278 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2022
    1. This sentence belongs in journalism hall of fame. It constructs a vague, false notion (crime is up) by not asserting fact but saying that “critics” are “saying” it. Having constructed false premise, it then passively declares that DA’s policies “have taken the blame.” What? Who? This is like saying that oil production doesn’t impact climate change but “some critics” are blaming Greenpeace for worldwide anxiety about gas prices without noting that the unnamed critics are PR reps for Exxon.
    2. NYT allows corporate-backed SF Mayor with history of lying to say her crackdown was to “counter rampant street crimes” and not to criminalize homelessness and help real estate. The reporter doesn’t note that crime is down in San Francisco and in Tenderloin since before the pandemic.
    3. Finally, something must be said about how the piece continues the NYT’s campaign against “progressive prosecutors.” The NYT goes after the progressive DA in Baltimore (who is a Black woman). The NYT’s portrayal of Mosby is incredible.
    4. The people I work with every day like crime survivors, families of victims, and scientific researchers who study safety don’t oppose more cops only b/c it discriminates. We oppose investments in more police and prisons because it doesn’t make anyone safe.
    5. Consider the picture of reality offered by the New York Times: the media and the powerful have no role manipulating opinion. Policy positions of elites organically spread from the hearts and minds of the most vulnerable people. Then, elites magically adapt to will of the most vulnerable people. Even though science/history shows a policy doesn’t reduce violence, elites do it anyway, not b/c it produces profit and ensures their power, but b/c powerless people demand it. See NYT readers, we have Democracy!
    6. The manufactured “crime wave” but lack of urgent daily attention to existential threats like ecological collapse and rising fascism is a threat to our survival.
    7. I’ve shown before that this is a common forms of copaganda in New York Times: stating the asserted motivations of powerful people as their actual motivations.
    8. In fact, NYT’s claim is actually bolder: it was the Democrats' laudable sensitivity to the concerns of “communities of color” that motivated supposed pro-police shifts. Note right away that the New York Times erases other possible explanations from the public record
    9. NYT does not have a single person who tells reader an alternative viewpoint. All the “ordinary” people were taken from a political rally for a pro-police, centrist. None of the many candidates, organizers, voters, and survivors who work every day on non-police community safety.
    10. Today, the New York Times published one of its most dishonest, biased, and dangerous pro-police articles that I have ever read. What's happening at the NYT is important, so I try my best to explain below why it’s so harmful.
    1. Calling some cases “mild” sounds trivializing. Calling other cases “severe” sounds stigmatizing. Whatever your criteria for a mild case are, there will be someone who fits those criteria, but says the condition ruined their life and you are dismissing their pain. Whatever your criteria for a severe case are, there will be someone who fits those criteria but is thriving and living their best life and accuses you of wanting to imprison them in a hospital 24-7.
    2. Plenty of people hear voices. Some of these people are your typical homeless schizophrenic, but many aren’t. One of my patients was a successful computer programmer who had near-daily auditory hallucinations. He realized they weren’t real, did his best to ignore them, and got on with his successful life - just like he had been doing for the past twenty years.
    3. But if you do insist on unusual experiences as the measure of a valid person, then there will always be a pressure to exaggerate how unusual your experience is.
    4. a better framing might be “in the weird cultural situation of 21st century scientific psychiatry, nobody expects voices to be intelligent and agentic, and they aren’t. In some other weird cultural situation, who knows?”
    5. Alcoholics Anonymous makes an interesting comparison: they’re solving this problem in their own way, by being more conservative and unforgiving than the psychiatric establishment would like. Hearing Voices is more liberal and accepting than the establishment, but the key point is not landing in the exact same place.
    6. If this were true, a maximally compassionate policy would involve both trying to support people who are already transgender, and trying to prevent the switch from being flipped in people who aren’t transgender yet.

      Only if you suppose that being transgender is equivalent to anorexia.

    1. It’s for this reason that, while he doesn’t love individuals bypassing community input and had his own questions about the crosswalk’s safety, Greenwood resident Rob Fellows can understand why someone would take matters into their own hands.“It’s impatience,” he said. “It’s a form of activism — let’s get this thing going, let’s change the city’s priorities. It’s well meaning. The people who put it out there were trying to do something good for the neighborhood, I don’t have any question about that.” Advertising Skip AdSkip AdSkip Ad There’s a name for when community members make unsanctioned changes to city-owned streets: “tactical urbanism.”“Tactical urbanism to me is essentially what a fed-up citizenry takes into their own hands when it comes to their own safety on their streets and sidewalks,” said Ben Scott, a Greenwood resident who’s documented the saga of the 83rd Street crosswalk.

      tactical urbanism

    1. But no matter the degree one believes there is any real conflict going on at all, it’s still tempting to see DFW as a kind of particularly farsighted scout, who left behind copious, obsessively detailed notes about what loomed on the horizon, and then quietly departed the battlefield before things got really hairy. This humble cruise essay is not only one of the best and most illuminating of his field reports, but also, and I truly believe this, one of those pieces that will be honored, in the way someone like Montaigne or Shakespeare is honored today, by people three-hundred years from now who will look back on and declare DFW’s cruise essay as ‘one of the first truly modern pieces of writing’. Whether or not this is a good thing, is of course determined by our own relationship to pleasure, and to what degree we believe the world should be designed to provide it to us.
    2. This, the early 21st century, is the excruciating moment, and DFW’s work the scream. In dismissal of his work as pretentious, or his fears as misplaced, I detect the same impulse as what is in work in us when we dismiss real concerns over youngsters and their iPhones as stodgy and pointless. Collectively, we are unsure if there is something behind our shoulders, some horrible unforeseen price to be paid for the ever accelerating race towards low-risk, low-investment hedonism, and the universal pampering to our needs not just as consumers of food and drink, but of novelty, insipid social interactions, and status games. 
    3. One of the reasons I liked all these women (except Mona) so much was because they laughed really hard at my jokes, even lame or very obscure jokes; although they all had this curious way of laughing where they sort of screamed before they laughed, I mean really and discernibly screamed, so that for one excruciating second you could never tell whether they were getting ready to laugh or whether they were seeing something hideous and scream-worthy over your shoulder…
    4. To a critic who saw Dante and Shakespeare as the beating heart of all past and future literary achievement, I can see how DFW’s writing could come off as mere hand-wringing, the vain navel-gazing of a virtuosic undergraduate that has gained praise merely because it has been pushed to it’s absolute limit in both verbosity and vulgarity. But that is more the aesthetic of Wallace than the core of him; he aimed to relentlessly entertain and enthrall through complex configurations of plot, character, and form, whilst imparting, or at least suggesting, moral imperatives with the confidence and power of the old Russian greats.
    5. Book Review: A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
    1. homes get more valuable because not owning a home gets worse.

      This is a powerful, succinct way of putting the problem.

    1. today's grid shape was really vanilla. No, wait, I like vanilla. A vanilla malt is the best thing in the world. Let's call it "boilerplate" instead. It looks like a template of some kind.

      I get many of Parler's critiques even if I disagree with them. And I know this is partly an aesthetic, and thus arguable, criticism...but I'm mystified that Parker thinks this beautiful grid is "boilerplate!?"

    1. to say a well-constructed themeless is on par with a “disastrous” themed puzzle is just ridiculous. Sure, for his brand, he gets more mileage taking apart a bad puzzle than discussing a good one, but a good solve and good blog fodder aren’t the same thing at all.
  2. May 2022
    1. Someone on Twitter complained that boring people go to medical school because if you’re a doctor you don’t need to have a personality. Edward Teach complains that people get into sexual fetishes as a replacement for a personality. I’ve even heard someone complain that boring people take up rock-climbing as a personality substitute: it is (they say) the minimum viable quirky pastime. Nobody wants to be caught admitting that their only hobbies are reading and video games, and maybe rock climbing is enough to avoid being relegated to the great mass of boring people. The complainer was arguing that we shouldn’t let these people get away that easily. They need to be quirkier!A friend read an article once about someone who moved to China for several years to learn to cook rare varieties of tofu. She became insanely jealous; she doesn’t especially like China or tofu, but she felt that if she’d done something like that, she could bank enough quirkiness points that she’d never have to cultivate another hobby again.

      Is this actually a thing?

    2. In Partial, Grudging Defense Of The Hearing Voices Movement
    1. Edmonds passes law criminalizing camping in public spaces — but lacks local homeless shelter options

      Let's attack the homeless instead of dealing with homelessness. That makes perfect sense.

    2. “Don’t put people who are having problems at the top of the pyramid and ignore the citizens who are here and pay taxes and support the city government,” said Edmonds resident Bill Herzig.

      "At the top of the pyramid?" Is that really where this person feels like homeless people are? Because they are, in fact, already at the bottom...this just grinds them down into the dirt beneath. But out of sight, out of mind.

    1. That fiction, reading and writing fiction, is the best technology we have for getting inside another person’s mind and heart. You can’t do that in journalism, you can’t even do that in poetry, but you can do that in fiction. You can give the reader access to somebody else’s deepest thoughts. And I think in Mercy Street, regardless of your own personal convictions about abortion, it’s very illuminating to get inside of the mind of someone who thinks very differently about it.”

      I mostly agree, but that's simply not true about poetry. If anything, poetry is an even greater way to get into the head and heart...but it comes with a significantly higher cost of entry (intellectually) than popular fiction. Film and television are even better, at least in some ways.

    2. If you just skim the news headlines or flip back and forth between pundits – or worse, obsessively scroll through your own algorithmically-curated social media feeds – to reinforce your own views or fuel your indignation against another’s view, you may end up spending a good part of your life just skating along the surface.The value of human life and support for the common good has plummeted in recent years – at home and around the world – and it could be that good fiction has the chance to open up windows to increasing a true “respect life” ethos that other forms cannot. 
    3. Narratives like the one Haigh tells in Mercy Street open new possibilities to see and understand each other across divides in ways that political analysis and advocacy doesn’t. There’s something about the current media and political culture that is zero-sum, cutting off possibility of empathy, or understanding the views of another even if you don’t share them.
    1. The issue affects more than 200 workers who are employed by outsourcing firm Cognizant Technology Solutions, which mandated that they work in an office in Bothell five days a week starting June 6.
    2. Google Maps contract employees who are required to return to their office in Washington state recently circulated a petition to keep working from home since some cannot afford their commutes
    1. The mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, Tuesday has put the spotlight back on recent data showing that firearm injuries are the No. 1 cause of death among children and adolescents in the United States.

      As the article notes later, firearms are now responsible for more deaths than car crashes. We've been able to steeply reduce the latter...why not guns?

    1. "There are little cubes of the original liquid from which that salt grew. And the surprise for us is that we also saw shapes that are consistent with what we would expect from microorganisms," said Kathy Benison, a geologist at West Virginia University. "And they could be still surviving within that 830-million-year-old preserved microhabitat."

      Wow...now that is a terrarium!

    1. Racism does not appear to be a mental illness, and you cannot treat it with talk therapy and pills. However, both racism and mental illness thrive in silence and isolation. The next step is to talk, openly and frankly, about both—and then have the guts to actually listen to each other.
    2. Some commentators went further than Graham in trying to disconnect Roof from culture and history. Another Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry, called the shootings an “accident,” and many have invoked the language of tragedy or natural disaster. Yesterday, in her now-deleted Twitter account, Miami Herald columnist AJ Delgado questioned whether Roof was actually white, and added that white supremacists don’t kill black people in churches (forgetting, for example, the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama). Such disparate efforts to “other” Roof—to repudiate his connections to community, history, culture, or even humanity—add up to one thing: denial.
    3. Linda Tropp, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and an expert on prejudice, told me in an email exchange that this is probably an example of “fundamental attribution error” at work—that is, the tendency of humans to credit a person’s action to personality rather than his or her situation or social context. “Relegating the Charleston killing to the cause of ‘mental illness’ may lead us to make a dispositional (personal) attribution for the person’s behavior, and to downplay the situational/structural issues that have brought about such a racist act,” she wrote.
    1. Religious-driven authoritarianism is fundamentalism’s only option. Indeed, it is the mission.
    2. Although fundamentalist Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox agree on very little theologically (God exists, the Bible is true, Jesus is Savior, the church is divine) and vary in details of hierarchical authority, they nevertheless are making common cause to defeat threats to order — “Nazis,” women, LGBTQ people, governments and political systems deemed ungodly. These three groups of militant fundamentalists have coalesced into an uneasy alliance with the overall goal of creating a new global order, based upon Gods’ divine design, with three cooperating spheres of theological influence.

      They can turn to destroying each other once they are done with the rest ofus.

    3. Hierarchical groups that feel persecuted (or threatened with decline) become more rigid, not less, and often retreat further into distinctive subcultures with clearer senses of “us” versus “them” and are deeply unwilling to admit mistakes or abuse within their own institutions and communities.
    4. Fundamentalists move toward harder forms not from anger (“a fundamentalist is an evangelical who is mad about something”) but from threat of chaos.
    5. And fundamentalism is opposed to chaos, or that which is perceived to be disordered.
    6. Fundamentalism is a kind of religious “physics” — a claim on reality to know how the universe was created, how it behaves, and its origin and ends. In effect, it is a rival “science” with a rival polity to other sciences (like actual physics or biology) and other polities (like democracy or socialism). But fundamentalists don’t see it as a rivalry. They are simply right.

      I like this framing, fundamentalism as a kind of pseudo-science with an explanatory "physics" of its own, concocted to explain the place, role, movement of the individuals and those structures.

    7. fundamentalists trust that God not only created the world but designed it as well. The design is a property of its creation. The structure reveals the character of the Creator, and its design is holy

      Exactly. And I understand the allure: it would be a deep comfort, through simplification, to believe in the external order rather than the way I feel, at least, which is often overwhelmed, bewildered and, as a result, despairing.

    8. I’ve come to understand fundamentalism primarily as a structure of reality, an architecture of creation.
    9. If it is anything at all, fundamentalism is a profound commitment to an ordered, hierarchical universe. Fundamentalism isn’t just a world-view of the universe, not as a belief that gives meaning to the universe, but fundamentalism is an order and hierarchy deemed to be the very nature of created existence. To fundamentalists this is credo, a reality that demands utter devotion — that sacred orderliness is essential to the continued existence and well-being of everything, especially to human society.

      This resonates with me, and makes sense in the context of adhering to a design, rather than being a collaborative designer, of the world

    10. Marsden treated fundamentalism in the context of intellectual history, analyzing the early twentieth-century movement as a part of a long line of American thought and theology.
    11. there are two major definitions of fundamentalism: a historical-theological one and a social-political one
    12. The more threatened some people feel, the more fundamentalism grows. The more people question the authority of conventional politics and religion, the more authoritarian those same institutions become. And the threats — from every front — are plentiful. The more chaos, the more need for control. We’re in a vicious cycle of victimization and crusade, the very cycle that fuels fundamentalism. There are not only American Protestants fundamentalists now. There are fundamentalists everywhere. And that’s what is. Shall the fundamentalists win? A hundred years ago, Fosdick confidently proclaimed: “I do not believe for one moment that the Fundamentalists are going to succeed.”Shall the fundamentalists win? I confess that I do not share his certainty. I do not know if they will ultimately win, but they are — right now — stronger than ever.

      This is the key point. What is there on the horizon that makes anyone believe that the fundamentalists won't win? What is there even theoretically to hope for? What is there to do?

    1. US firearms makers produced over 139 million guns for the commercial market over the two decades from 2000, including 11.3 million in 2020 alone, according to a new government report.

      But there's no problem. I'd say it's ironic this was posted just a few days before the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas...but anytime something is posted or shared will be just before a mass shooting death because the US suffers one almost every day.

    2. authorities face a surge in unregistered "ghost guns" made at home with parts that can be bought online and produced with 3-D printer, and pistols and short-barrelled rifles that are as powerful and lethal as the semi-automatic assault rifles used in mass shootings

      Terrifying

    3. Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the number of gun deaths in the United States underwent an "historic" increase in 2020.The US racked up 19,350 firearm homicides in 2020, up nearly 35 percent over 2019, and 24,245 gun suicides, up 1.5 percent.The firearm homicide rate stood at 6.1 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2020, the highest for more than 25 years.

      It doesn't have to be this way, It really doesn't.

    1. SparkToro's tool found that 49.3 percent of accounts following the official @POTUS Twitter account are "fake followers" based on analysis of a number of factors, including location issues, default profile images and new users.

      surprise?

    1. If there is an individual in America who epitomizes one central aspect of our political moment, it might well be Crystal Mason.

      asdsa

    2. When he made that statement, the official rate of alleged election violations reported to his office over the previous decade—allegations, not convictions—was seven for every 1 million votes cast in the state.

      That's allegations not convictions.

    1. Think about the ideals I mentioned above as core to the Responsibility to Listen. Are the other students being charitable and fair to the speaker? No. Are they giving the speaker a chance to make her case? Not really. Are they responding with honest arguments? No; they are simply venting anger.

      How does the author claim to know that the students weren't listening and were just "venting anger?" There's nothing in the cited text to lead one to believe that ... and it's more than possible to be angry and confrontational about ideas. That's been my experience in classrooms for decades. Could the others have not gotten angry? Of course. And arguably they shouldn't have. But that's a skill that is often acquired with age, and a different thing from the not listening scenario. If they weren't listening, what would they be mad at?

      oh, that's right, this author is very fond of reasoning toward his own foregone conclusions.

    1. we need not subscribe to a world view that treats justices as just another group of politicians who happen to wear black robes.

      You need not subscribe to anything...that doesn't change what is.

    2. I also find myself isolated when I disagree with conservative partisans who tell me Ketanji Brown Jackson was “lying” when she said she doesn’t know what a woman is.

      I guess that's something. But I find it hard to square the author's lack of assuming nuance and complexity in the previous paragraph.

    3. The claim you see all over Twitter is that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett committed perjury by calling Roe “settled law” and later voting to overturn it. “I don’t think it’s a lie,” I say,

      Again, can the author possibly be more naive? Or are they totally unable to see the nuance and rhetoric meant to convey a particular image that is later belied by actions?

    4. Another danger of rhetorical hyperbole in criticism of our government is that it encourages a fatalistic cynicism within our country, that tears down our own respect for our institutions.

      I agree this is a danger. I guess the nature of that danger depends on whether one thinks those institutions can be bettered and, following that, if one believe the institutions themselves can be incrementally bettered.

    5. Overly harsh criticism of our own country carries several dangers. One is that it gets thrown back in our face.

      Is this as dangerous as fostering complacency?

    6. The inappropriateness of demonstrating at anyone’s home ought to be obvious to any decent person, but what many non-lawyers don’t realize is that it is especially inappropriate as a way to try to affect judicial proceedings. Judges are not there to make law, folks. They are there to interpret it.

      I also don't think demonstrating at judge's homes is appropriate, as much as I understand why (and might well have done so myself when I was younger)...

      BUT the rest of this argument rests on a profound level of naïveté given the last decade of court history. Yes, judges aren't there to make law. We've all seen School House Rock. The issue is that they are making law or, to put it another way, they are interpreting the law to achieve preferred outcomes. It's baffling to me that anyone believes (in good faith) otherwise.

    1. To understand this sudden trans­formation in the $56 billion durable medical equipment market, of which complex rehabilitation technology (CRT) is one part, experts and advocates point to a decade-old decision by Medicare to abandon set prices in favor of ones set by competitive bidding. By one estimate, the move reduced the federal government’s costs by 35 percent. But at the same time, locally owned wheelchair shops quickly began to disappear as large corporations offered rock-bottom bids to Medicare and private insurers.

      The "free" market at work.

    1. The sixth season will likely follow the same pattern as the fifth, which reduced the number of episodes down to three but extended them to feature film length

      Better than nothing, though I preferred the shorter format.

    2. Black Mirror is returning to Netflix for a sixth season, Deadline has confirmed.

      Good news! Even when it fails, Black Mirror at least fails in interesting ways.

    1. Ezra Klein Interviews Patrick Deneen

      This interview repeatedly exposed the hollowness of Deneen's justifications and the shallowness of both his diagnosis and his (what I will generously call) prescriptions.

      I don't know if this should make me happy (if this person really represents some kind of conservative vanguard, then we are pretty safe; but that also leave the right hostage to the more obviously, but similarly positioned, incoherence of Trumpism).

    1. “Students can feel like, If I can find this on YouTube, then why am I here?” she said. “They are looking for a return on investment, and I don’t blame them at all.”

      Bringing to the fore a problem that pre-dates Covid by many years. Whether it's YouTube or Wikipedia or open content, when instructors aren't fully present and engaged in a course and if their assessments and activities don't include them as experts, why should students pay? A: they pay for the credential, and when the credential is the outcome without being supplemented by richer, personal connected, engaging courses, they will of course minimize the demands of the path to getting it.

    2. increasing experiential learning and redesigning courses to connect more closely to students’ lived experiences and prospective careers.

      Sad reasons for a positive outcome

    3. Incorporating field trips, podcasts, “real world” assignments ― and shorter lectures ― are increasingly popular. The more that an assignment, or a course, connects to students’ lives, professors said, the more likely they are to be engaged.

      You don't say...

    4. “Quite frankly, I’m annoyed when I see or hear faculty whining about students not showing up or not putting what the instructor thinks is 100-percent effort in,” wrote Sharon Lauricella, a professor of communication and digital-media studies at Ontario Tech University, in Canada. Her approach, she said, is to make sure that her classes are engaging, enjoyable, and essential.

      I like her!

    5. In addition to reaching out more frequently to struggling students, many are changing what or how they teach. They are spending more time in class on community-building exercises and group discussions. They are replacing high-stakes tests and papers with smaller, more frequent assignments to reduce anxiety. Many are maintaining flexible deadlines and asking students for input on creating assignments of interest to them.

      In other words, some faculty are being led to, or forced, to employ richer pedagogy and create intentional community and opportunities for connection and social learning.

    6. Psychologists describe the wear and tear on the body from cumulative stress as its “allostatic load.” That may be what’s happening now, Scofield said, and it’s something that many people are going through.

      allostatic load

    1. You might have gone down the rabbit hole on note taking practice nerdery

      test note

    1. A sequel is in the works to the 1984 rock mockumentary “This Is Spinal Tap,” with director Rob Reiner returning alongside stars Michael McKean, Christopher Guest and Harry Shearer. The movie package will launch sales at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival. It will be released on March, 19 2024, tied to the 40th anniversary of the original. The sequel will be in the style of Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Waltz,”

      Turn it up to (20)24!

    1. On the Internet, We’re Always Famous

      Reading this now afte hearing Chris Hayes on a podcast and being impressed by him. I wasn't expecting to be.

    2. The Star seeks recognition from the Fan, but the Fan is a stranger, who cannot be known by the Star. Because the Star cannot recognize the Fan, the Fan’s recognition of the Star doesn’t satisfy the core existential desire. There is no way to bridge the inherent asymmetry of the relationship, short of actual friendship and correspondence, but that, of course, cannot be undertaken at the same scale.

      First: scale!

      Second: this works both ways. The star's recognition of the fan is ultimately just as empty. Yet we fans seek it in the same way, again and again.

    3. In his lectures, Kojève takes up Hegel’s famous meditation on the master-slave relationship, recasting it in terms of what Kojève sees as the fundamental human drive: the desire for recognition—to be seen, in other words, as human by other humans. “Man can appear on earth only within a herd,” Kojve writes. “That is why the human reality can only be social.”

      I vaguely remember hearing of Kojeve in the distant past...I now need to read some of his work. #trl Kojève

    4. Being known by strangers, and, even more dangerously, seeking their approval, is an existential trap. And right now, the condition of contemporary life is to shepherd entire generations into this spiritual quicksand.

      And this happens, at least to me, in mundane ways that have both nothing and everything to do with fame seeking...recognition, even on a smaller scale, can be addictive, and in internalizing that, it can permeate everything we do, and even the "purest" of motivations for recognition---those based on the quality and qualities of an argument or a creative work---are replaced, or overly supplemented by, the shallowest.

      I feel this, I mean I really feel this in my bones every time I post something to Twitter or Facebook or even Mastodon or a topical Discord. And that feeling is essentially the same, qualitatively, regardless of the content.

    5. as the critic Leo Braudy notes, in his 1987 study, “The Frenzy of Renown,” “As each new medium of fame appears, the human image it conveys is intensified and the number of individuals celebrated expands.”
    6. Never before in history have so many people been under the gaze of so many strangers. Humans evolved in small groups, defined by kinship: those we knew, knew us. And our imaginative capabilities allowed us to know strangers—kings and queens, heroes of legend, gods above—all manner of at least partly mythic personalities to whom we may have felt as intimately close to as kin.

      Related, this is just one of so many problems of scale and humanity. We aren't meant to live in large communities, with "large" being a lot smaller than many suppose. It feels to me that there are two, practically insoluble things that account for almost everything miserable and wretched about human existence: the problem of (the existence of) consciousness and the already absurdly high number of people (and the former is what finally makes solving the latter practically impossible).

    7. The most radical change to our shared social lives isn’t who gets to speak, it’s what we can hear.

      And for every positive instance, including of personal "ambient awareness" of friends' lives, there are 10x as many things that can't be unheard...no matter how much we would like it to. My weird foray into thinking positively about humans has been viciously smacked down.

    8. forms of discourse actually shape our conceptual architecture, that the sophistication of our thinking is determined to a large degree by the sophistication of the language we hear used to describe our world.

      The dumbing down is real.

    9. once upon a time the Internet was going to save us from the menace of TV

      Even before getting to the next sentences, I knew the (correct) invocation of Postman was coming.

    1. I’m going to be taking an extended break from kottke.org, starting today. I’ve been writing here for more than 24 years, nearly half my life — I need a breather.

      Well deserved. Go forth and regenerate!

    2. P.P.P.S. A quick blogroll if you’re looking for sites and newsletters to keep you busy while I’m gone. In no particular order, a non-exhaustive list: The Kid Should See This, The Morning News, Waxy, Colossal, Curious About Everything, Open Culture, Drawing Links, Clive Thompson @ Medium, Cup of Jo, swissmiss, Storythings, things magazine, Present & Correct, Spoon & Tamago, Dense Discovery, Austin Kleon, NextDraft, Tressie McMillan Cottom, Poetry Is Not a Luxury, A Thing or Two, The Honest Broker, Interconnected, The Whippet, Craig Mod, Why is this interesting?, Sidebar, The Prepared, Life Is So Beautiful, Fave 5, Sentiers, The Fox Is Black, and Scrapbook Chronicles. Happy hunting!

      I need to sub to a few of these.

    1. For consumerism is no longer about “conformity” but about “difference.”

      Pow, right in the kisser.

    2. Since “democracy” means having more consumer choices, and information technology will vastly increase the power of our channel changers, hey presto! More democracy!

      Remember when the idea of small-d democracy was to allow for freedom of self and expression, not just purchasing power?

    3. Certainly the putatively “conservative” politics of the nation’s powerful Right does not include suspicion of vast cultural upheavals like this one, provided that responsible business interests are safely in charge (one can imagine their outrage were the government to assume comparable powers).

      Can't emphasize enough how this Conservative problem is a problem, all thanks to ignorant, knee-jerk reactions to "creeping socialism."

    4. In the United States, where political “change” means further enriching the already wealthy, and where political “dialogue” is an elaborate charade that excludes dangerous and difficult topics from public consideration, one must look to the literature of business to find serious talk about national affairs.

      Starting off with a bang!

    1. But SST’s actions shocked the indie underground. The label, known for many years as a champion of small artists against the corporate rock establishment, settled with Island and promptly announced its intention to recoup all losses from its own artist. Feverish exchanges followed. Negativland wrote a letter calling SST hypocrites and abandoned the label. Ginn published a press release calling Negativland “paranoid upper-middle class malcontents” and sued them for breach of contract. The national music media picked up the story and uncovered that SST was withholding royalty payments from many of its bands. The label came out looking fabulously unscrupulous.

      I remember this whole saga surprisingly well...it was fundamental in shaping my thinking about copyright, sampling, sharing, creative freedom, remix...a slew of things that became, and remain, extremely important to me.

    1. It’s important for students to reflect each semester: What went well? Where can I improve? Just as faculty have evaluations, students should take some time to reflect on their own strengths and weaknesses, and writing out a plan of action for the next semester can help a lot.

      Reflection and meta-awareness

    2. Be willing to experiment with tools and systems

      Experiment with task management, time management...pkm

    3. Willingness to actively participate.

      .

    4. A self-motivated personality.

      .

    5. Willingness to ask questions.

      .

    6. Willingness to take advantage of available support services.

      .

    7. Knowing when to take breaks.

      .

    8. Commitment

      .

    9. Being a thorough and comprehensive reader.

      .

    10. Ability to self-reflect.

      .

    11. Strong time management skills.

      .

    12. Ability to work independently

      .

    13. 10 Traits & Habits of Successful Online Students

      10 Traits. Let the countdown begin.

    1. it has been my clinical experience and the experience of others that the symptoms of RSD/ED can be significantly relieved with clonidine and guanfacine in about 60% of adolescents and adults. To me, this observation strongly indicates that RSD is neurological and not something that is due to a lack of skills. Skills do not come in pill form.

      "skills do not come in pill form" -- works both ways.

    2. His recent replication7 of his study of the validity of each diagnostic criterion has led him to now conceptualize ADHD as being divided into only two subtypes: the well-known inattentive type and an emotional dysregulation type.

      Yes! The latter makes so much sense to me. See the link: https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-and-emotions-diagnosis-criteria-study/

    3. Sometimes called hysteroid dysphoria in Europe, rejection sensitive dysphoria is characterized by intense mood shifts triggered by a distinct episode, typically one of the following: rejection (the real or perceived withdrawal of love, approval, or respect) teasing criticism, no matter how constructive persistent self-criticism or negative self-talk prompted by a real or perceived failure

      2/4 isn't bad...?

    1. But slowly, Driskill accepted Holland’s theories, confessing even as he repeated that he couldn’t remember any of it.

      This isn't problematic at all. JFC.

    1. “I don’t have a problem with you teaching our kids about slavery and what our ancestors went through and how they had to pick cotton,” she said. “Our teachers back in the day told us that, but they don’t bring in cotton and make you pick cotton seeds out of cotton.”

      Am I getting old and becoming a conservative, because I'm unsure how to reconcile the first and second clauses of the last sentence. Teaching about it is good, but bringing in hands-on materials and getting a sense of what that really means is bad? I have literally no idea what picking seeds out of cotton is like and can't see how it is trivializing slavery to learn. Unfortunately, I do know what it's like to wear handcuffs, so no demo needed.

    1. So I blatantly stole the idea and the name, then made a web UI for creating readlists. It allows me to enter a collection of URLs, tweak their titles and ordering, then turn them into one big collection of words (currently it exports to a single HTML file or EPUB 3).

      I certainly need to look into this more deeply.

    1. @chrisaldrich@mastodon.social @chrisaldrich@boffosocko.com @alcinnz your blog is the first place I’ve seen since 2015 that is using hypothes.is I was super passionate about it but when I saw the lack of interest in development by their devs and after few messages with them, I finally let go of my account in 2019. Good to see someone is using it anyways 👍🏼

      This is interesting. Though I don't see it much on blogs, it's my impression that hypothes.is only continues to grow and is in active development. I wonder if this is really more about hypothes.is not being interested in some specific idea(s) or something?

    1. How are we people to each other, in our (ideally) various networks, offline and online alike?  How are we treated as (how do we treat others as) products?

      In a sense, even the most well-intentioned community involves people as people and people as product because the community is itself a product, for-profit or not, limited or open. The additional complicating layer for me is how we can manifest as people in these communities and networks given our own multiplicities.

      I'm no Whitman, but I do contain multitudes, and I don't know how---even after all these years---to manage/handle/express those multitudes in the networks and communities.

    2. I have long been wary of organizations or events that claim to “build community.” All we can do is make space, and do things we think might be useful (for ourselves, for each other). Whether a community emerges from any given organization or event or series of events isn’t up to us.

      This is an important point. I, personally, always have this in my head when I read, or write, about "building community" (or myriad alternatives that ultimately come down to the same idea).

    3. I worry about my students who seem to only have university-based networks, or who are isolated from their non-university networks in some way.  I am more confident for my students who already show up with strong connections to a supportive community, with connections independent of the university. I worry about colleagues who are deeply embedded in one organization, or attached to one conference, who don’t have a different place to go when things go wrong. Things always go wrong, at some point.

      This feels like a concern/void/need that federated platforms are almost tailor-made to fill?

  3. Apr 2022
    1. Ross Gay, The Book of Delights

      Such a great book!

    2. Let it be: mindful acceptance down-regulates pain and negative emotion,
    3. Brief MindfulnessMeditation Improves Attention in Novices
    4. Think twice before you get a “No Regrets” tattoo, andmaybe consider a “Counter Your Counterfactuals” tattoo instead.

      I am literally considering this...counterfactual thinking is such a bane

    5. There’s lots of evidence that something called ‘time affluence’, thesubjective sense that you have some free time is much more critical for happiness thanwe realize

      time affluence

    6. the Awesomeology episode
    7. There’s a whole host of things that make us happier that are about connecting withother people. Literally being around other people is considered a necessary conditionfor high happiness in a lot of studies. And that’s true even for introverts.

      Is it ironic that this fact makes me sad?

    1. False choice loophole—"I can't do this, because I'm so busy doing that" Moral licensing loophole—"I've been so good, it's okay for me to do this" Tomorrow loophole—"It's okay to skip today, because I'm going to do this tomorrow" Lack of control loophole—"I can't help myself" Planning to fail loophole, formerly known as the "Apparently irrelevant decision loophole"—"I decided to explore one of my old neighborhoods and...well, look at that! I'm right in front of my favorite bakery. And of course, I couldn't possibly pass up their cookies." "This doesn't count" loophole—"I'm on vacation" "I'm sick" "It's the weekend" Questionable assumption loophole—"It's not possible to quit eating sugar" Concern for others loophole—"I can't do this because it might make other people uncomfortable" Fake self-actualization loophole—"You only live once! Embrace the moment!" One-coin loophole—"What difference does it make if I break my habit this one time?"

      Ten habit-breaking loopholes

    1. “I don’t know on those things,” she added.

      No, no you don't.

    2. “In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law.” the spelling-challenged Greene wrote to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Jan. 17, 2021.

      Maybe she meant Marshall Mathers' Law?

    3. “Those are reportedly my text messages,” the Georgia Republican told Ingraham. “I think if people read them for themselves, if those are my text message, they clearly say that I wasn’t calling for that. I actually said that’s something I don’t know about.”

      We can all agree that this is one of the many (all) things MTG doesn't actually know about (but keeps talking about anyway).

    1. To conserve the reverence it needs and deserves, the Constitution should be amended rarely and reluctantly. There is, however, an amendment that would instantly improve the legislative and executive branches. It would read: “No senator or former senator shall be eligible to be president.”

      I whole-heartedly endorse this idea!

    1. “You had one job, one job!” he cracked. “It’s your social media platform and you messed up the name? It’s almost like every time Trump speaks, his own mouth stages an insurrection.”

      That's Trump for you!

    1. “Musk may wish it were otherwise, but he remains subject to the same enforcement authority - and has the same means to challenge the exercise of that authority - as any other citizen,”

      Musk doesn't just wish it were otherwise, he doesn't understand what is happening in the first place.

    1. "The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all,"

      The reactions do not mean what Musk thinks they mean.

    2. Truth Social is currently beating Twitter & TikTok on the Apple Store,

      As will many other newer apps that haven't already saturated large parts of the market. Truth Social is a joke (I know, I've been checking it out).

    3. By "free speech," I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

      This actually means nothing in this context. Everything Twitter has been doing has been lawful. Lawful isn't the point. Is Elon Musk this ignorant or simply stupid?

    1. Ms. Tshibaka, a Trump-endorsed former commissioner in the Alaska Department of Administration, has worked to paint Ms. Murkowski as a liberal and to rally the state’s conservative base against her.

      Forgot to add that Tshibaka is also a nutcase.

    2. For Ms. Murkowski, 64, it amounts to a high-stakes bet that voters in the famously independent state of Alaska will reward a Republican centrist at a time of extreme partisanship.

      Amazingly, I have to hope so too. I would prefer Murkowski get replaced to a Democraft, of course, but it is a sign of the terrible timeline we are in that I have to recognize Murkowski as far preferable to the other Republicans.

    1. “The point, for Manchin, is the attention, and the best proof is that after a full year of breathless coverage, nobody really has a handle on what he actually wants to pass,” said Karthik Ganapathy, a liberal strategist. “The only thing consistent about Joe Manchin III throughout this process is that he’s insisted on putting himself at the center of it.”

      How does this ass stay elected? Oh, that's right, West Virginia. Holding the nation hostage.

    2. Manchin was incensed by the administration’s decision to name him in a news release as an obstacle to a deal.

      I thought Manchin was a proud iconoclast? What's wrong with a bit of sunlight highlighting his bullshit?

    1. if Elon were to take the company private wouldto make it no longer beholden to these quarterly earnings reports and having togrow each quarter to the public market, you could actually change the newobjective function and those changes could occur if you were actually to able totake it off the public market and do something with a deeper investment butthat might be the opportunity we're presented with here.

      Sadly, not the way I suspect Musk would/will go due to his own shallow, ignorant ideas of "free speech." Musk will not save us.

    2. Currently, we have a noise and cacophony machine. What would it look like tohave the listening machine? The machine that helps us listen to each other toactually be transformed by each other's ideas. Now, a lot of people are going tolike that because again, on the individual level, people want to expressthemselves, and part of that expression is what we don't like maybe howsociety's going or how our political tribe is going or how the other political tribeis going. And we want to be able to protect those virtues, but I would encourageus to zoom out

      Yes, for the love of whatever is holy!

    3. if you removed all the metrics so that you didn't see what peoplewanted, so you weren't bound by your audience, that would also be a verydifferent kind of much more nonviolent Twitter

      Obviously not the same, but on a personal level, this is why tools like Twitter Demetricator are so useful (not to mention tools to help with one's tendency to fall into doomscrolling, such as News Feed Eradicator --- which works with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Reddit). It really is a different experience to not see metrics, both in terms of what I read/follow and in terms of not incentivizing my posting through simple attention metrics instead of engagement. Wholly insufficient compared to changing the content of my feed, but a significant individual change.

    4. the deep opportunity is to be able to transform Twitter in a more radicalway to be of deep service to humanity extending the light of consciousness andto enabling really constructive speech and back and forth that enabledemocracies

      I don't know that this is possible (because I don't know that, ultimately, intentionality of this sort can function at the scale that makes Twitter, well, Twitter), but it's worth a shot. I'd love to be wrong.

    5. Twitter is a fault-line-finding-for-profit machine.Fault line finding for profit equals doom scrolling for profit equals bad mentalhealth for profit machine

      This is a great way to characterize Twitter and my (sometimes, not all the time) reaction to it.

    6. Why does Twitter matter? Well, Twitter is different than Instagram or YouTubebecause Twitter really is the place where politics and journalism live. Journalistsconstruct the world, the media world the rest of us live in. So if you influenceTwitter, you influence the ink that fills the pages of the media more broadly

      One of the key differences in terms of Twitter's place in the media ecosystem.

    1. More than 5,500 Uyghurs outside of China have been targeted by Beijing, hit with cyberattacks and threats to family members who remain in China, and more than 1,500 Uyghurs have been detained or forced to return to China to face imprisonment and torture in police custody, according to the report.

      Yet no one seems to care.

    1. That’s not “fighting.” It’s a tantrum.

      Of course it is...when they aren't throwing tantrums, the Republicans are crying and whining with their snowflake grievances. There is no other way.

    2. To claim that the laws that enable this oddity to work represent a “special break” is akin to claiming that the laws that facilitate special installations such as Cape Canaveral or the World Trade Center are “special breaks”: true, in the narrowest sense, but false when examined more closely.

      The only difference here is that there's even a narrow truth...usually the Republican can't even manage that much.

    3. In a vacuum, these arguments are all defensible, but in context, they represent an extreme form of gaslighting. Until about a month ago, Walt Disney World’s legal status was not even a blip on the GOP’s radar. No Republicans were calling for it to be revisited, nor did they have any reason to. Yes, Disney isn’t “entitled” to its arrangement. But Disney wasn’t “entitled” to it in 2012, 2002, 1992, 1982, or 1972, either, and yet, amazingly enough, the legislature showed zero interest in rescinding it when given the opportunity on those occasions. That it’s doing so now is ugly. That it’s pretending that it’s doing so out of a concern for “good government” is grotesque.

      DeSantis grotesque? No way!

    1. The magazine is quite explicit about this. “The man from the future where technology makes all things possible is a throwback to our glorious industrial past,” it states, “before America stagnated and stopped producing anything but rules, restrictions, limits, obstacles and Facebook.” In short, we need Elon Musk to rescue us, regardless of the cost. But is that the truth?
    1. Stories critical of Trump were allowed and even encouraged on the site; stories critical of Musk were not as welcome, despite the fact that both men are billionaire snake-oil salesmen who rely on a cult of personality propped up by disadvantaged people who want to believe someone rich and smart is looking out for them.

      Thiel, Trump, Musk ... people who follow them get the leaders they deserve.

    2. Thiel was an easy villain to pick out, a gateway drug to the realization that maybe all of the big brain boys in Silicon Valley weren’t necessarily looking out for the interests of the millions of young sci-fi nerds and aspiring engineers who idolized them, let alone the underpaid bloggers who fueled their ventures with free advertising.

      Realization through Thiel is better than none. At least Thiel's true colors are starting to be clear to many.

    1. i read ... somewhere? a tweet? the theory that all those social-media-for-bigots sites haven't been successful because the targets for their users' bigotry aren't there, meaning the sites are no fun beyond having slur-offs or whatever. so, you know, good luck to those who stay — can't imagine little lord emerald mine will give one fuck about whatever got those users kicked off in the first place, let alone be bothered to act when they all come swarming back and repeat their behavior only 10x worse

      I hadn't thought about the effects of this before...but it makes sense. As I responded:

      This is a really interesting thought that jibes with my experience with TruthSocial. I joined to see what it was like (and, honestly, to do some trolling) but it's a true echo chamber and wasteland with nothing else coming in. I never thought about how a lack of their targets/enemies could be contributing to that, but it makes a lot of sense!

    1. The devastating argument it makes is not that the body keeps the score, it’s that the mind hides the score from us. The mind — it hides and warps these traumatic events and our narratives about them in an effort to protect us.

      An impressive, awesome formulation...scorekeeper and score hider.

    1. Delta Airlines has updated its announcement about the end of the federal mask mandate after igniting a firestorm of criticism from public health experts who said it used inaccurate and misleading language to describe COVID-19. "We are relieved to see the U.S. mask mandate lift to facilitate global travel as COVID-19 has transitioned to an ordinary seasonal virus," the airline said in the original version of its Monday statement.
    1. “Lying to the NYT is not necessarily a transgression,” one conservative House Republican told The Dispatch Friday morning.

      Of course.

    2. GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy lied Thursday. Then hours later, he was publicly caught in that lie.

      Surprising no one.

    1. The adjunct system is immoral by any philosophical measure. The system is not equitable—no one would choose the adjunct life from behind a veil of ignorance. Institutions treat adjunct faculty as means rather than ends, so adjunct faculty treat students as means rather than ends. No one is accorded their due dignity.

      And the answer is not creating more tenure track positions, it is compensating and supporting teachers and getting rid of tenure altogether.

    2. Most uncomfortably, however, the adjunct system is cruel in the useless, unnecessary, and preoccupying disorder it brings to a person’s mind, family, and community. If you are an administrator, legislator, tenure-track faculty member, or paying education consumer, and you are not actively fighting against the adjunct labor system in higher ed, you are maintaining it. You are a callous or willfully ignorant person taking part in a harmful deception.

      Pulling no punches.

    1. I worry more about the success of rubrics than their failure.  Just as it’s possible to raise standardized test scores as long as you’re willing to gut the curriculum and turn the school into a test-preparation factory, so it’s possible to get a bunch of people to agree on what rating to give an assignment as long as they’re willing to accept and apply someone else’s narrow criteria for what merits that rating.

      Yes... this is the problem. It's easier to make rubrics "work" (by twisting the learning experience to fit) than to develop and engage in authentic assessment.

    2. I’m amazed by the number of educators whose opposition to standardized tests and standardized curricula mysteriously fails to extend to standardized in-class assessments

      How large is that number? How many just go along because their programs or institutions require them?

    3. Rubrics are, above all, a tool to promote standardization, to turn teachers into grading machines or at least allow them to pretend that what they’re doing is exact and objective.

      All the kids are ... just another brick in the grading wall.

  4. Mar 2022
    1. we can make space for, however, are a variety of avenues through which students can work to apply, reflect upon, and remember what they learn from their readings.

      100% agreed. But there is a balance here, as well, between student choice and students really understanding what those choices are. Annotation has to involve other skills and processes to be more than just information, and students often don't know what the options are or haven't experienced them enough to make an informed decision. In that sense, "forcing" students to try particular applications and techniques, might be part of the plan to help them make decisions that more closely match their needs.

    1. Creationists lie. Homeopaths lie. Anti-vaxxers lie. This is part of the Great Circle of Life. It is not necessary to call out every lie by a creationist, because the sort of person who is still listening to creationists is not the sort of person who is likely to be moved by call-outs. There is a role for organized action against creationists, like preventing them from getting their opinions taught in schools, but the marginal blog post “debunking” a creationist on something is a waste of time. Everybody who wants to discuss things rationally has already formed a walled garden and locked the creationists outside of it.

      Organizing rather than calling out (or perhaps in addition to if calling out loud is a the product of one who thinks by writing "out loud"

    2. In each of the following conflicts in Anglo-American history, you see a victory of left over right: the English Civil War, the so-called “Glorious Revolution,” the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Clearly, if you want to be on the winning team, you want to start on the left side of the field. Where is the John Birch Society, now? What about the NAACP? Cthulhu swims left, and left, and left. There are a few brief periods of true reaction in American history – the post-Reconstruction era or Redemption, the Return to Normalcy of Harding, and a couple of others. But they are unusual and feeble compared to the great leftward shift. McCarthyism is especially noticeable as such. And you’ll note that McCarthy didn’t exactly win.

      I hadn't thought about it this way before.

    3. For anyone who’s not overconfident, and so who expects massive epistemic failure on a variety of important issues all the time, graceful failure modes are a really important feature for an epistemic structure to have.

      I need a few "graceful failure modes"

    1. Nine months later, in Abrams v. U.S., Holmes changed his mind about the First Amendment. As described in Thomas Healy’s 2013 book, “The Great Dissent,” Holmes reconsidered his position after reading articles and books sent to him by Zechariah Chafee, Harold Laski and other prominent free-speech advocates. Holmes’s dissent in Abrams gave birth to modern First Amendment jurisprudence, with its veneration for the marketplace of ideas. He began by observing that it makes perfect sense to persecute people for their opinions: “If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.” The problem, Holmes realized, is that we are almost always absolutely certain of our premises, but sometimes we are wrong.

      It's OK to change your mind (not that you would think so given the tenor of most debates)

    1. It is easy for an intelligent adult to start with the particulars of any speech controversy, and reverse-engineer some set of principles that — just coincidentally! — gives their own side the right to say whatever it wants, while granting opponents only the right to remain silent. Since the other side is equally adept, we end up mired in a circular argument that ends up in the same place it started, except with everyone even angrier.Story continues below advertisementJennifer RubincounterpointThe GOP’s gibberish about ‘cancel culture’ never looked so dumbAnd so I’ve come to think we should talk less about free speech as a right, and more about free speech as a truce. As with any truce, it will not be honored in the breach; if you try to silence your opponents, expect them to silence you just as energetically. No matter how exquisitely logical your argument, you will never induce them to unilaterally disarm.

      free speech as truce rather than right...

    1. From my perspective, "pedagogy" is a name we use for the invitations teachers extend to students. (Different pedagogies are just different patterns of invitation.) From this perspective, the type of pedagogy you're using is independent of how students respond to your invitations.

      This strikes me as limited. I see pedagogy as necessarily and essentially dialogic, encompassing not just the invitation, but the process and the outcomes (at every level). Asking students to do things that require the 5Rs is an open activity (or invitation), but just as much a part of pedagogy is the process and the results.

    1. I agree that the things on your list of As are critically important for the design of effective learning activities. However, I don’t think they’re unique to open.

      Of course David is ahead of me!

    2. Do students have any choice in the topic?

      The connections to open pedagogy specifically feel a bit clearer to me here because there are many ways to be open that can emerge from open pedagogical approaches and students should have agency there, and understand the range and valence of each choice.

    3. AlignedAuthenticAchievableAccessibleAgency

      Of course I love shorthands such as these, but (reading this for the first time) this seems like a good distillation...to a point. I wonder about dynamism...or maybe Active in this framing?

    4. Are the materials needed for this activity accessible to all students regardless of economic status, ability, gender, or cultural background?

      Again, completely agree...but what is special/particular about this in terms of open pedagogy specifically?

    5. Will the activity allow students to experience using what they’re learning in a way they would do beyond the class?

      This seems to me to be one part of authenticity, but not the heart of it. This is more an effect of authenticity?

    6. If not, that’s not good pedagogy so shouldn’t count as open pedagogy

      Which makes me wonder: are any of these specific to open pedagogy? Or how do they differ when considered as part of an open pedagogical approach?

    1. the recent court decision prompted one teaching and learning campus administrator to tweet, “Be more Linkletter, Ed Techies.” The community knew exactly what he meant.

      "Be more Linkletter" alone is a good slogan

    2. All signs point to the fact that it is time for a relationship reboot between higher education institutions, their teaching and learning staff, and the ed tech industry. Now more than ever, higher education needs its ed tech critics to ask hard questions early and often.

      .

    3. Ed tech marketing strategies

      'nuf said.

    4. Faculty and staff power dynamics

      This. Reminds me of this tweet:

      If you are a prof chiding ppl for talking about your field when they have no background in it, but then giving keynotes/speeches on course design even though ID isn’t your field… maybe consider why it is ok for you to speak on things outside your field but not ok for others?

    5. Role confusion within the instructional design field

      This is a multi-layered problem. There is often confusion within teams and units, large and small. Often the reasons for the confusion differ depending on scale.

      Then you have the confusion from the outside, where people don't know what instructional design and related roles are, they vastly underestimate the skill and expertise, not understanding they are talking about an entire discipline, not (just) technical expertise.

      I routinely have faculty ask me things along the lines of, "where can I go to learn instructional design? I have a few weeks this summer..."

    6. Many institutions make the mistake of not bringing their teaching and learning technology experts to the technology decision-making table in any meaningful capacity. Faculty often drive early ed tech discovery and decisions—almost exclusively on some campuses. While faculty are essential to the conversation, most are not trained to vet technology for security, privacy, accessibility, equity, or (sometimes) pedagogical value.

      Laura, of course, sees the same need for more inclusive decision making that I do and soon explicates some of the reasons why.

    7. While ed tech served institutions well during the pandemic, it is time to reevaluate its ongoing use more critically and with a person-first (in contrast with a technology-first) strategy in mind.

      Even given the emergency of the pandemic, these decisions could have been made more effectively. That said, re-evaluation (which is harder due to entrenchment, familiarity, and--well--the nature of academic admin to talk a lot and make few decisions, is critical or the current opportunity will be squandered.

    8. The nature of the response, which is unfolding on Twitter, in blog posts, and through industry articles and editorials, is a real-time example of the increasingly fraught and polemic relationship that exists between the teaching and learning community and ed tech industry—a tension that many higher education institutions do not engage with or consider in their technology decisions.

      Most higher ed institutions don't engage with this tension...in part because most of the decisions w/r/t technology adoption don't include the constantly undervalued expertise of learning designers and other experts in the pedagogical aspect of the technologies.

  5. Jan 2022
    1. The rest seem to go to the local truck driving school (rip-offs designed to collect government money) or the ITI “vocational career training,” again designed to hoover up federal dough.

      .

    2. hese so-called volunteers are part of this nation's de facto draft -- economic conscription -- the carrot being politically preferable to the whip.

      "economic conscription" - how did I escape it?

    3. Middle class urban liberals may never claim us as brothers, much less willing servants, but as they say in prison, we are your meat

      We're not in prison.

      We are in a cell within a much vaster prison industrial complex that acts in service of -- it all comes down to, ultimately -- dollars and advertising for which we all are the meat.

    4. when you provide certain species of white mutt people with the right incentives, such as free pork or approval from god and government, you get things like lynchings, Fallujah, the Birmingham bombers and Abu Ghraib.

      .

    5. My point here is that we rural and small town mutt people by an early age seem to have a special capacity for cruelty, compared say, to damned near every other imaginable group of Americans.

      Indeed. I was a mutt who fortunately escaped alive from the common cruelty I could neither take part in or understand.

    6. The Coeur d'Alene Indians refused to suffer those kinds of conditions; they wouldn't even manage the place. They contracted it out. As my friend Walter Wildshoe said: “Only a white man would work there.”

      .

    7. there are lots of yellow ribbons in the windows, Marine Corps and Army parent's icons on the porches and scrubby lawns, evidence enough that you do not need an education to contribute something of value the far-flung perimeter of our expanding empire of blood and commerce.

      .

    8. Doctor's son = College, career, golf, nice car and a bimbo. Redneck laborer's son = Well, if you stay out of trouble, there's always room for one more broad shouldered chinless pinhead stamping out bright yellow plastic mop buckets on the injection molds at Rubbermaid.

      Author has a surgical-level deftness with the withering descriptions.

    9. At some point down the road all the Montessori schools and ivy league degrees in the world are not going to save your children and grandchildren from what our intellectual peasantry, whether born of neglect or purposefully maintained, is capable of supporting politically.

      "intellectual peasantry"

    10. America can no longer withstand the political naiveté of this ignored white class. Middle class American liberals cannot have it both ways.

      Accepted. And it's only gotten much, much worse since this piece was written in 2006. And events of the past five years make me doubt there is a solution while remaining a single country and/or that preserves democracy.

    11. And because liberals have driven secularism into the ground and broken it off, and need to actually adhere to some religious values -- real ones -- even if we don't feel particularly inclined toward religion. (Psst! Everybody else in America DOES fell inclined toward it.)

      But here he loses me because of that last, unneeded, and demonstrably wrong parenthetical.

    12. Why don't we do these things? Part of the reason is that this stubborn proud people does not whine beg or threaten its way to access to education, employment or anything else. And part of it is because we unquestioningly accept a system that calls greed and self-interest “drive”, thus letting the prosperous professional and business classes pretend there is no disparity around them for which they might just be partially responsible, even as they pay the maid and the gardener who lack health insurance a pittance . . . or see that their mechanic's bill reads, “repare of fuul injection, $105.”

      So far, so good.

    13. liberal refusal to see white people as also being diverse, and seeing that some of them indeed need their own sort of affirmative action is exactly the kind of thing that helped the neocons lead these working white people by the nose

      I've never thought about it this way, but it makes sense, especially given my background as a "mutt" of a slightly different variety.

    14. The neocon leadership is right when they tell working white Americans the system has been stacked against them by an unseen hand, though they never mention that their own kids are among the silver spooners rowing around in the Ivy League gravy boat.

      There's no question of neocons' "flexible" morals and principles.

    15. “No one should be forced to dive into an ocean of debt to learn how the world works, much less escape minimum wage hell. It should be enough just to want to know. Then too, look at our educational institutions. Academia, at least from this outsider's perspective, is an almost impenetrable veneer of elitist flatulence and toxic competition. Jesus, no wonder this country is in such sorry shape.”   -- Arvin Hill, Texas philosopher

      "elitist flatulence" -- it's funny because it's true.