San Francisco may rename school named for Washington

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

You pretend to care whether ethnic Chinese like to be associated with the country China.

So after all, you support my position. If the people in modern Chinatown want to change the name, they can. Are we done?

Worth noting, a lot of older immigrants and multi-generation Chinese Americans still consider Taiwan to be the legitimate China, to them all the stuff happening on the mainland is the work of an illegitimate occupying government.

Yup. The word “China” has already been terminally hijacked by Beijing and its brainwashed loyalists all over the world and is going to be dirtier and dirtier as its crimes pile up. This is why renaming is in fact necessary to protect people who don’t want to be associated with PRC and its evil policies. Just like the author of Pepe has to try to kill Pepe we have to exclusively use the word “China” for that Nazi Germany 2.0. As for people whose ancestors wrote hanzi/kanji but don’t support China we need a different term than “Chinese”. If we rename the ethnic group Sangleys then Chinatown will become Little Sangley or Sangleytown.

Otherwise if China does something crazier such as releasing Ebola or nuking Los Angeles we need a way to separate the innocent Sangleyians and Sangleyian diaspora from the China-supporting Chinese. The main reason why I proposed “Charlestown” is that it does not look like anything foreign and hence less likely to be attacked by mobs if China nukes LA or does something else insane.

[Fahran]

The bare bones definition assumes the "intent" of the public speaker is only one thing: to "signal" that they are good or right.

The phrase is used to dismiss without consideration, someone else's view. With such an un-empathetic approach, it follows that no thought whatsoever has been given to the motives of the speaker. They're dismissing it as being for someone else, not them, which is so lacking in intellectual honesty it's really worse than "tl;dnr"

No-one before has tried to define "virtue-signalling" and I'm pleased to discover it's just as vacuous and nihilistic concept as I suspected. It's simply dismissing (by imputed intent) views which a judgemental individual cannot be bothered, or simply cannot, argue against.

I do not think one can be truly empathetic without considerations paid to the intentions and motivations underpinning a behavior. If a person does a good thing for a bad reason, in many cases, a reliable and reasonable ethical code would treat that differently than if a person did a good thing for a good reason. You're not asking me to be empathetic here. You're asking me not to exercise my insight.

San Francisco USD's decision is suspect for a number of reasons - from the exceedingly broad text of the resolution itself, to their overt lack of historical knowledge in implementing it, to their casual disregard in many cases for the communities this is ostensibly intended to benefit. We can certainly address the argument, which I have at length else-where, and then swing around to lampoon the intentions and motivations that brought the argument forward when it is not made in good faith.

It's not fallacious because it's a separate conversation altogether and not one intended to discredit the argument in much the same way that you may call a racist a ninny because he is a ninny and then proceed with deconstructing the arguments he has presented to justify his racism. This is a more mild form of that and some rebuke is certainly warranted in this instance - even if you support the argument that was presented.

Stating a moral position should always be assumed to have 'affecting the broader discourse' as its motive. It can have that effect, you agree. Its apparent motive IS to affect the broader discourse; otherwise we'd be one-on-one by messenger services. So it is far simpler to see public speech as effective, or not. Rather than dismiss the overly-simple or morally-contradictory speech as having some other motive.

I disagree that this was really their motive, largely because that would make them out to be more malicious than incompetent and recent events suggest that chronic incompetence is the modus operandi of the San Francisco USD.

There are a lot of seemingly pointless judgemental statements on the boards and various media. But I feel better not ascribing a different intent to them (because that becomes personal) but rather, consider them clumsy and insufficient attempts to influence others.

In this case, it's a pretty overt attempt to impose a nebulous resolution that's tantamount to "remove anyone who is not progressive by the standards of 2018" on a community railing from COVID-19 without due consideration for the historical facts, adequate research, opinion polling, the interests of the communities this is intended to benefit, etc. I would perhaps ascribe this to something other than incompetence and frivolity if San Francisco USD had put more effort into the implementation. The way they went about it does not convince me that they really care about what they're doing because if I cared about this I'd want the information presented and the conclusions reached to reflect reality. As Ko's article demonstrated, that didn't happen here.

I'm saying T.S.Eliot would not have approved the endless re-use of the same name, because there is nothing of poetry or creativity in it. Washington's name has been spammed across the land, and I'm not sure he'd have approved either.

I'm not so certain either of those arguments is true or that this addresses why Washington's name has been "spammed across the land."

Well good for them. Being thinkers, serenity suits them. Should we build cities to suit the thinkers who have already left in search of serenity? Or should we build them the way that most people (by a century of urbanization) actually prefer?

If we're building them how people prefer, we might consult people a bit more.

Making more green space, reducing noise etc in cities, I expect does make a lot of people happier day to day. It comes at a cost though (greater distances to travel for instance), and a paternalistic government would enforce that cost in the expectation it would pay off. But in a democracy that can't be taken far at all, and a government that tried to make a perfect public space for thinkers and artists would have barely any effect on how much the general public thinks or is influenced by aesthetics.

Perhaps that's a more important idea to introduce into the discourse in light of the impact of noise pollution, health outcomes, and environmental destruction on diverse communities, most especially on communities of color?

Ideally, most of these schools would be torn down and rebuilt. To better promote thinking and creativity.

Building schools is probably a touch too expensive to manage a project like that all at once on a municipal budget.

Does that seem even remotely practical though, when an issue raised against renaming schools is that it costs money?

The issues raised are a bit more multifaceted than that.

I don't gush quite as much as you do. It's not because I don't appreciate poetry: it's because I consider use of emotive language to serve any debating purpose.

While the language itself may be emotive, the underlying point is a rational one in much the same way that the argument for changing the names, at least the argument presented by Kowani earlier, is a rational one. That he hates pretty language is the principal difference.

I don't think I mentioned oppression, but it doesn't matter. If privilege exists, then the under-privileged are oppressed.

I'm not so certain that's a given unless we're specifically characterizing oppression as the absence of a particular privilege. Even in sociological contexts supportive of critical race theory, radical feminism, gay liberation, etc., I don't think such an inference can be drawn.

You can't see how being born into the richest or most powerful family in a clan or wider society ... is privilege?

I can.

Wow, you really internalized your own privilege. It's not unjust though, because someone in your family earned it ... is that about right?

I acknowledge that I'm privileged. Most of us on these forums probably are to a varying extent. I simply don't equate the presence of privilege in a society with oppression or injustice on its own. I think justice matters in this context.

I wasn't trying to engage on the learned level you professed at. I never claimed to know anything much about pre-Islamic Arabia. I was just mocking your reverence for something which, the way you described it, totally deserved to be wrecked by Islam.

I have no idea how you read "extended kinship networks" as inherently indicative of wealth and power because that misunderstands the conversation surrounding pre-Islamic Arabia. I also don't think stating that social institutions "deserved to be wrecked" is an insightful approach to analyses of these sorts of things. In any case, Islam didn't "wreck" the extended kinship network you'll be happy to know. It continued to influence social interactions, art, and economic activity up until the present day and has been especially notable among the most downtrodden members of society in many instances. Because, surprisingly, have a built-in social safety network is advantageous to people who lack economic resources.

I might look into it though, I might get insights into why Muslims claim their religion is not sexist, despite the gross outward sexism of all Islamic societies. Perhaps Arabian society was even worse ...

A lot of the worst excesses when it comes to sexism in Islam can be tied to the early modern period, especially those that originated after 1979 with the Seizure of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia, the Iranian Revolution, and the preeminence of the Taliban and mujahideen in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. You're also shifting here from discussing Arabic society to discussing Islamic society more broadly and shifting from the subject of foundational pillars to sexism.

Pfft. If you wanted to talk about institutions and social values which can be understood without recognizing privilege and oppression, you should have said so before. We could simply stop talking: change in institutions and changing social values has been essential to the lessening of privilege/oppression divides since the foundation of the US, and will accompany all such lessening in the future. Your precious institutions and your vaunted values should not be preserved unchanged, because that would be to freeze progress in social equity.

Again, I'm not certain privilege and oppression constitute a dichotomy and I'm not abolishing privileged classes is a worthwhile pursuit of government. Doing away with oppression certainly is as is doing away with forms of privilege which may be unjust, but I don't value absolute equality or absolute equity for their own sake.

I will consent to not tying religion into it. Providing you consent not to resort to it to cover blemishes in public institutions.

I'm not a Muslim so I wasn't really going to do that before...

I was applying "pillar theory" to one of my own favorite policies. "Subsistence" is an ancient principle, now individualized and with many exceptions, but basically the "work ethic". In my opinion, that "pillar" collapsing because a radical change is made, is too high a price to pay in attempting to ease poverty and provide independence. It might take decades, yet we can start right away with small payments that aren't enough to live on.

Turns out "pillars" are something else. I never said I was an architect.

Ah, I see. That's a bit closer to subsistence than I believed given the composition of the last sentence, though it didn't really engage with the initial definition I laid out. You do seem to be gaining an appreciation for foundational pillars somewhat, though you're still looking at them from a single sociological paradigm. I've found it's useful to employ three or four different paradigms to get a fuller picture.

Abusive families are worse. They're just not so easily measured, and there is no way of telling how many of the absent parents would have been abusive if social/legal forces had required them to keep them living with their partner and children.

Given that abuse isn't the most common reason given for divorces, either in courts or in surveys, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that people who haven't been severely abusing one another physically and emotionally are going to simply begin doing that because they aren't in love anymore. The top three cited reasons for divorce are lack of commitment, infidelity, arguments and communication problems. But we're ignoring that a lot of single parent households never involved a marriage. Only a little more than half of all single parents had been married.

Whether you think women should marry and never work again, or whether you think they should work just as much as their partner (also share parenting equally) I doubt you can give any good reason why it shouldn't be equally easy for a woman to earn a living, as for a man?

I'm a woman so I have no interest in giving such an argument. Women should be able to work if they want and as they need and men should be able to parent as they want and as they need. In all frankness though, I think our current economic model tends to be detrimental to the health of families, principally it takes parents away from their kids and husbands and wives away from each other for protracted periods even as wages have stagnated. We're getting less and less for our hours and sacrificing more and more.

Yes. Your council building so grand it was named after a President doesn't seem so grand when you see the bigger council building of Bigtown. It's a suspension of disbelief thing: you always knew the President himself wasn't from your town, or knew it existed, but the name lulled you into thinking the building quite grand ... and "famous".

That's not how I've ever thought of any town or location, especially not one that I've hailed from or with which I've interacted.

I thought keeping local history alive might appeal to you

Why wouldn it not appeal to everyone?

Ulterior motives aren't necessarily wrong though. I gave the example before of a local industrialist leaving enough from their will to have a small hospital built. If the hospital must be named after the industrialist, does the county take the money and build the hospital? If it would be the only hospital for a hundred miles around (cooking the scenario here) it would be hard to refuse. Even if the business the money was made in was a bit shady.

Give the sketchy industrialist his posthumous redemption arc so long as it doesn't conflict with the good aspects of the value system in place too terribly.

Ideally the industrialist would just leave the money and specify that a hospital be built. Then assuming the industrialist had a clean-enough reputation the county would spontaneously choose that name.

Ideally, yes. This is how they tend to name quite a few things traditionally.

You think? I think implying the kids can grow up to be President if they just "work hard" is a false promise. "You could make a small fortune in mundane business, if you work hard" is more realistic, and thus more likely to have a positive effect on their ambition and perseverence.

I think it's important to encourage children's ambitions, especially young children's ambitions. Disparities in such encouragement can have observed effects on how children perform later in life, as can notably be seen with girls and political office. I don't think there's much harm in going as lofty as possible, especially if you like the national or local hero in question as an exemplar.

Attitudes change. Children (reacting against as well as learning from adults) realign themselves in teenage years. Then they don't so much, individually, but still the conveyor belt brings in new attitudes from youth and farewells the oldest attitudes as oldsters die.

Having participated in slavery is less acceptable now than it was 10 years ago. Personally I consider Washington to have been a great man, and his keeping of slaves only slightly detracts from that. But you know, I'm an Australian. I'm 3 degrees removed: it was long ago, it wasn't my ancestors, and it wasn't my country.

I think if white Americans were the small minority, and mostly descended from slavers, they would feel remorse and probably fear, thinking about slavery. And if black descendants of slaves were the plurality of Americans, they'd probably be doing fine and hardly ever think of slavery. A real world analogy would be South Africa, which is not peaceful, but the white minority did not ease tensions by some of them fleeing with large amounts of money, also it's relatively early in the process of "reconstruction".

Perhaps. But then the interests, values, and narratives of society might well be different and such a discussion is not perhaps good fodder for forays into talk of ethics. I'm not certain the morality of revering and honoring Washington would change much in either context, so long as he continued to be honored for the same reasons.

Or "virtue-signalling" is a dumb insult, only used to dismiss content because of an assumed intent. We may as well go back to the three-letter dismissal "lol"

I haven't used it here as a dismissal. Else-wise we would not be discussing it.


A lot of it has been cultural and aesthetical shifts, often dependent on how human cognition functions and interacts with different media. Prolonged internet use or watching certain types of television has an impact on our brains that differs quite notably from the impact of reading a novel or a compilation of poetry. It's also more low-effort.


Sound theory, sound practice.


I'll be a bit surprised if Bernie's still around and kicking by then. Do you believe this policy is practical?

Perhaps, but he still continues to embody civic virtue in the context of the United States due to his personal attributes. He didn't really seem to want power, didn't become embroiled in petty partisan disputes, and walked away from power setting a powerful precedent so we wouldn't have a string of dictators like Argentina or Haiti.

[Fahran]

Worth noting, a lot of older immigrants and multi-generation Chinese Americans still consider Taiwan to be the legitimate China, to them all the stuff happening on the mainland is the work of an illegitimate occupying government.

This is also the correct take. :^)

[Kowani]

While the language itself may be emotive, the underlying point is a rational one in much the same way that the argument for changing the names, at least the argument presented by Kowani earlier, is a rational one. That he hates pretty language is the principal difference.

hey!
I don't hate pretty language
I write poetry
I just prefer to be grounded and substantive in my points so as to actually make myself easily understood

[Fahran]

hey!
I don't hate pretty language
I write poetry
I just prefer to be grounded and substantive in my points so as to actually make myself easily understood

Doubt. :^)

We need an NSG poetry thread.

[Kowani]

hey!
I don't hate pretty language
I write poetry
I just prefer to be grounded and substantive in my points so as to actually make myself easily understood

Doubt. :^)

I'm not copying your writing style, 'Ran
i'll just twist it up

We need an NSG poetry thread.

this
this is not a bad idea

[Senkaku]

Worth noting, a lot of older immigrants and multi-generation Chinese Americans still consider Taiwan to be the legitimate China, to them all the stuff happening on the mainland is the work of an illegitimate occupying government.

Yup. The word “China” has already been terminally hijacked by Beijing and its brainwashed loyalists all over the world and is going to be dirtier and dirtier as its crimes pile up. This is why renaming is in fact necessary to protect people who don’t want to be associated with PRC and its evil policies. Just like the author of Pepe has to try to kill Pepe we have to exclusively use the word “China” for that Nazi Germany 2.0. As for people whose ancestors wrote hanzi/kanji but don’t support China we need a different term than “Chinese”. If we rename the ethnic group Sangleys then Chinatown will become Little Sangley or Sangleytown.

Otherwise if China does something crazier such as releasing Ebola or nuking Los Angeles we need a way to separate the innocent Sangleyians and Sangleyian diaspora from the China-supporting Chinese. The main reason why I proposed “Charlestown” is that it does not look like anything foreign and hence less likely to be attacked by mobs if China nukes LA or does something else insane.

Is every thread now just your personal soapbox to rant about how much you hate China, regardless of the original topic?

[Insaanistan]

Yup. The word “China” has already been terminally hijacked by Beijing and its brainwashed loyalists all over the world and is going to be dirtier and dirtier as its crimes pile up. This is why renaming is in fact necessary to protect people who don’t want to be associated with PRC and its evil policies. Just like the author of Pepe has to try to kill Pepe we have to exclusively use the word “China” for that Nazi Germany 2.0. As for people whose ancestors wrote hanzi/kanji but don’t support China we need a different term than “Chinese”. If we rename the ethnic group Sangleys then Chinatown will become Little Sangley or Sangleytown.

Otherwise if China does something crazier such as releasing Ebola or nuking Los Angeles we need a way to separate the innocent Sangleyians and Sangleyian diaspora from the China-supporting Chinese. The main reason why I proposed “Charlestown” is that it does not look like anything foreign and hence less likely to be attacked by mobs if China nukes LA or does something else insane.

Is every thread now just your personal soapbox to rant about how much you hate China, regardless of the original topic?

No!
Sometimes he rants about how much he loves Israel instead.

[Cordel One]

Pretty sure this is not the China thread.

[Kowani]

Pretty sure this is not the China thread.

That thread is also a dumpster fire, I see little difference

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

While the language itself may be emotive, the underlying point is a rational one in much the same way that the argument for changing the names, at least the argument presented by Kowani earlier, is a rational one. That he hates pretty language is the principal difference.

hey!
I don't hate pretty language
I write poetry
I just prefer to be grounded and substantive in my points so as to actually make myself easily understood

And you're right in that. I do use emotive terms (a half dozen times in the previous long post) but it's either sarcastic, or a deliberate attempt at irrational persuasion. In retrospect I wish I hadn't, because inducing bad faith in someone else probably further entrenches their real views.

That anything is prone to being ugly or beautiful, might be the way they actually think. But interacting with their beliefs on the emotional level is a very bad idea when the intention is to make them angry (it's likely contra rules) so it's hardly likely to do any good to make them swoon. Leave that to poets and politicians I think.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Pretty sure this is not the China thread.

That thread is also a dumpster fire, I see little difference

Bull in the China thread?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

You pretend to care whether ethnic Chinese like to be associated with the country China.

So after all, you support my position. If the people in modern Chinatown want to change the name, they can. Are we done?

Worth noting, a lot of older immigrants and multi-generation Chinese Americans still consider Taiwan to be the legitimate China, to them all the stuff happening on the mainland is the work of an illegitimate occupying government.

Very few of them live in Chinatown. So do we take a poll of all the city (or State or national) residents with a Chinese ancestor, including those who live or work in Chinatown?

Or do we take a poll of people who live or work in Chinatown?


Suppose your town is Bigottown, and it was named after Asshat U. Bigott who founded the first sawmill there when there was no town ... but plenty of trees nearby. Mr. Bigott didn't keep slaves or beat his family members, and there's nothing against him except potentiating the felling of a lot of trees. Some people nowadays find that reprehensible, but of course it was a worthy profession back then and without him there would be no town. Or probably farms around it. The name is unfortunate but knowing the history of it, not problematic.

Should the people of the whole state have a say in the renaming of Bigottown? Or only the people who live and/or work there?

[Kowani]

hey!
I don't hate pretty language
I write poetry
I just prefer to be grounded and substantive in my points so as to actually make myself easily understood

And you're right in that. I do use emotive terms (a half dozen times in the previous long post) but it's either sarcastic, or a deliberate attempt at irrational persuasion. In retrospect I wish I hadn't, because inducing bad faith in someone else probably further entrenches their real views.

That anything is prone to being ugly or beautiful, might be the way they actually think. But interacting with their beliefs on the emotional level is a very bad idea when the intention is to make them angry (it's likely contra rules) so it's hardly likely to do any good to make them swoon. Leave that to poets and politicians I think.

…what?
Responding to someone in their register (so long as it isn’t forced and appears natural) isn’t “bad faith”
It’s respectful.

I have no clue what the second paragraph is supposed to say.

[Fahran]

…what?
Responding to someone in their register (so long as it isn’t forced and appears natural) isn’t “bad faith”
It’s respectful.

I have no clue what the second paragraph is supposed to say.

This is why I post sources when we debate because I know that's your register.

[Kowani]

…what?
Responding to someone in their register (so long as it isn’t forced and appears natural) isn’t “bad faith”
It’s respectful.

I have no clue what the second paragraph is supposed to say.

This is why I post sources when we debate because I know that's your register.

This is ironic, because I am been made aware that The use of facts is less effective at getting people to bridge divides than personal anecdotes. (blah blah you were right)

So-as I suspect has been noted, I am attempting to broaden my register.
Not to stop the usage of facts and sources, but rather, to work them into alternative narratives so as to present an accurate and compelling understanding of the world.
Presentation is an art, after all.

[Salandriagado]

Why not just name them for where they are or what county they’re in?

We could, but I was merely making a suggestion based on the debate over the poetic and cultural value of the current names. In addition, I fear that we'd likely end up in the same situation where there are a dozen Springfield Elementaries, just as there are dozens of schools named for Washington, not that I have a problem with either.

So use smaller geographical features. In the UK, many schools are named after geographical features as small as the road they're on.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Worth noting, a lot of older immigrants and multi-generation Chinese Americans still consider Taiwan to be the legitimate China, to them all the stuff happening on the mainland is the work of an illegitimate occupying government.

Very few of them live in Chinatown. So do we take a poll of all the city (or State or national) residents with a Chinese ancestor, including those who live or work in Chinatown?

Or do we take a poll of people who live or work in Chinatown?


Suppose your town is Bigottown, and it was named after Asshat U. Bigott who founded the first sawmill there when there was no town ... but plenty of trees nearby. Mr. Bigott didn't keep slaves or beat his family members, and there's nothing against him except potentiating the felling of a lot of trees. Some people nowadays find that reprehensible, but of course it was a worthy profession back then and without him there would be no town. Or probably farms around it. The name is unfortunate but knowing the history of it, not problematic.

Should the people of the whole state have a say in the renaming of Bigottown? Or only the people who live and/or work there?

Yes since East Asian intermarriage rate is high in the entire Western Hemisphere.

You do have a good point though. Shall Lynchburg, VA be renamed? Lynchburg obviously does not exist and was not established in order to lynch people. But it is clearly not a very nice name. Who shall have a say in whether Lynchburg should be renamed? Residents? People around it? Everyone in VA?

[Kannap]

Actually, thinking about it, if DC becomes a state - what's their state's name going to be? Can't be Washington.

[Cordel One]

Actually, thinking about it, if DC becomes a state - what's their state's name going to be? Can't be Washington.

Washington 2

[Insaanistan]

Very few of them live in Chinatown. So do we take a poll of all the city (or State or national) residents with a Chinese ancestor, including those who live or work in Chinatown?

Or do we take a poll of people who live or work in Chinatown?


Suppose your town is Bigottown, and it was named after Asshat U. Bigott who founded the first sawmill there when there was no town ... but plenty of trees nearby. Mr. Bigott didn't keep slaves or beat his family members, and there's nothing against him except potentiating the felling of a lot of trees. Some people nowadays find that reprehensible, but of course it was a worthy profession back then and without him there would be no town. Or probably farms around it. The name is unfortunate but knowing the history of it, not problematic.

Should the people of the whole state have a say in the renaming of Bigottown? Or only the people who live and/or work there?

Yes since East Asian intermarriage rate is high in the entire Western Hemisphere.

You do have a good point though. Shall Lynchburg, VA be renamed? Lynchburg obviously does not exist and was not established in order to lynch people. But it is clearly not a very nice name. Who shall have a say in whether Lynchburg should be renamed? Residents? People around it? Everyone in VA?

There’s a reason it’s called Lynchburg.

[Fahran]

Actually, thinking about it, if DC becomes a state - what's their state's name going to be? Can't be Washington.

District of Columbia probably. Honestly, I think allowing citizens of Washington DC to vote in Virginia and/or Maryland is less problematic on the whole though.

[Kowani]

Actually, thinking about it, if DC becomes a state - what's their state's name going to be? Can't be Washington.

Columbia.
It’s no longer a district.

[Fahran]

There’s a reason it’s called Lynchburg.

Lynchburg, Virginia, was named after its founder John Lynch, who operated a ferry service there beginning at the age of seventeen. Lynchburg, Tennessee, may have been named for Lynchburg, Virginia or it may have been named for a person with a similar surname who lived in the area.

[Insaanistan]

There’s a reason it’s called Lynchburg.

Lynchburg, Virginia, was named after its founder John Lynch, who operated a ferry service there beginning at the age of seventeen. Lynchburg, Tennessee, may have been named for Lynchburg, Virginia or it may have been named for a person with a similar surname who lived in the area.

Yeah, but his brother is technically the origin of what we think of when we think of lynching.