Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Curious what your thoughts are on this:
- This topic has 27 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
Billy_T.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 23, 2018 at 10:56 am #83015
ZooeyModerator“There are two topics I don’t let students write argument papers about: abortion and guns. I don’t let students write about these topics because these are two topics Americans cannot talk about, and they almost inevitably lead to terrible papers, regardless of the position of the writer. Arguments about abortion or guns are never really about abortion or guns. They are about people’s identities. Guns are an intractable thread in the American fabric. The country was founded with systemic violence because we fought for every acre of the country against either Europeans or Native Americans, or both, and we our “frontier mentality” was etched into our psyche, and never went away. We have always seen the world as a hostile environment with limitless resources, and believed that the strongest people will master their environments and be empowered. These are core beliefs, and you can’t reason people into believing anything else. At the core, people either see guns as empowering, or guns as threatening, and no amount of statistics and anecdotes will change anybody’s mind on the topic. Everybody’s arguments simply circle around preservation of a core identity, and assume as absolute truths things that are not provable.”
February 23, 2018 at 10:59 am #83016
znModeratorEverybody’s arguments simply circle around preservation of a core identity, and assume as absolute truths things that are not provable.”
Kwik thot.
I think that statement is true of every major controversy.
…
February 23, 2018 at 11:23 am #83019Billy_TParticipantThe author makes a lot of good points. But, in my opinion, there is no such thing as a “national psyche.” We don’t inherit a sense of “frontier mentality” or anything else related to our past — at least beyond our parents’ generation. Humans are far too forgetful to retain generational views, and start basically fresh with each life — again, setting aside parental visions. We’re socialized, educated, propagandized by a host of sources into feeling some sense of that “national psyche,” but it’s an illusion.
I was thinking the other day about the massive impact of growing up watching TV and movie Westerns, WWII stuff, and a myriad of media glorifying the use of guns. We played shoot ’em up as little kids, not cuz we came into this world thinking that’s our American heritage . . . but because Hollywood, et al gave us John Wayne and company . . . and we thought it was “cool.”
Cutting right to the chase, I think the desire for, the love of, the belief that, we have the “right” to an AR-15 is just a carryover from our childhood games, amplified by that many more years of media glorifying the gun.
Take away the constant images we grow up with and never escape, and at least that aspect of our perceived “American heritage” dies rather quickly. It really only exists via that amplification. It’s not innate.
February 23, 2018 at 11:50 am #83022
joemadParticipantEverybody’s arguments simply circle around preservation of a core identity, and assume as absolute truths things that are not provable.”
Kwik thot.
I think that statement is true of every major controversy.
…
true…. I’m still not sold on Nick Foles………..
February 23, 2018 at 12:29 pm #83023
nittany ramModeratorI agree with what zn said. Joe also makes a good point about Nic Foles btw. 😉
I disagree with the author’s view. Students SHOULD write about those subjects. They should be taught how to write about controversial stuff – meaning they have to bring more than their ideology. They have to use data to support their position and not just cherry picked stuff that supports their viewpoint. They should be taught to look at all the evidence and be able to discern signal from noise. They need to learn to think critically.
February 23, 2018 at 1:12 pm #83027
wvParticipantI think its a mistake for teachers to avoid difficult topics. I mean where does ‘that’ lead?
There’s a little building close to my house. Its a local, public, ‘Art’ community building. And they have a new art exhibit every month. Usually local artists’ paintings on this or that theme. Like say, an exhibit on ‘the beauty of WV’ or ‘diversity in WV’ or ‘dogs of WV’ or ‘remembering David Bowie’, or ‘WV students against Landmines’ etc.
They do ‘safe’ topics. Relatively safe. I mean who is against landmine removal? Ya know.
But they avoid really divisive issues, like guns or abortion. They might lose patrons. They might lose donations. So they stick to dogs, pretty trees, and landmine removal.
I dont think it helps to avoid the difficult issues. Granted, issues like guns or abortion are gonna lead to some awful papers reflecting some awful american values and notions. Educa-shun aint easy. It aint for the faint of heart. 🙂
w
v-
This reply was modified 6 years, 7 months ago by wv.
February 24, 2018 at 5:59 am #83088
PA RamParticipantAs a nation we are quickly running out of topics that we CAN discuss with each other.
We are breaking down further and further into tribes.
I’m not sure what the consequences for the future are but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to talk to each other.
I’ve sort of given up because I just don’t feel like the frustration of dealing with it on any sort of polite level.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
February 24, 2018 at 9:41 am #83096znModeratorWell, now that the discussion veered a bit in favor of TEACHING those topics, I didn’t say anything about this earlier BUT now I have to jump back in and say I agree with Zooey. It would seem like there are 2-3 topics it is impossible to get students to write about without it going badly wrong because emotions drive it first and foremost. Getting them to think critically about such loaded topics will not work. You would end up in a position where you would be trying to insist that the logic or evidence does not work, and, the writer would be so partisan that he/she would only see YOU (the teacher) as being partisan.
If I were teaching high school I would never assign those issues for student writing. It would be begging for trouble. Those are open warfare issues. You can’t teach critical thinking when the parties involved are THAT emotionally invested about their view. They would only end up seeing your guidance and constructive feedback as sides taking.
So IMO, there are controversial topics where you can ask students to be receptive to open debate and constructive feedback…and there are some where that’s just asking too much.
Then a joke occurred to me. What if, here, in this thread, we get so emotionally invested on this particular topic that it causes absolutely divisive and open conflict?
In my little dark humor mind, that would be kinda funny…..
…February 24, 2018 at 2:45 pm #83115ZooeyModeratorYeah, it’s my post from an argument elsewhere. I didn’t say so because I wanted to hear responses to the ideas themselves without consideration of me.
For several years, I allowed students to write on those papers, and the result was exactly as zn described…the kids just accused me of being partisan, and giving their papers grades because I don’t agree, rather than on the paper’s merits. I think it’s better to teach them critical thinking/argument/rhetorical skills first with issues they don’t have their identities tied up in. Sometimes kids will start in pursuit of an argument, and then while doing the research for the paper, come back and ask if they can change their position and argue a contrary position to what they set out to do originally. Once they learn how to do that, they could be ready for abortion, guns, and so on. (The problem with abortion is that one side argues from a “rights” and self-determination point of view, and the other argues from a position of perceived morality, frequently backed up with sketchy Biblical references. They are just having completely separate conversations. And try telling a student his Bible text has no connection to abortion whatsoever, and furthermore expresses a sentiment that is completely contradicted somewhere else in the Bible).
But that isn’t the part of the post I was interested in getting feedback on because years of experience with emerging writers has already convinced me of that part of it.
What interests me is this idea that guns themselves are so intractably part of a person’s identity that “gun nuts” are actually incapable of holding an open conversation about guns. Guns are an extension of Self for a large number of Americans. Yet that isn’t true of most of the world. Now…why is that? That’s what interests me. Why the love affair with guns that transcends the rational, and moves the conversation into a different realm from…say…seat belt laws, or even smoking restrictions.
And my posit is – and billy disagrees – that the frontier mentality from American history never updated itself.
I read an essay by a guy named Webb on the frontier mentality of Americans a long, long time ago. I could probably find it somewhere. As I recall, he was more focused on the idea that our Frontier experience had contributed to our assumption of limitless resources and opportunities in our culture than on the gun identity aspect, but the piece has always made me think of ways that our Frontier experience shaped our cultural identity as Americans.
February 24, 2018 at 2:59 pm #83116Billy_TParticipantYeah, it’s my post from an argument elsewhere. I didn’t say so because I wanted to hear responses to the ideas themselves without consideration of me.
For several years, I allowed students to write on those papers, and the result was exactly as zn described…the kids just accused me of being partisan, and giving their papers grades because I don’t agree, rather than on the paper’s merits. I think it’s better to teach them critical thinking/argument/rhetorical skills first with issues they don’t have their identities tied up in. Sometimes kids will start in pursuit of an argument, and then while doing the research for the paper, come back and ask if they can change their position and argue a contrary position to what they set out to do originally. Once they learn how to do that, they could be ready for abortion, guns, and so on. (The problem with abortion is that one side argues from a “rights” and self-determination point of view, and the other argues from a position of perceived morality, frequently backed up with sketchy Biblical references. They are just having completely separate conversations. And try telling a student his Bible text has no connection to abortion whatsoever, and furthermore expresses a sentiment that is completely contradicted somewhere else in the Bible).
But that isn’t the part of the post I was interested in getting feedback on because years of experience with emerging writers has already convinced me of that part of it.
What interests me is this idea that guns themselves are so intractably part of a person’s identity that “gun nuts” are actually incapable of holding an open conversation about guns. Guns are an extension of Self for a large number of Americans. Yet that isn’t true of most of the world. Now…why is that? That’s what interests me. Why the love affair with guns that transcends the rational, and moves the conversation into a different realm from…say…seat belt laws, or even smoking restrictions.
And my posit is – and billy disagrees – that the frontier mentality from American history never updated itself.
I read an essay by a guy named Webb on the frontier mentality of Americans a long, long time ago. I could probably find it somewhere. As I recall, he was more focused on the idea that our Frontier experience had contributed to our assumption of limitless resources and opportunities in our culture than on the gun identity aspect, but the piece has always made me think of ways that our Frontier experience shaped our cultural identity as Americans.
After rereading my own response, I should probably clarify. I shouldn’t say that it all starts anew for all of us, without remnants of the past finding their way to us, with or without present-day inputs. Admittedly, I’ve never studied transmission across generations to any great degree, so I really don’t know. On that topic, it’s mostly my gut feeling. But, yeah, we probably pass on bits and pieces of the past, across more than one or two generations. So there’s going be some of that that winds up with us. But, again, my sense is, that without the reinforcement of our present-day cultural landscape, which includes those old movies and TV shows, novels, etc. etc. . . I just don’t see the remnants as being strong enough to keep this thing going.
I think the remnants would lose out to a different media/cultural/educational landscape, if it didn’t include our myths about Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, George Washington, etc.
Why DID we so easily slip into those shoot em up games as a kid? I don’t remember being taught any of that by parents. I just remember the neighborhood kids, together, all of us, running around, playing army with our sticks, hiding, bang bang!! you’re dead!! falling over, etc. etc. We were mimicking what we saw on TV, and using tools we might see in toy stores . . . . though, as children of educators, we weren’t given those toys. We made our own.
Anyway . . . so, I wonder. How does that “frontier mentality” survive in the 21st century, when our lives are so far removed from it? How much is “inherited,” if any? How much comes from other sources (mostly current)?
Good questions and topic, Zooey.
February 24, 2018 at 4:20 pm #83117znModeratorWhat interests me is this idea that guns themselves are so intractably part of a person’s identity that “gun nuts” are actually incapable of holding an open conversation about guns. Guns are an extension of Self for a large number of Americans.
I think that’s unquestionably true for some. Guns are part of a sense of identity. They also are part of a fantasy of control—empowerment. Either way they don’t really have an argument that stands up (IMO). I like the line from the comedian Jeff Jeffires, who says there’s really only one argument against gun control–“fuck you, I like guns.”
But for another, more numerous group, guns are subject to rational discussion. For them, it’s not an identity thing, unless more generally you take “rational discussion” as part of an identity structure. Discussing guns is just no different from discussing traffic laws and policies regarding who is eligible to drive and what external controls they must submit to for the good of the community as a whole.
So for me gun control is simple. Just outvote the minority. When they clamor and complain…let them. Shrug.
…
February 24, 2018 at 6:34 pm #83120wvParticipantBut that isn’t the part of the post I was interested in getting feedback on because years of experience with emerging writers has already convinced me of that part of it.
What interests me is this idea that guns themselves are so intractably part of a person’s identity that “gun nuts” are actually incapable of holding an open conversation about guns. Guns are an extension of Self for a large number of Americans. .
——————-
Well that has simply not been my experience here in WV. And i talk to gun-lovers all the time. Every day, really. White, male, law-enforcement folks, hunters, survivalists, etc.
And i just dont see the “guns as part of Identity” thing. I always think that sounds like a liberal, academic description of somethin I aint never really met.
What i ‘do’ see is what i already noted — fear. People with real fears of brutality, rape, humiliation, bullying, chaos, government-collapse… and of course fears of Alex-Jones-type-paranoid-government-domination.
I ‘dont’ see Guns as “part of anyone’s Identity”. Thats just not what the real appalachian folks seem like when I talk to em.
I dunno though. Maybe i just dont really understand the identity thing.
w
vFebruary 24, 2018 at 6:40 pm #83121wvParticipantPS- …back to teachers and guns….I was thinking in the car today…Lets say Trump were to push through his idea that teachers who get gun training should get raises etc….and lets say Teachers start carrying guns routinely…..over the long haul…would that have an effect on the KIND of people who want to become teachers?
Would youngsters who go into elementary ed be more likely to be males now? Would they be more like young people who want to be cops? Would the teacher-culture kinda change?w
vFebruary 24, 2018 at 9:08 pm #83127
canadaramParticipantArguments about abortion or guns are never really about abortion or guns. They are about people’s identities.
I find that’s true about many arguments. That doesn’t reduce their importance in my mind.
February 25, 2018 at 3:26 pm #83161ZooeyModeratorArguments about abortion or guns are never really about abortion or guns. They are about people’s identities.
I find that’s true about many arguments. That doesn’t reduce their importance in my mind.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. I don’t think it reduces the importance, either. What it means is…it’s really hard to find common ground, let alone change anyone’s mind, when the argument is basically not negotiable on the basis of empirical evidence, or even “reason.” When debates get into the “this is how I feel about it” realm…well…you can’t go anywhere with that.
February 25, 2018 at 3:29 pm #83162ZooeyModeratorWhat interests me is this idea that guns themselves are so intractably part of a person’s identity that “gun nuts” are actually incapable of holding an open conversation about guns. Guns are an extension of Self for a large number of Americans.
I think that’s unquestionably true for some. Guns are part of a sense of identity. They also are part of a fantasy of control—empowerment. Either way they don’t really have an argument that stands up (IMO). I like the line from the comedian Jeff Jeffires, who says there’s really only one argument against gun control–“fuck you, I like guns.”
But for another, more numerous group, guns are subject to rational discussion. For them, it’s not an identity thing, unless more generally you take “rational discussion” as part of an identity structure. Discussing guns is just no different from discussing traffic laws and policies regarding who is eligible to drive and what external controls they must submit to for the good of the community as a whole.
So for me gun control is simple. Just outvote the minority. When they clamor and complain…let them. Shrug.
…
I agree with all of that. I’m hearing figures of 70% – 80% want more restrictions on guns. SO that’s the majority. I see debating the Dana Loesch as a waste of time and energy.
Outvote them. That’s it.
February 25, 2018 at 3:30 pm #83163ZooeyModeratorWhat i ‘do’ see is what i already noted — fear. People with real fears of brutality, rape, humiliation, bullying, chaos, government-collapse… and of course fears of Alex-Jones-type-paranoid-government-domination.
I ‘dont’ see Guns as “part of anyone’s Identity”. Thats just not what the real appalachian folks seem like when I talk to em.
I dunno though. Maybe i just dont really understand the identity thing.
w
vMy response to that is the the empowerment of owning a gun is a response to the fear, and their response to a hostile world.
February 25, 2018 at 9:18 pm #83168wvParticipantMy response to that is the the empowerment of owning a gun is a response to the fear, and their response to a hostile world.
============
Definitely.
As noted by others, many countries have lots of guns, but not as much gun-violence. So I guess in those other gun-toting-nations, people just
dont have as much fear. Maybe their world is less ‘hostile.’w
vFebruary 25, 2018 at 9:34 pm #83169
TSRFParticipantWV Wrote:
</PS- …back to teachers and guns….I was thinking in the car today…Lets say Trump were to push through his idea that teachers who get gun training should get raises etc….and lets say Teachers start carrying guns routinely…..over the long haul…would that have an effect on the KIND of people who want to become teachers?
Would youngsters who go into elementary ed be more likely to be males now? Would they be more like young people who want to be cops? Would the teacher-culture kinda change?w
vTotally agree that armed teachers would just totally change everything.
I mean. I probably would have been shot by my Geometry teacher if he was armed…Stupid shit spewed by a stupid orange ape…
February 25, 2018 at 10:05 pm #83170Billy_TParticipantNo other nation on earth comes close to us for guns per capita.
We have just 4.4% of the world’s population, but 42% of its guns.
And just 3% of all gun owners here have half of the guns, total.
That stat is even worse than our share of waste and pollution, which is usually estimated around a third. America’s gun footprint is even worse than our climate, waste and pollution footprint . . . and worldwide gun/weapons proliferation, just like tobacco, comes mostly from us. It’s because of our capitalists. They spread death, with the help of our government, throughout the world.
Whenever you hear someone talking about “the black book of communism,” which counts unintended famines too . . . remind them that just our sale of tobacco alone dwarf all the deaths combined of every (falsely named) “communist” regime in history, and it’s not close. Throw in guns, and chemicals, and big pharma testing, and the whole range of Disaster Capitalism, and we make those “communist” regimes look tame in comparison.
February 25, 2018 at 10:13 pm #83171Billy_TParticipantArmed teachers. That’s totally insane. If it happens, and a shooter with an AR-15 appears, people scramble, run for their lives, or hide. Expecting a teacher to remain behind, standing, facing the shooter, is suicidal. Expecting them to beat the shooter to the draw is straight out of Hollywood fantasies. Jason Bourne, etc. If he or she were able to get off a shot or two before the shooter kills them, which is highly unlikely, the chaos of the situation likely means they shoot students accidentally. Teachers may well end up killing students the shooter misses.
Again, it’s insane.
The NRA has gone full blown fascist. Anyone who caught its president’s rant at CPAC can see that. Full on fascist. He talks as if it’s the early 1950s and there’s a McCarthyite red scare going on. Any company that does business with them is siding with fascists. Any member of the NRA who has heard La Pierre or Loesch speak and still keeps their membership? They knowingly belong to a fascist organization with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans on their hands.
February 25, 2018 at 10:50 pm #83174ZooeyModeratorArmed teachers. That’s totally insane.
Yeah, and I am not sure it’s actually a serious suggestion. I think it’s a talking point. I think the NRA sent out its talking point on arming teachers in the hopes of stealing the focus of conversation in the early, crucial days of reaction after the event. It’s better for them to suffer ridicule in social media for a few days than it is to have the conversation seriously discuss actual limitations on guns.
February 26, 2018 at 7:33 am #83176wvParticipantArmed teachers. That’s totally insane..
Well I think the pro-armers are thinking it would be a deterrent.
I dont think it would be, but even if it were a deterrent, wouldnt the shooter just go elsewhere to shoot people? A church or a library or wherever?
I suppose the next step would be to arm church-goers and libraries….once you start down that policy of arming teachers, you have to arm pretty-much everyone. Which is what the NRA and gun-sellers want, i guess.
What if a hospital gets shot up? Arm the patients? The nurses?
What if Seaworld gets shot up? Arm the Orcas?
w
vFebruary 26, 2018 at 10:08 am #83178Billy_TParticipantArmed teachers. That’s totally insane.
Yeah, and I am not sure it’s actually a serious suggestion. I think it’s a talking point. I think the NRA sent out its talking point on arming teachers in the hopes of stealing the focus of conversation in the early, crucial days of reaction after the event. It’s better for them to suffer ridicule in social media for a few days than it is to have the conversation seriously discuss actual limitations on guns.
That may all be true. But this is also a long-standing position of the NRA, and now Trump has publicly embraced it. America has already instituted this in some school districts, with the NRA’s blessing.
I’m guessing the NRA sees it as a “can’t lose” talking point. It plants more seeds for the idea of guns everywhere. More people are talking about it in the media. And this sells more guns. Until America votes out NRA-backed politicians, they’re going to keep winning on this issue, virtually no matter what insanity they put out there.
February 26, 2018 at 10:20 am #83179Billy_TParticipantArmed teachers. That’s totally insane..
Well I think the pro-armers are thinking it would be a deterrent.
I dont think it would be, but even if it were a deterrent, wouldnt the shooter just go elsewhere to shoot people? A church or a library or wherever?
I suppose the next step would be to arm church-goers and libraries….once you start down that policy of arming teachers, you have to arm pretty-much everyone. Which is what the NRA and gun-sellers want, i guess.
What if a hospital gets shot up? Arm the patients? The nurses?
What if Seaworld gets shot up? Arm the Orcas?
w
vI might be in favor of arming the orcas. At least until they can unionize.
;>)
. . .
As for deterrents. The pattern for these mass shooters, especially in the schools, is they seem to want to die — or at least get caught. They seem to plan for it before they go in. So I don’t think the threat of armed teachers will be a deterrent at all. They’re just going to take out as many kids and staff as they possibly can before they’re killed or caught, and they likely think, with guns like an AR-15, they’re going to be able to take out a ton. Which is the entire point of those kinds of weapons.
What is never talked about, and should be, is this: As horrific as these shootings are, they would be a hell of a lot worse if the people doing it were — I know this sounds ghoulish — “experienced.” Cruz reportedly fired 150 rounds, at least, and he killed 17 and wounded nearly as many. Imagine if the shooter had been “highly skilled.” You’re talking about hundreds of deaths, not 17. Of course, it’s not really about greater numbers. One death is a tragedy. Just one. To that person and their family, it’s everything. The entire world. But, if we’re cold-eyed about this for a second, we’ve avoided, so far, much, much higher death totals almost entirely due to the shooter’s own relative youth and limited experience.
Cruz was 19, small, a likely victim of bullying himself — most school shooters are — but there’s no indication that he was particularly adept at guerilla warfare. It won’t be long before America experiences shooters who are — perhaps multiple shooters at the same scene. Perhaps that’s what it will take for the nation to finally wake up: body counts in the hundreds for a single mass shooting.
February 26, 2018 at 10:35 am #83181wvParticipantI might be in favor of arming the orcas. At least until they can unionize.
—————–
Guns dont kill people ; Orcas kill people.
February 26, 2018 at 10:41 am #83183wvParticipantCNN:https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/donald-trump-gun-reforms-school-shooting/index.html
…”These people are cowards. They’re not going to walk into a school if 20% of the teachers have guns — it may be 10% or may be 40%. And what I’d recommend doing is the people that do carry, we give them a bonus. We give them a little bit of a bonus,” Trump said. “They’ll frankly feel more comfortable having the gun anyway. But you give them a little bit of a bonus.”
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah told reporters after Trump’s comments that the proposal hasn’t reached the policy or legislative point yet, but downplayed questions about how the plan would be funded.“I think that if we find the policy solutions that make the most sense that we can get buy in for, we’ll figure out the rest of the pieces that you outlined,” he said…
February 26, 2018 at 12:07 pm #83193Billy_TParticipantCNN:https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/donald-trump-gun-reforms-school-shooting/index.html
…”These people are cowards. They’re not going to walk into a school if 20% of the teachers have guns — it may be 10% or may be 40%. And what I’d recommend doing is the people that do carry, we give them a bonus. We give them a little bit of a bonus,” Trump said. “They’ll frankly feel more comfortable having the gun anyway. But you give them a little bit of a bonus.”
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah told reporters after Trump’s comments that the proposal hasn’t reached the policy or legislative point yet, but downplayed questions about how the plan would be funded.“I think that if we find the policy solutions that make the most sense that we can get buy in for, we’ll figure out the rest of the pieces that you outlined,” he said…
Another aspect of this. It’s Disaster Capitalism at its finest. Think about it. If this goes through, the American taxpayer will be funding the purchase of guns, directly, for teachers. Gun makers expand their sales, and this becomes a government program, likely forever. It’s a dream come true for the NRA and the merchants of death, right up there with the trillions spent on military expansion, wars, coups, etc. etc.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 7 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
