Studying the Gettysburg Address under Common Core

[packsaddle]

I find the permanent use of a pun based on a chemical characteristic to be fascinating.

[Scouter99]

 

If so, then my apologies to Scouter99. I missed the sarcasm side as I've heard words many many times that are so similar to what he wrote that it makes me sad.

 

No apology necessary I probably owe Pack Saddle an apology myself!

 

Those sentiments are the issue I see with the "privilege" line in Tahawk's link. The use of "privileging" is proof enough of the aim, to introduce wild intersectional discussions (which are propaganda) into the public schools. It means "privileging" in the sense of "white privilege", heteronormism, and other jargon my spellcheck doesn't recognize because it is part of The Backlash.

It is the idea that nothing is True because anything is true for any one person, and the assertion of Truth is oppression based in privilege.

 

It's Orwell. Separate something from it's root, then you can make it anything authority says it is.

 

I haven't read a lot about Common Core, I haven't much CC itself, but it's that kind of language that makes it very easy for me to see why so many people are so wary. You cannot separate history from context. But it's a literature assignment. Fine, nor can you separate texts from contextâ€â€nothing is written in a vacuum, especially political war speeches.

 

Students neither spontaneously create knowledge nor are they born with it, they cannot make accurate much less coherent literary or historical conclusions without instruction from a teacher.

 

I find the permanent use of a pun based on a chemical characteristic to be fascinating.

If I made a chemical pun I'm quite unaware of it, but I love a good pun so let me know!

 

Everybody knows Scouter99 was being sarcastic' date=' right? And I had to look up "cis-male." Good grief. I guess I don't keep up with the radical-left lingo as well as Scouter99 does.[/quote']

It would be funny if it weren't so scary and gaining ground so rapidly. I am not half as conservative as I sound sometimes, but this stuff creeps me out bigtime and I see it more and more.

[packsaddle]

Actually my earlier response was kind of a lame attempt to follow through your sarcasm (let's just let it all whimper into oblivion).

...as for ....The pun:

Well, it isn't yours. It's something I detected the first time I learned of the usage of the terms trans-gender and cis-gender. Which, if your orientation is toward science (chemistry) instead of all those gooey human interactions, seems to be a play on words.

Now 'transgender' is obviously a real term that is applied to individuals who have, to some extent or other, physically changed their bodies (but not their genetics). In chemistry this would be like changing the structure but not the formula. The pun comes when someone (I don't know who) apparently noticed that if there are chemicals with a 'trans' configuration (like that dreaded trans-fat we eat in many foods), that there are other isomers of that chemical with a 'cis' configuration (the good food stuff) and I supposed that they created this 'inside joke' of applying the term 'cis-male' or something like that as the other 'isomer' of people whose identity is the opposite direction (or isomer) of those who are 'trans' gender.

OK, having explained that I can see that it's a really obscure play on words and probably a complete waste of time and effort. Maybe let that whimper into oblivion as well.

 

Edit: but it was also an opportunity to pay a little honor to Spock who thought most things were 'fascinating'. He'll live long and prosper in many memories.