The Great SSP Canada Cancel Culture & Wokeism Thread

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by rousseau

This oughta get the ball rolling:

Oh no! We've identified a gesture of good will, acknowledgment and respect that might not be exactly historically or legally accurate (note: unsurprisingly, these acknowledgments are not intended to be and do not profess to be exactly historically or legally accurate as such things are incredibly complex)! Those dastardly woketarians are up to no good again! They're wasting my precious 30 seconds of time (or something?)! I demand satisfaction!

Good grief.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Oh no! We've identified a gesture of good will, acknowledgment and respect that might not be exactly historically or legally accurate (note: unsurprisingly, these acknowledgments are not intended to be and do not profess to be exactly historically or legally accurate as such things are incredibly complex)! Those dastardly woketarians are up to no good again! They're wasting my precious 30 seconds of time (or something?)! I demand satisfaction!

Good grief.

Anyone sensible though would have to admit that it's a bit absurd.

It's a textbook case of trying too hard to prove a "point".

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Anyone sensible though would have to admit that it's a bit absurd.

It's a textbook case of trying too hard to prove a "point".

... or trying (too?) hard to be respectful, welcoming and inclusive? I don't count that as a fault, frankly (certainly not when it comes at no real cost to anyone else).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

... or trying (too?) hard to be respectful, welcoming and inclusive? I don't count that as a fault, frankly (certainly not when it comes at no real cost to anyone else).

Debatable. Culture and history, and their amalgalm "historical culture", are not without value, and as such tinkering or tampering with them is not automatically without "cost".

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Debatable. Culture and history, and their amalgalm "historical culture", are not without value, and as such tinkering or tampering with them is not automatically without "cost".

Yes, I agree. However, it seems to me that the onus is on the person claiming that a certain case of "tinkering or tampering" is actually causing him or her or anyone a significant cost to actually explain and demonstrate it. We haven't seen that when it comes to the traditional lands acknowledgement before performances at the Stratford Festival.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Oh no! We've identified a gesture of good will, acknowledgment and respect that might not be exactly historically or legally accurate (note: unsurprisingly, these acknowledgments are not intended to be and do not profess to be exactly historically or legally accurate as such things are incredibly complex)! Those dastardly woketarians are up to no good again! They're wasting my precious 30 seconds of time (or something?)! I demand satisfaction!

Good grief.

I made it through most of that article - aside from the insufferable LOOK HOW SMART I AM writing style, there's very little evidence to back up the claims being made. Caught my eye that he decries the claim of Othello as racist (this is fair), yet then proceeds to claim it's actually anti-racist. Which is hilarious, since racism as a modern construct didn't really even exist then! If there's an equal and opposite construct to the obnoxious internet woke scold, this guy is it to a T. Very "old man yells at cloud", or in this case, "old man jerks off to Shakespeare". And let's be real, at least 75% of people claiming to love Shakespeare are faking it to sound smart - that was the worst part of high school English.


Going to the "about us" section of the publication yielded few surprises...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

And let's be real, at least 75% of people claiming to love Shakespeare are faking it to sound smart - that was the worst part of high school English.

Shakespeare was by far THE BEST part of my high school English classes!

Why do you think a native French speaker such as myself can write such beautifully eloquent prose for you guys' reading pleasure on here?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

Going to the "about us" section of the publication yielded few surprises...

I only looked quickly, but don't they publish stuff with a wide range of views? Will stand happily corrected if not.

But I did do a double-take at the article about Sir John A. being the PM who saved the most indigenous lives. Yikes.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I only looked quickly, but don't they publish stuff with a wide range of views? Will stand happily corrected if not.

But I did do a double-take at the article about Sir John A. being the PM who saved the most indigenous lives. Yikes.

This one: "C2C’s unabashed bias is in favour of free markets, democratic governance and individual liberty"

Which isn't code for toeing the right wing line, but rather weird internet libertarian cranks. So yes, by some metrics a wide range of views!


Personally I couldn't stand Shakespeare in HS, but think the format of plays doesn't lend itself to reading very well. Plenty of classics that are better for that IMO, and still very glad my grade 11 English teacher let a small group of us read Vonnegut.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

This one: "C2C’s unabashed bias is in favour of free markets, democratic governance and individual liberty"

Which isn't code for toeing the right wing line, but rather weird internet libertarian cranks. So yes, by some metrics a wide range of views!


Personally I couldn't stand Shakespeare in HS, but think the format of plays doesn't lend itself to reading very well. Plenty of classics that are better for that IMO, and still very glad my grade 11 English teacher let a small group of us read Vonnegut.

I read Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five as well.

As I mention often, I moved around a lot so I went to a lot of different schools, and one (Franco-Ontarian actually) high school I went to had absolutely fantastic English teachers.

As you can imagine, not everyone was able to easily follow in their second language, as we had transfer students coming in from Quebec and Franco-Ontarians from small towns who really struggled.

But as they say, a rising tide lifts all boats and I am sure all of them ended up with better English skills than they would have had they not been pushed as hard.

One of my kids is reading Orwell right now (how very apropos!), but this is in a private high school in Quebec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

I made it through most of that article - aside from the insufferable LOOK HOW SMART I AM writing style, ...

As opposed to the congenial LOOK HOW DUMB I AM writing style that would be used by nice but intelligent people when they want to prove a point?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by niwell

And let's be real, at least 75% of people claiming to love Shakespeare are faking it to sound smart - that was the worst part of high school English.

Shakespeare in high school is the last vestige of the 'Great Books' philosophy of pedagogy. One where all people - regardless of class or background - have a knowledge of a selection of important texts and the allegories contained within them. One that gives all of us a common reference point. Beyond creating a polity that shares unified experiences and is less fractured, it helps cultivate critical thinking because we can use well-known passages to explain profound things about the human condition or some of the vagaries of society and everyone will, almost literally, be on the same page. At the very least, we can use it as a jumping off point and skip the difficult step of communicating complex topics without knowing where to start.

This has to be taught at the high school level. Even if most of the kids are too young to grasp these texts, you have to reach as many people as possible. Not everyone will go to university, and most university programs have become more narrow and technical, so it's not like most people will have the chance to be exposed to the great texts there, either.

How much more prepared and resilient would our society be if we had truck drivers and personal support workers who dropped out after Grade 12 understanding what we're talking about when we say something like "Deepfakes are concerning and we can't take things at face value. It's a problem we've been grappling with since Plato talked about the allegory of the cave"?

PS: it doesn’t have to be Shakespeare or even a Western text, but Shakespeare has (or, in theory, should have) the benefit of common knowledge for all generations. You could abandon Shakespeare and have kids read something new but then we wouldn’t all have a common reference point. Path dependency.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Shakespeare in high school is the last vestige of the 'Great Books' philosophy of pedagogy. One where all people - regardless of class or background - have a knowledge of a selection of important texts and the allegories contained within them. One that gives all of us a common reference point. Beyond creating a polity that shares unified experiences and is less fractured, it helps cultivate critical thinking because we can use well-known passages to explain profound things about the human condition or some of the vagaries of society and everyone will, almost literally, be on the same page. At the very least, we can use it as a jumping off point and skip the difficult step of communicating complex topics without knowing where to start.

This has to be taught at the high school level. Even if most of the kids are too young to grasp these texts, you have to reach as many people as possible. Not everyone will go to university, and most university programs have become more narrow and technical, so it's not like most people will have the chance to be exposed to the great texts there, either.

How much more prepared and resilient would our society be if we had truck drivers and personal support workers who dropped out after Grade 12 understanding what we're talking about when we say something like "Deepfakes are concerning and we can't take things at face value. It's a problem we've been grappling with since Plato talked about the allegory of the cave"?

PS: it doesn’t have to be Shakespeare or even a Western text, but Shakespeare has (or, in theory, should have) the benefit of common knowledge for all generations. You could abandon Shakespeare and have kids read something new but then we wouldn’t all have a common reference point. Path dependency.

Don't get me wrong - I would never advocate to stop teaching Shakespeare in high school. It is extremely important for the reasons you and others have stated.. just rarely that fun in the context of the classroom. There's a lot more leeway with many of the other commonly read works.