circuscritic @ circuscritic @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

1,103

Joined

2 yr. ago

I can't wait for the nonfiction historical accounts of the FEMA deathcamps, or revised textbooks that accurately tell the story of how a devout group of Salem men saved the country from witches and witchcraft.

God damn I'm excited. Let's go Texas, let's get even stupider with it.

It's not rare. I went to public school in a medium sized, mixed income district, in a red state, that had VT schools, and alternative pedagogy schools for creative and gifted kids. All run by the public school district.

I don't know what you think a Charter School is, but when I say educational style, I mean alternative pedagogies. Which is is how charter schools typically differentiate themselves publicly, but again, they're not mentioning out loud the other aspects that I've laid out previously.

Which is why although you say you understand what I'm saying, I don't think you really do. And maybe that's my fault for not properly articulating everything, but I'm on a phone and these comments are already way too long to properly review and manage.

I didn't say they shouldn't exist. You asked me for ideas for reform. I suggested reading real academics who study this issue, but for the sake of conversation, one of my suggestions was folding the concept of charter schools into the public education system. As in, let them fulfill they're publicly stated objective of developing alternative pedagogies schools for differently abled students, but bring them into the public sector, with all the accountability, transparency, and legal protections for all students.

To be fair, I can see you're being genuine, but not sure you understand the money and influence behind these pushes for charter schools for the past 2 decades.

I'm wondering if part of the disconnect is that your envisioning charter schools from when you were a kid, versus what they are now after the explosion they've had in the last 20 years.

I feel that you sincerely believe this movement is done benevolently, and for the purpose of educating and creating better students. While I don't deny that those schools do exist, nor that many parents and students believe that is the mission statement, that's not as relevant to the political forces driving these changes.

This movement has gained political traction in the last two decades from the same people who push vouchers, and they do it with intent to degrade truly public education infrastructure, and create publicly funded private schools for the correct social and economic classes.

Because otherwise, there's no reason why it couldn't have been done within the framework of public education, just like my old school district did.

Oh, and public education isn't failing. America has some of the best public schools in the world, and some of the worst. This comes down to a lot of factors, including the fact that schools are primarily funded by local property taxes. Meaning wealthy schools get more resources, and poor schools get a whole lot less, even if they're right next to each other.

... gladiator pit?

First off, no, this isn't combat and I don't suffer from that delusion...

Secondly, I'm talking about crazy vs. crazy. I want QANON nuts, antivax moms, liberals that accuse everyone they don't like of being a Russian bot, etc.

Finally.... I'm having a hard time moving past you calling this a gladiator pit, and implying that I'm a gladiator.... Actually, what's your Twitter handle. You sound like someone I should follow.

There's nothing wrong with a school district operating different types of schools, such as VT schools...

Not one piece of my critique was about "educational styles or content", it was entirely based on private entities siphoning off public funding for schools that are allowed to discriminate, not serve as a public resource, and disregard many, if not most, of the laws protecting students and public schools.

You're conflating your experience with a VT to Charter Schools, and it's not the same. Plenty of districts run specialized schools, for both blue collar and white collar track students.

I am sure there are plenty of white papers that deal with Charter School reform, and they would have much better ideas than I do on the subject.

Off the top of my head, they could start with:

Legally requiring transparency in admissions and a publicly accountable admissions processes. No more smoking mirrors that magically result in suspiciously high achieving, upper income, and low behavioral issues student bodies, relative to the surrounding areas.

Or better yet, abolishing them as they exist, and folding them into the public education system. If their is a parent demand for differentiated and specialized advanced public schools, have an established process to do that within a school district.

Charters are already stealing public funds, so why shouldn't they be held to the same laws and regulations that protect all students?

The thing is, I would bet you that the majority of new Charter schools, like within the last 20 years, would shut their doors if they were forced into the public school system. Because student discrimination and having a publicly funded quasi private school, that keeps out the undesirables, is the point.

I don't know how your school was set up, but vocational technical high schools are often publicly run, even by the same school district that runs the local public school system.

I've never come across charter VT schools. Maybe they're common, maybe not. I just don't have any knowledge of them.

Charter Schools are generally something different, and specifically designed to cater to largely middle and upper middle class students that are heading on college track. While there are charters that do cater to low-income areas, they're still targeting kids who are on a college track, and excluding those who they feel aren't.

They're private entities that operate under a legal charter, which allows them to siphon off public education funding in lieu of charging students tuition.

And I'm not even saying there's no use case for charter schools, but I am saying is that they have been converted into a trojan horse. So whether or not they can be salvaged, would depend on legislation that prohibits, or limits, the type of behaviors I described previously.

It's also a way to get the state to pay for religious education, but most importantly, to weaken public education.

Charter schools, much lauded by plenty of mainstream Republicans and Democrats, also perform a similar function. But it's not just low income kids they keep out, it's also the difficult kids' with bad home lives, behavioral problems, and special needs. Mind you, public schools legally have to enroll every child, as they should.

But wouldn't you know, Charter Schools have an admissions process, and well, not everyone can make the cut...

This enables upper and middle class enclaves, who wouldn't otherwise spring for a private education, to achieve a somewhat similar results, but with public funds.

Others may have better, or fancier solutions, but I'm a fan VPN -> Home Network -> VNC over SSH/TLS for Linux boxes, and RDP for Windows.

Again, none of VNC or RDP ports or services are ever exposed externally, and even on the LAN, they require authentication and use secure tunnels.

Full disclosure, I haven't used RDP in a while and I don't know what version of SSL/TLS it comes with anymore.

I know there are self-hosted AnyDesk style options and maybe they're better than my approach, but I've never used them so I can't really speak on that.

I said cultural clashes, not pedo and MAGA circlejerks.

Wait, do you not realize what an echo chamber is..?

Because that's exactly what I don't want in my Twitter-like experience.

I want to watch the opposing groups of internet brained waterheads, who view posting as combat, flail, whine, and throw hissy fits at each other, while on the same platform.

I stupidly signed my name in at a single campaign event almost a decade ago. Of course, that information made it's way to a large local political organization, and they've refused to remove me from their contact list, no matter how many times I asked.

What has sort of worked is replying, every time they contact me, that their nonconsensual text messages have swayed me to vote against their candidate or issue, and I that will continue to vote, out of spite, against any candidate that sends me unsolicited texts messages.

It's not perfect, but I have gotten significantly less election related text spam since I started this approach.

Just to be clear, I spent years asking them politely to take me off their lists, but nothing reduced the volume of election spam until I switch my approach to this.

Stop using TeamViewer. If you can't setup your own secure self hosted remote desktop, then at least use AnyDesk.

I'm not claiming they're perfect, or that any SaaS RD provider is good, but TeamViewer is right there with LogMeIn as the worst of a bad bunch.

Probably depends on the media itself, as in, is it rare or hard to find on a P2P service.

One way they conduct themselves is by using the politicians they've purchased to advocate for forming public-private partnerships, in areas where they shouldn't exist, which they can then legally siphon off the resources from.

I disagree on the private sector aspect of this, but I agree on the democracy part. Although, I don't really view America as true democracy at this moment in history, but that's besides the point here.

Fusion technology is at a point in its life cycle where it needs to be a public sector project. There is no path to profitability in the near-term, that would justify private sector involvement, except as a means to extract profit from the very expensive research process of even making this technology feasible.

Not that I'm against the private sector within the nuclear power industry. I'm very excited to see what they can do with SMR technology. I'm just extremely skeptical of most private-public partnerships, especially in cases like this.

Goddamnit, you've made one heck of a case and now I'm a believer.

Yes, they were a regional hegemon.

If I'm being generous, from the view of the average Roman citizen, they were a global hegemony, because they didn't know how big the world really was.

But they were not. There was no shortage of rival empires, some even right on their borders, and all during Pax Romana, including the Parthian Empire, Kushan Empire, and the Han Dynasty.

And my history is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure Rome tried multiple times to conquer the Parthian Empire, and failed.

Most importantly however, their reach did not extend across the globe, only where they could build their roads through, or sail their boats to, such as Carthage.

Also, Pax Romana, refers to a period of relative peace for Rome, brought by their imperial power. It's only indirectly related to their hegemonic status, but it's not in reference to it.

Sorry, meant that now deleted reply for someone else.

Two words: Armenian genocide

You're confusing hegemon and classical empire, with global homogeny. We can debate whether or not global hegemony is unique to a unipolar world, but I don't think it's very debatable that it's only been achieved through the use of neo-imperialism.

That is to say, no classical empire has ever achieved truely global hegemonic status, but there's no shortage of historical hegemonic powers and classical empires, including that European ones you listed.

I will say that while I generally view the British empire as a classical empire, it's competition with other European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries is what really gave rise to the concept of neo-imperialism.

But the Monroe doctrine put real checks on their imperial power and influence, that they could not, or would not, overcome. Which is why I have a hard time considering them a global hedgemon in the same context as America, but I realize for their time, they could be considered the first global hegemon.

I'm confused at what they think good imperialism looks like. Empire by it's very nature, is a crime against humanity.

Regardless, all empires grow to be too large and unmanageable, eventually.

I think it's their perspective, of seeing how awful empire is. The death and destruction it leaves in it's wake, and every other awful thing that empires do.

Because objectively, America was the first real global hegemon, and created a brand new type of imperialism to achieve that objective. America was the best at empire.

But now that it's dying many people wrongly assume there was any other way it could have gone, that there was a malevolent external actor who actually ruined it, or that it could have been done in a more just or humane manner.

Maybe there is some truth to the latter, on the margins, but ultimately those concepts are antithetical to the concept of empire.