And there are plenty of white people stuck in terrible situations who don't take the "bus."

There is a concept out there in pedagogy land about the importance of "grit." A teacher noticed who made it out -- those who had grit.

So there has been some movement to teach kids to have "grit."

Turns out it isn't that easy.

Full disclosure -- I do NOT have "grit." I get knocked down, I stay down. I am leveled by some of the smallest events.

I DO have tremendous luck. Born with good health, good brains, an addiction to food and not to something that wipes out my brain like some drugs, Depression-era parents who were frugal and determined that their children would not suffer what they suffered, easy access to college in the early 70s when tuition and rents weren't hugely expensive.

I wouldn't be sitting in relative ease right now if I hadn't had that string of luck. Because had I had to climb over serious obstacles, I am 99% sure I would not have done it. No grit, you see. Just luck.

Frosts my beehind that this racist tool who criticizes social justice advocates with that first clip of Freeman saying "stop talking about race" don't have the intellectual and emotional intelligence to understand what he is saying. It is clear as a bell -- but this tool is tone deaf. As is the sifter who posted this (I say that with clarity, based on years of reading his posts before I started ignoring him as a lost cause.)

"The idea is that if you smoke during the flight e-cigarette you publicly display your addiction and that is not a good pedagogical example for others and so on and so on."

Or (far more likely) the airline realised that other passengers don't like people smoking around them in a confined space. You want to vape at home or outside? Knock yourself out. But kindly refrain from doing so in my cramped airspace. Otherwise, we'll test the old adage about how my right to swing my fist ends at your face.

He hasn't really presented any kind of decent argument here. Ok, the Carmen thing is stupid, but if you actually read the story behind that, it's because the Opera house was sponsored by a health company. Essentially they bowed to commercial pressure. Nothing to do with PC.

Even if WAS a "PC" decision, on what planet is that "a more dangerous form of totalitarianism"?

Someone decided they didn't want to stage an opera because there's smoking in it... oh no! Save us from opera-hitler!

Did the government step in and force them to do this? Nope, they made the decision themselves.

pedagogical fail on so many levels...

@Babymech

ok.let us examine your counterpoints.

1.yeah.i agree.i never saw him as anybody but roddy piper.
2.agreed.while long,it does wear the banner of awesome.zizek may possibly be guilty of over-analyzing,but his comparisons bear some consideration.i find them to be justified.
3.this point you make is an exercise in circular logic and actually makes zizecks point.
where do you get your ideology from?
do you even have an ideology?
what makes you so certain of your ideology?
it is the question that is the real truth.
4.dont really understand your outrage here.sarcasm?
zizeck is exercising the pedagogy of philosophy.
referencing the matrix and pointing out that the wachowski brothers were not the first ones to create a movie with heavy philosophical tones.
john carpenter did it in the 80's with "they live".
and the philosophy of both movies is not exactly new.unless you consider 150 years to be "new".

maybe you disagree with the questions?
or are uncomfortable with the answers?
seem awfully defensive about people asking questions.

Here's the original article.

@Sagemind, Agreed on all counts. Education will receive fewer incorrect submissions, but both will continue to require some managing.

I'm thinking of *Pedagogy as a clearer name for Education. Other names don't capture what the word "Education" does because it includes theories of learning which are abstracted from teachers/teaching/classrooms etc.

I didn't specify above, but I'm pretty clear on line between the types of things I want the Learning channel to include and not: a video where the intent of the creator was clearly or presumably education. For the channels in the description above, that's obvious and easy.

Things that are out: normal *news broadcasts/exposé journalism; crazy/interesting/neat-thing-happened (*wtf,*comedy); people learning the hard way (*EIA,*fail,*fear);

An edge case that I might allow are things like http://videosift.com/video/Why-You-Should-NEVER-Pump-Iron-Alone, where could reasonably guess it was published not for any wow factor (nobody laughs at him on camera or comes off looking victorious), but to educate others about what can happen if you're not careful (and it was clearly sifted with that intent). This is different from http://videosift.com/video/Jumping-into-a-frozen-pool-What-could-go-wrong where the intent is clearly comedy/fail.

@dag, Ba-dum ching.

Not too sure about that guy's pedagogy there... besides the poking the little girl in the head technique, it's very difficult to get a child to repeat something if you don't shut the fuck up for a second.

I studied to become a teacher once, and I do not agree with the conclusions of this video.

Choice in schools is not solving the problem, there will still be areas with bad schools only and therefore children not learning; choice in schools is centralising, not creating equal education for everyone. It works for a small country like Belgium, but not for a country which is spread as thin as the US.
What I've learned from personal experience when studying English and geography and pedagogy to become a teacher, and studying other countries' educational concepts, is a combination of: long and good education for the teachers, in pedagogy, classroom-management, and their subjects; alongside good pay and a long probation-period (2 years +) under elder teachers and federal performance-evaluators.

Plus, there's cultural factors: As we all know from GOP-debates, there is a strong anti-science bias in large areas of USAmerica. And due to the melting-pot/salad-bowl mix of American citizens, there's, brashly put, this.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Hmmm I downvoted... kids see this & kids are dumb = Dead kids
The glorification of violence by smiling kids 'killing' each other... There are kids right now in armies, killing each other. And they are not happily smiling, unless they're drugged out of their mind to keep theam attached to their army by addiction.
Edit: The kids smile, there are no consequences seen for their actions, to me, this is glorification. And yes, it's not aimed at children, but they'll see it. And they know where their dad has his hunting rifle.

I respect your downvote... I'm cool with that. But I think you're highly exaggerating how "dangerous" this video is. Unless they are very young children (i.e. under the age of 6) they know the difference between make-believe and reality. If kids were truly that impressionable (i.e. gullible) there should be a slew of kids murdering each other in the streets after watching violent movies or playing violent video games. Yet, the FBI reports that violent crime stats have gone down this year--yet again. It's been on the decline for years now, even as violent games, movies, and TV shows--and childrens' access to them--have been on the rise.
As to dad having a hunting rifle... anyone owning firearms has the obligation to not only instruct their kids from an early age about how dangerous it is and keep it locked and away from curious hands, but also how to safely handle it (under supervision) in the event that the children ever do come across an unsecured firearm (maybe at a friend's house).


I agree, I should have set the focus more from the video to the society which sees no problem with the video. By no means I want to say that this video leads to streets littered with dead kids, but:
In my opinion, it contributes to the view of a society in which guns are presented as toys. It's not a great leap from toy to the real thing.

Children learn late in their development about death as an ever-present 'danger' to themselves and others, about 8-10 years of age. But the concept of action and consequence grows only with education.
If education is lacking, the lack of this concept can last up into the middle teens. This can lead to kids playing with guns, pointing at their friends or parents and sometimes pulling the trigger. Young Kids not properly educated don't see the seriousness in the relation of gun -> trigger -> bullet -> wound -> death ; until it has happened or they grow up. (I tried to find a good source, but atm i have only my german pedagogy lessons about child development; so you may disregard what i said about the action/consequence thing by the rules of good debate.)

"anyone owning firearms has the obligation to not only instruct their kids from an early age about how dangerous it is and keep it locked and away from curious hands, but also how to safely handle it (under supervision) in the event that the children ever do come across an unsecured firearm (maybe at a friend's house)."

Yes, but what about the kids whose parents do not own firearms? Are the kids of firearm-owners tested on their knowledge about guns? Are the firearm-owners tested on the fact that they have taught their children? Has every owner of a gun also received a mandated education on the subject?

To blame this scenario on teacher's unions is fucking ridiculous. To blame the quality of public education on the teacher's or their unions (which, like all unions these days are weak) is also fucking ridiculous. Don't blame the teachers who are trying to educate our society, blame the system that they are forced to operate under.

What is that system? Neoliberal policies that deny basic funding, the support of pedagogical practices that operate (as we have seen from this video) under power hierarchies. I would recommend reading Althusser's piece "Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatuses" http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm

In it, he describes how the most power ISA is the public education system. It is here that children are indoctrinated 5 days a week, 8 hours a day in an ideology that reinforces the relations of production (exploitation of the Proletariat). To assume however, that if we had private institutions that we could avoid this is missing the point. Private education represents a continual push to prevent the Proletariat from having any sort of commons. Private education is the latest attempt to exploit the people even further and deny people their human needs. It also shows, and this is frightening, that in order to make up for the current economic crisis, there is a push to permenantly restructure the way people are educated. Private education will deny access to marginalized communities...I'll stop this rant.

Word

Grownups read way too much into cartoons and put way too much stock in whatever hidden or subliminal message they perceive in them. These things are incredibly subjective, and I'm sure there are people who are lobbying against the evil propaganda put forth in the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon, only that they see a completely different message. It might even be a directly contradictory one to this writer's. That's not to say there's no value in analyzing stuff like this, but there's a big difference between a discussion on the theoretical influences in a cartoon and the practical, real world effects on people who watch it.

But people tend to forget that kids don't perceive and experience things the same way as adults. Most themes and philosophical standpoints will go right over their heads; but for arguments sake, let's say that the cartoon was trying to teach collectivism to its viewers. It would have to be done much more obviously before a child would pick up on the message, more prevalent for that child to start associate the theme with reality and for a very long time before the behaviour is ingrained in their psyche. Just have a look at some real educational cartoons and how pedagogical they have to be in order to get a message across.

Man, the little pedagogic sidebars are now indistinguishable from propaganda from the 1940's. Every statement is condensed into a simplistic slogan and a cartoon.

"India has decided against getting involved in Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child scheme - which aims to provide kids in developing countries with a simple $100 machine.

The success of the project depends on support, and big orders, from governments. The loss of such a potentially huge, and relatively technically sophisticated market, will be a serious blow.

The Indian Ministry of Education dismissed the laptop as "pedagogically suspect". Education Secretary Sudeep Banerjee said: "We cannot visualise a situation for decades when we can go beyone the pilot stage. We need classrooms and teachers more urgently than fancy tools."

Banerjee said if money were available it would be better spent on existing education plans."

Arvana - can you seriously think this is all being done "not for profit" ? Maybe not for YOUR profit, but someone stands to make quite a large sum of money on the manufacturing, sales, implementation, etc. Amazing that these billion dollar companies want YOUR money to fund it...lol

Thousands of years of human culture, wiped away in a single poorly spelled and equally poorly thought out comment. Suddenly musical ability, pedagogy, and performance are "piontless" and "pritty stupid."

After some time witnessing, it becomes clear that it's an act. It has to be. Either that or severe brain damage.