of which a normal English speaker can confidently derive meaning, and that allowing this to clutter up threads is just as bad as allowing trolling etc because it invites people of one ideological persuasion to make any discussion that isn’t going their way unusable.
Shows that you never followed cites, there was a report from Vox that I cited several times.
The Trump administration is mentioned several times as involved in the college admissions cases.
This study gave legs to a longstanding conservative argument that affirmative action is a misguided progressive policy to help black and Hispanic people while unfairly penalizing Asian and white people.
And the argument is resurfacing again.
When Trump first took office, the Justice Department dug up a two-year-old complaint against Harvard that alleges the school has quotas on how many Asian Americans it accepts. It opened an investigation into Harvard’s admissions practices, which many feared would create a chilling effect on other schools with affirmative action programs.
Then in October, a federal court heard arguments on a lawsuit that alleges the same thing. And in the lead-up to thetrial, the Trump administration wrote a statement of support for the plaintiffs, who echoed the exact argument conservatives have been making for decades:
…the record evidence demonstrates that Harvard’s race-based admissions process significantly disadvantages Asian-American applicants compared to applicants of other racial groups — including both white applicants and applicants from other racial minority groups.
In short, conservatives are taking another swing at dismantling affirmative action — hoping the case makes it to the Supreme Court, where a new conservative majority could rule broadly and outlaw affirmative action. And, yet again, they are centering the debate around Asian Americans.
BTW that is not to litigate that again, that is only posted to show others that if you only had read the cites, then a lot of what you are going for was not needed at all, of course if you want to say that they had also bad grammar and you could not follow, then that is not my problem.