by alterom | 2025-04-02 18:03:42+00:00
>Meta

That's one way to say "I'll add nothing of substance to the current conversation, and comment on the perceived tone"

I.e., we're back to reacting emotionally instead of talking about the subject of what to do with teachers who willfully abuse their authority.

To quote a wise person, "Fun stuff".

>longest comment

>emotions

You seem to be confusing the two (and/or are conflating the emotions you are experiencing as a reader with the ones I am experiencing and/or expressing as a writer).

Apropos, as a former instructor, I do enjoy pointing out hypocrisy, inconsistency, and logical fallacies in others' writing - and joy is an emotion, so I'll grant you that. I was channeling that emotion.

Unlike the teacher we are discussing, who's been made angry by the work they were evaluating. See?

>holier-than-thou

That was the biggest¹ issue with the comment I was responding to, which I illustrated. Did you miss that?

Their last sentence was, quote:

>>Maybe we could take the time to understand these impulses in ourselves and be the example we want rather than reflecting the pain we hate to ever increasing magnitudes.

This is holier-than-thou. I was responding to it, in a manner that highlighted the issue.

Since you seem to have missed the holier-than-thou instances in "a couple of sentences" of the parent comment, let me point out a few more:

>>You seem very angry yourself, and willing to let that anger guide you to harming someone.

>>Might there be a more charitable interpretation of the words, might there be information that we don't have that would, say, humanize the human being you'd like to ruin?

>>Are you so different from that teacher? In fact, you might be worse

That's four holier-than-thous per 7 sentences (I counted, correct me if needs be).

The last one takes the cake though: and they went as far as calling the grandparent commenter worse than a someone who willfully wronged a child under their authority — all for saying that such abuse and breach of trust warrants a revocation of such a person's privilege of having authority over children.

So, a personal attack and ad hominem on top of all that holier-than-thou.

Note that I am not resorting to implications of that nature - those that say something about what the person I am responding to is (as opposed to discussing something they say or do).

>right before asking the person to not react emotionally

...and yet you boldly went ahead, and did precisely that, feeling piqued on the behalf of the person I was responding to.

There's a reason I asked that, and thank you for providing an illustration why it was necessary.

May I ask you to go back, and re-read the comment I wrote as textual analysis, and respond on substance, not tone? Thank you.

>Lots of condescension

So, let's be clear. Stuff like this:

>>Might there be a more charitable interpretation of the words, might there be information that we don't have that would, say, humanize the human being you'd like to ruin?

...is an example of condescension because it asserts that the person they were talking to was dehumanizing the teacher, and implies that they'd have a difficulty of "humanizing the human" without some extra help from the parent commentor.

I make no such assumptions or assertions about the person I am responding to, as I am commenting exclusively on text that they wrote.

Note how I always include the text I am responding to, to make it clear that my attitude is towards the thing being said, not the person.

The thing being said, in this case, was a piece of emotional drivel, exceptionally rich in logical fallacies and manipulative techniques.

The entire argument was an appeal to emotion: look at how hurt the teacher would be by being fired, you are a bad person for suggesting that.

(Again, did you happen to miss that? This was another reason I asked not to react emotionally).

I rightfully lampoon such rhetoric, whereas the parent commentor was condescending towards a person.

Compare and contrast.

>holier-than-thou

Oh, and I want to come back to that.

See, I taught mathematics for over a decade (as a tutor, grader, teaching assistant, lab instructor, and instructor of record in a class of 90 people).

I've had the grace of teaching a few students I considered brighter than myself, and I felt very happy to have had such privilege.

And not once in my decade of teaching did I feel the urge to mis-grade someone, or thought of defending someone who did so.

I've had children (and young adults) who've gone through such instructors in my classes. They were traumatized. Some cried in my office hours. Some went red in their faces, saying why didn't they show us this in high school.

So, while I am not "holier" than thou (or the parent commentor), I am absolutely more qualified to comment on whether the person we're discussing deserves to continue teaching than anyone here who hasn't had that experience (specifically - that of teaching people who've been traumatized by other instructors).

Please, I urge you to understand what I wrote above.

I am not ashamed to put my name under this statement:

https://romankogan.net/math/

I am saying this to provide a basis for my statements, to qualify them - not to engage in appendage measuring. My experience is what gives my words weight.

Please don't confuse expertise and experience with condescension; and note that I am expressing none towards you.

For all I know, you might be a professor with decades of teaching experience, far more accomplished than I am in everything.

But nobody - including you - is actually holy, much less "holier". We all make mistakes, and sometimes miss some context, or say something stupid.

And pointing those instances out isn't a sin either.

_______

¹Biggest issue aside from ascribing emotion to where there's none, that is, which is a common theme in this thread