Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

67

Comments

1,020

Joined

2 yr. ago

[…] I’m not going to convince you and vice versa […]

First, I try to stay open to other people's opinions. Second, I simply wasn't sure what your comment was referring to — I was hoping that you could clarify what you meant.

Enough with the spammy questions. […]

Spamming wasn't my intention. All of my comments have been made in good faith. At any rate, questions seeking clarification or elaboration wouldn't be necessary if you weren't engaging in conjecture — which is rather ironic given the topic of this post.

[…] no one is paying you […]

Is that necessary...?

[…] you don’t have to […]

By "have" I was referring to the fact that I wouldn't be able to trust any claims made in the article if it doesn't cite sources.

They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I’m not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. […]

I agree that it would make it statistically likely that their claims are accurate, but their reputation isn't proof of their claim's veracity ^[1].

More what I'm getting at, regardless of language used in Shakespeare is whether you think Shakespeare, as a whole, is obsolete. So, iiuc, you aren't saying that you think that Shakespeare, as a whole, is obsolete, but that that the language used within it is, which makes it difficult to read?

[…] I propose that teaching Shakespeare instead of more in depth driver’s ed isn’t entirely ethical. […]

I think you misunderstood me. To be completely fair, I was rather vague. I wasn't arguing that one was more ethical than the other. My argument about ethics was from the perspective of further subsidizing something that already receives enormous subsidies — ie driving and cars (this is conjecture at the moment, but I can go into more detail if you'd like).

[…] If they get something wrong behind the wheel of a car, what’s the worst that can happen? […]

Out of curiosity, do you live in an area that doesn't require a driver's license in order to be legally allowed to drive on a public road?

How many hours of the average American’s life will be spent behind the wheel of a car? […]

Would it be a goal of yours to reduce the amount of time that one spends driving in their life? If so, do you think that teaching drivers ed in school will achieve that end?

[…] replace it with a semester of “living in the world” lessons that might just be a week of driver’s ed, that field trip to the fire department, some first aid, just cram a semester full of basic adulting skills.

Okay, but that isn't what you said prior — that's shifting the goalpoasts. You specifically said

[…] Replace them with a semester of […] fire safety […]

[…] the reason we teach Shakespeare in high schools is because English teachers like it […]

Hm, this feels like conjecture. Do you have proof of that?

[…] reading a Shakespeare play is an exercise in translation as much as comprehension […]

[…] It may have more of a value in teaching the history of the English language than a reading comprehension exercise. […]

I am a little confused now — is this you agreeing that reading Shakespeare improves reading comprehension?

Nope, that’s not how education works. Due to the Principle of Effect, lessons which are too confusing can do more harm than good. If, as some other commenters have suggested, students are arriving to 12th grade English class reading at an elementary school level, handing them a copy of Hamlet isn’t going to accomplish anything, it’ll just frustrate them, convince them that they really can’t do this and they’ll just give up. Even honors students who are reading at advanced levels might start second guessing themselves. […]

I wasn't arguing that Shakespeare would make the students more interested in literature. I was only arguing that the act of reading, no matter what is being read (within reason), improves one's reading comprehension.

I think it's important to define exactly how "this thead" is being used in this context. When I use "this thread", it's to refer to our exchange of comments; it doesn't refer to all comments under OP's post. I'm not sure if there's an official definition for the term — perhaps I am not using the term in a commonly understood way. I think it's also important to define "on topic", though that may be a bit more difficult in this context. I would argue that we are on topic, but I don't have a super precise way to define it — perhaps you do?

So, other than literature, are there some English-derived classes that you think would be good to teach?

[…] The US Air Force has a massive astroturf farm at Eglin Air Force base pushing a lot of this, too. […]

Can you cite a source for this?

[…] There’s videos you can look up where they train Zionists to astroturf forums and strategically edit Wikipedia. […]

Can you cite a source for this?

Using what method? You seemed to be making a point that an "average person" isn't qualified to fact check claims when you said

Ok how are you fact checking, are you finding people with expertise and contacting them or googling and using whatever shite websites come up as a source? If the latter, how are you verifying the veracity of those sources?

[…] I wouldn’t cite sources for 5G not causing covid, for example, unless the article was specifically about that.

How come? If one's knowledge of a topic derives from a location, I think one should cite that location when discussing that topic, otherwise it's just conjecture.

[…] Some things don’t need sourcing because they’re accepted facts […]

It think it, at least, depends on context. Personally, I strive to cite any claim that I make.