#dialectic arguments

[er-cryptid]

Introduction to Socrates [Vocabulary]

Patreon

[gravitascivics]

SUMMARIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR LIBERATED FEDERALISM, IV

In answering the question – does a federalist perspective, in the form of liberated federalism, provide a legitimate and viable construct for the study of governance and politics in American secondary schools? – this blog has presented a dialectic study.[1]  Each of the arguments in that presentation, the segments of the study in the form of a thesis (natural rights based approach), antithesis (critical theory based approach), and synthesis (liberated federalism based approach), contained a methodological subsection.

          That is, within these subsections the blog addressed the question of which pedagogic strategies would best present instructionally the content of each approach.  Those approaches – which included the dominant view prior to the natural rights ascendency, the parochial/traditional federalism (pre thesis) – stems back to colonial days in American history.  Currently, the dialectic struggle pits natural rights being challenged by critical theory.  This account offers liberated federalism as a viable synthesis. 

This was not an extensive treatment of instructional methods but an attempt to present the methodology that was/is either prevalent during the historical period in which the approach was/is dominant or in which it became dominant.  That would include the proposed dominance of liberated federalism.

          For example, the essentialist strategy, associated with the natural rights perspective, was reviewed since it has been the most used strategy of instruction during the current natural rights period.  Other than that review, the dialectic study did extend its analysis to other origins of curricular content, namely the commonplaces of curricular development.[2]  Much more should be addressed either in terms of other topics or more extensive study of those elements identified.

          That is, future research concerns over this general topic should look at the claims made in this presentation.  Such studies should devise empirical and qualitative questions and follow those with appropriate, methodologically sound research.  The answers to those questions addressing the proposed construct, for the most part, are dependent on the actual implementation of that model.

          To be targeted, any subsequent study would be assisted by suggested, more targeted questions.  More specifically, these questions identify general research areas which are deemed relevant to the implementation of the proposed construct.  In offering a list of those questions, this posting addresses three concerns:  1. the existing levels of supportive values and attitudes regarding federalist, republican values that prevail among Americans; 2. the sociological factors that could affect the acceptance, implementation, and success of the proposed construct; and 3. the anticipated efficiency in implementing the proposed construct.

          In terms of the first concern – supportive values and attitudes – the following questions can and should be asked:

To what extent do adults in the general national population share in values and attitudes that can be described as federalist or republican?

To what extent do students of secondary age share in values and attitudes that can be described as federalist or republican?

Are there personality types that are more receptive to federalist values and attitudes?

Are there cognitive levels of ability associated with federalist and republican values and attitudes?

Are emotional patterns among the citizenry positively associated with federalist values and attitudes?

What are the values and attitudes of the general citizenry, particularly among parents, to a normative approach to the study of government and civics, as described in this dialectic argument, to instruction?

To what extent do secondary social studies teachers support federalist and republican values and attitudes?

Are values supportive of the natural rights perspective and the federalist perspective mutually exclusive as perceived by affected individuals?

In terms of sociological factors, the following is offered:

Does the amount of time students’ families have lived in the United States and been exposed to American culture influence the level of support those students have for federalist or republican values?

Does the fact that a student’s household is a one or two parent arrangement influence the level of support that student has for federalist and republican values and attitudes?

Does a student’s success in school relate to the support that student has for federalist or republican values and attitudes?

Do negative experiences with law enforcement agents or agencies influence the level of support a student has for federalist or republican values or attitudes?

Is there an association between the geographic origins of a family and the level of support a student might have for federalist and republican values and attitudes?

Does the number of household inhabitants have an association with the level of support a student might have for federalist or republican values and attitudes?

Does the family’s income level have an association with the level of support a student has for federalist or republican values and attitudes?

And with the last concern, efficiency of implementing the proposed construct, the questions are:

Is the proposed model efficient in formulating instructional lessons?

How understandable, among teachers, is the proposed model?

In use, does the proposed model address the political issues sufficiently – regarding the expectations of teachers and the demand of curricular guides by state and district officials for a secondary course in civics or American government?

Are the constructivist strategies suggested in this blog and its supportive psychological theory a viable approach for pedagogic purposes?

And the remaining questions are based on Peter Oliva’s perennial problems of curriculum development[3] and asks if the resulting curriculum, which uses the proposed model, have the following:  viable level of scope, relevancy, balance, sequence, continuity, articulation, and transferability?

As the scope of these questions indicates, the implementation of a new curricular foundation to the study of civics – or any legitimate subject – is not a simple proposition.  Not only are there vested interests in what is, but the whole mental framing that people have of an institutional practice is likely to be well embedded.

[1] Interested readers who wish to look up the postings that present the dialectic argument from its beginning, see Robert Gutierrez, “Dealing with Ideals,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics,” December 14, 2021, accessed November 14, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_12_12_archive.html.

[2] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).  The commonplaces can be defined as follows:

The subject matter refers to the academic content presented in the curriculum. 

The teacher is the professional instructor authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom setting. 

Learners are defined as those individuals attending school for the purpose of acquiring the education entailed in a particular curriculum.

Milieu refers to the general cultural setting and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.

[3] Peter F. Oliva, Developing the Curriculum (Boston, MA:  Little, Brown and Company, 1982).

[ginkovskij]

being italian online can be frustrating because some people from over usa are weirdly obsessed with our country and will bend the basic working of logic to claim they are italian too "italian is an ethnicity you don't have to be italian to be italian" brother are you listening to yourself

[thatsonehellofahabit]

silly little guys doing silly little things..

[vivi-scera]

i just saw one of those self-important med student tiktoks where this girl was like blah blah doctors are the natural protectors of the poor which like okay lmao. but not out of the realm of normal for these kinds of videos. but then i read her caption and she wrote 'that one foucault quote where he said doctors are like the priests of the body 😍' bro what. michel foucault famous proponent of physicians and the power they hold in the institution of medicine

[liu-anhuaming]

My biggest pet peeve in language learning circles is and always has been when people call Mandarin "Chinese" even though there is not one Chinese language but rather many different Chinese languages (plural! china is linguistically quite diverse), and "Mandarin" 官話 is actually considered its own language family with even more dialects under it and not just one language. I think accuracy matters when talking about what languages you're studying

anyways, here's a tweet on this topic that has been stuck in my mind from the moment i first saw it

[onelonelystory]

you need to stop thinking your anecdotal experience is a substantive generally applicable argument. you need to stop assuming that being directly impacted means you have a comprehensive understanding of things. and you need to stop feeling like people who say batshit things are correct because they’re speaking from experience and the broad strokes sentiment is something you agree with and support. please.

[philosophybitmaps]

[mo0l]

its so funny how people on here are like "ermagerd! wanting to go back to a older time is a fascist ideal!" as if things are SO MUCH better today than like 20 years ago skdhdkssk bro cost of living is worse than ever, all thats changed in those 20 years are a few feel good laws and a general idpol tolerancy in liberal cities WHOOP DE FUCKING DO SKDHDJDDK like its not nothing but yall realize progressiveness doesnt just = "current moment bestest most good" right? social media continues to take itself seriously to a neverending continued failed effort. somethings gotta give, these hoes wont stop fauxlosophizing to the people that wont enact change irregardless of their opinion on this matter!!! what are we all doinggggggggggggggg

[evendumbo]

The second season of The Bear was an outstanding example of focused character development and relationship building. I loved it. I don’t ship anyone on this show, but the development of the relationship between Sydney and Carmen just felt affirming after the Ted Lasso Fiasco. Their long talks, their interesting conflicts, the way you could see how their past lives influenced how they navigated their partnership was beautifully done.

I kept thinking, this is how you write a complicated friendship between a man and a woman. Make them whole people, then let them actually engage each other beyond a few lines here and there. Let their relationship even dominate a couple of episodes. Show us why their love and respect for one another is growing and how that is a rocky process. The friendship might grow into something more, I really don’t feel invested one way or the other. But I’m invested in the relationship whatever it looks like.

I kept thinking, this was what was missing between Ted and Rebecca if they were always meant to be platonic friends. This is it. If the show had put this level of time and attention cultivating their relationship, I would have been totally happy with just their friendship because there would have been a there there. It may seem counterintuitive that, because their relationship was underdeveloped, I rooted for them to discover a romantic relationship. I get that. But the underdevelopment made sense to me because I believed the show’s intention was that Ted had a quiet crush on Rebecca which was growing into real feelings while he slowly unraveled at his job — feelings that would eventually be revealed in an exciting, maybe devastating, narrative climax. Romantic tension can get effectively communicated through thousands of imperceptible moments, but a platonic friendship soulmate relationship sustained only by here and there encounters does not work. Or, at best, it can be a cute dynamic, but kind of boring.

For example, I replayed the Christmas episode in my mind as Ted and Rebecca being only platonic friends (bc the finale killed any desire to rewatch this show). I mean, through that lens, this part of the episode is cute, but not particularly interesting. It’s just two friendly coworkers who had that nice time together at Christmas when Ted was feeling sad, and Rebecca briefly expressed regret about her past actions. That’s totally fine if that’s what floats your boat. But my take at the time was that Rebecca had these tells that, when she was nervous around a guy, she’d fuss with her clothes (which she did while texting John Wingsnight), or do this funny thing with her tongue (which she did while having dinner with Sam), both of which she did while hanging out with Ted that day. Plus the random mention of fucking 😂. I was like, oh wow, that escalated, what is going on here!?! That is interesting.

Sydney and Carmen having a substantial conversation while strengthening a table together as a metaphor for their mutually supportive relationship? That is interesting.

I’m just saying, if a friendship and nothing more is what the Ted Lasso writers wanted, I really wish they had just done the work and written the damn friendship.

[misterparadigm]

Election Year: Politics in the Age of Misinformation

What we're seeing a lot of right now is the compulsion the average person has, when desperate for a sense of normalcy and hope, to all but deify a candidate when set at odds against what they've determined is the devil of their lives and the destroyer of the world they were either raised in or wish to live in.

When this happens, incalculable falsehoods are pumped into the well of information, flooding it to the point that what's abandoned is the sober truth in favor of a subtle mania to compensate for adverse conditions. Flooding it to the point that no one knows what's real anymore, and we know that we don't know, but we cram it down deep so we can continue to maintain the reputations we have among our chosen groups--to maintain our identities, which we've cultivated and preened and burdened with a marriage to our sanity.

[peemil]

the other really funny thing is when my politics started Changing in high school i considered myself to be a "moderate democrat" but the issues i felt strongest about at the time were like. universal healthcare. removal of gender/sex markers on government id. end of military aid to isr*el. like it all felt so obvious to me i was like "well these are completely reasonable opinions. i don't think it's very political at all"

[skyrigel]

Reader who doesn't speak English as their first language and Simon being so in love !!

Over the dinner course, you leaned forward confidently, like you were sharing a secret.

"I think we should buy a baby wheelchair for them."

Price's missus was going to have a baby shower next week.

"Wot?" Simon blinked.

"A baby wheelchair—" You pulled your fist into a punching stance and moved it back and forth, mimicking a tiny car. "Like a baby car… phew phew."

"Oh, that's a stroller." Simon raised a brow, watching your head bobble in a self-absorbed nod.

"Exactly, baby car… stroller."

And it was so cute when you looked up at him whenever you forgot certain words.

"Simon, how do you say in English? The takka-takka-takka—"

"Helicopter," Simon said fondly, earning himself a sweet peck on the lips.

The task force enjoyed it immensely. When Soap said, “Break a leg !” and you raised up a fight at why Simon should break his leg.

Or when Kyle couldn't stop laughing so much with the way you pronounced, “Bitch” to the bird who was hitting up on Simon.

And Simon loved it all, felt love in your eyes through your words, especially when you used his vocabulary—God, it did something to him.

Saying "bugger" when you put too much ketchup, and "bloody freezin’, innit?!" with that corky little smile because you knew how much it wrecked him.

"Bollocks," you would curse, and he’d already be losing his heart and mind, dragging you to the bedroom.

The way you would slip into your native dialect when you were upset, voice rising as you made frustrated noises—Simon would forget the argument entirely, just watching you with that pretty face he’d go to war for.

And something, something about the way you said "I love you" in your native language first, just as softly, and how you called him "my love" in that same way too.

Bloody hell, he’s so in love.

Masterlist

[linogram]

feel so bad for this person, the replies are full of ppl saying theyre contradicting themself and that what they said makes no sense when its the most basic explanation ever

[birdylion]

The reason why you say "Ukraine", without the definite article, by the way, is because by doing so, you signal that you recognize the political autonomy of Ukraine.

Why's that?

The short answer is: because that's the English translation preferred by Ukrainian officials.

But of course, there's more to it. It's just a translation, you might ask, how does it matter? Most Slavic languages, for example Ukrainian or Russian, don't even have articles, and thus make no distinctions between using "the" and not using "the". But just because a language doesn't use the exact same grammatical tools to convey a concept doesn't mean it doesn't have it.

Take this dialogue:

Me: "I'm going to the arctic" You: "Oh, where are you going? Are you visiting Finland?" Me: "No, I'm going to Canada. I'm looking for the Northwest Passage."

The arctic is a region, the Northwest Passage is a geographical idea without set borders, Finland and Canada are countries. This article explains it better with the example of "Ohio" (state) vs "the Ohio" (river). Or with "going to the Caucausus (region)" vs "going to Russia". (The exception being states that are several things under one hat, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, or the Philippines.)

There's a similar distinction in Russian and Ukrainian, only it's in the preposition you use instead of the (nonexistent) article. You say going "v" Russia but "na" Caucasus; both meaning the same, but one with the connotation of going to a state and the other with the connotation of going to a region.

For a very long time, during the 19th and most of the 20th century, only "na" Ukraine ("going to the Ukraine") really was in use. Only, after the Soviet Union ended, when Ukraine became independent, the state started using "v" Ukraine ("going to Ukraine") exclusively, and asked others to do the same.

Because by using "na" Ukraine, you say implicitly that Ukraine is a region that's not really it's own thing, it's kinda attached to Russia like the Caucasus, doesn't have fixed state borders, and really, it's Russia's right to be there and do what they like. I'm exaggerating a bit, but not that much.

So who uses the preposition "na" with Ukraine? Putin in his speeches, for example. People who think Ukraine belongs to Russia. People who at best don't care whether Ukraine is a sovereign state or not (and has the geopolitical rights to act and exist as one).

By using the preposition "v" when talking about Ukraine, 1. you are using the wording preferred by the Ukrainian government, but that's because 2. you affirm Ukraine's right to its own statehood. And that's a prerequisite for recognizing Russia's invasion as an invasion.

Back to English: using "the Ukraine" mirrors the Russian and Ukrainian way of implying Ukraine is no more than a region. Using "Ukraine" mirrors the recognition of sovereignty.

So yeah. Omit the definite article when talking about Ukraine.

Here's an article from 2013: Why Ukraine Isn't 'The Ukraine,' And Why That Matters Now

Here's one from 2022: The Politics of "Ukraine" vs "the Ukraine"

And again the one I linked in the text above, also from 2022: It’s ‘Ukraine,’ not ‘the Ukraine’ – here’s why

10 facts everyone should know about Ukraine! by @/jeniasnotes

[nowoyas]

life gets a lot more annoying when you start explaining language shit like. an accent is just a set of common "mispronunciations" influenced by the culture or native language you're approaching a specific word from. different spelling conventions in different dialects ("fetal" vs. "foetal") are just different written accents. unless a "mispronunciation" is actively making communication difficult, the idea of a "correct" way to say or spell something absolutely requires you consider cultural context or you're just going to come off like a nationalistic fuckwit when you insist that "ENGlish came from ENGland so the british english pronunciations and spellings are all correct and everyone else is wrong". I'm not wrong, fucker, I'm literally just not speaking the same dialect as you. I'm spelling and saying shit right in the dialect that I speak, not the one you speak, because I'm not from the same place as you and where I live, we spell the word "fetus".