Well, duh. See, at a peep show, they have these little private coin-operated booths where people can go to, presumably, mastrubate in private. (This is second-hand information, mind you - I think porn is generally just silly; my own memories and imagination are much more interesting.) The lack of privacy while using an Internet terminal in a public place - library or cybercafe - is more than enough to prevent peep-show-like activities.
Your argument is just as valid as someone arguing to remove any laws against indecent exposure.
Unless you can explain how sitting naked in my backyard harms someone else enough that I need to be dragged away and caged, you have to admit that arguments against "indecent exposure" laws have validity.
We all know what porn is, so don't even try to drop the definition argument on me, because I won't bite.
Since we "all know", perhaps you can provide provide that unambiguous defintion that we all agree upon? Put up or shut up, chum.
We're talking about a freaking library, not your own private home. If you need to look at porn so bad, then buy a playboymag/hooker or go to an internet cafe/home pc, and have at it.
I don't need to look at porn at all; like I said, I generally find it more silly than arousing. No, I'm simply arguing that it's not up to you to decide what the rest of us, or our kids, should read, see, or hear. Is that so radical?
Then again, I guess you can;t expect much from someone who uploads nudey pics of his 9y/o daughter everynight to usenet.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to a more-or-less rational human being. I mean, you might want to actually find out whether I have a 9 year old daughter before you make casual allegations that I'm involving a non-exisitent girl in child pornography. (Though I do think it's silly that any picture of a naked child is considered "child pornography" - people really need to get over the notion that "no clothes on" == "sex".)
p.s. your website sucks, and nobody cares about your redundant cliche arguments... go find a hobby or something
Thanks for the feedback, it's nice to know you care. Mind if I quote you on that?
we're talking about keeping porn out of the site of children, and there's nothing wrong with that
Who defines porn? And who are you to tell other parents whether it should be kept of the sight of their children or not?
You don't want your kids looking at what you consider porn? Great. Don't show it to them, and exercise a little fucking parental responsiblity when you take them out to the library, bookstore, or video rental place, or let them out on the net. But don't even try to force others to accept your defintion, or accept your opinion about what is or isn't appropriate for children to view.
Call me a tight-assed conservative, but I don't think that the government ought to be subsidising the erotic arousal of others.
Ok, Mr. Tight-Assed Conservative, I assume that you also want the public library to remove any books or magazines with erotic content, or that are informative about sexual technique, or that feature images of nude - or scantily clad - human beings?
But why single out sex? Surely, we must also remove any content dealing with other frivalous soruces of pleasure. Why subsidize the arousal of your artistic passions by keeping all those art books around? Or arouse your literary passions with those thick tomes of poetry? Why spend money on books about music, good food and drink, travel, and all those other trivial pleasures that distract people from what's truly important?
No sir. The only books the public libraries need are the Bible and books on job skills (100 copies of, say, "HTML for Dummies") and playing the markets.
Of course, I suppose if you're really a Tight-Assed Conservative, you'd want to close the libraries entirely and have the local government sell the building to WalMart to fund a tax cut.
"Yo". Good Christ, can't a man smoke a quiet rock of crack without being bugged by these journalists in their skin-tight stonewashed denim and ponytails, trying to come over hip like Nas and dirty like Snoop?
While Katz's use of it also struck me as weird, "yo" far predates its use in rap and hip-hop culture. Twenty years ago, my very white grandfather would answer "Yo!" if you called to him when he was working in his garden. I sort of picked the habit up from him, though I'd never use it in writing.
The WWWebster dates "yo" back to the 15th century, as an interjection "used especially to call attention, to indicate attentiveness, or to express affirmation."
Think of all the possibilities if the net were truely something you could really access and publish content on?...I could run anything that I wanted and publish information and content that I truely think that the world would benefit from.
Most ISPs provide a few megs of web publishing space; my personal pages (at infamous.net/lair) get a few hundred hits a day. If your ISP doesn't provide space, there are low-cost and advertising supported hosting companies.
And if you want to go independent of an ISP's possible content restrictons, a DSL line isn't out of reach for middle income Americans. I'm going to be moving my personal site, and starting a few new sites, on a home network of cheap used PCs with a 192k SDSL line; costs me $137 a month, plus a couple bucks for the electricity. I wouldn't spend that much just for kicks, I do expect to eventually make a few bucks off web services - but, some people do spend that much on cellphone or long distance bills. You can get a few folks together and split the cost, or find someone (like me) with a DSL line who will let you put stuff on their server for a few bucks.
So, publish away. If you've got something to say and a reasonable amount of tech-savvy, there's no reason not to say it on the web. The only real barriers are those of knowledge and comfort with the technology. Censorship looms as a possible future problem, but for now seems limited to things like the DeCSS harassment - which, while very serious, only affects a small portion of net communication.
Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God? If not, why would you hold such contempt for what you believe to just a man?
Why would being "just a man" exempt one from contempt? There are many mere mortals, living and dead, who have earned plenty of contempt.
Certainly, if I thought Jesus was responsbile for the way most Christians practice their faith, he'd be on my list of Most Contempable People. But while he might have been either an insightful mystic, or a mentally ill person who really believed he has the son of the Jewish god, I don't doubt that his teachings have been so distorted over the years that he bears little responsibility for "Christianity".
Re:Bring me the head of Kanter & Siegel.
on
Is Usenet Dying?
·
· Score: 2
At first I though your subject should have read "Bring me the heads of Kanter & Siegel." Then I recalled that they probably only have one brain between them - if that many.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. I say we send in the Slashdot ninjas..
I'm in. Death to spammers. Hmm, where'd I leave that katana?
No, no, no, it's "Imminent death of USENET predicted - GIFs at 11." (More modern pundits can substitute "MPEGs" for "GIFs".)
I got on the net (which at the time, pretty much meant USENET and e-mail) in 1989. I thought it would be realy cool if someday, everyone had net access. I take it back!
However, putting Mickey Mouse's face on it is just asking for disrespect on the issue. If your going to violate... existing, established intellectual property laws in your flyer...
Satire and parody are allowed under copyright and trademark law (else Mad magazine would have been sued into non-existance long ago), and sticking Mickey's head on the famous Uncle Sam "I want YOU" image is clearly satire. There's absolutely no dilution of trademark and no chance of anyone confusing the image with a genuine Disney product.
more Windows knowledge will obviously better help my career in the future than picking up Linux.
Depends on what you want to do, I suppose. I don't see much interesting stuff on the desktop; writing another office suite interests me not in the least. So I don't do Windows, I do Unix. I have worked on some pretty nifty things for companies ranging from a dozen people to multinational behemoths (see my resume for details), I make good money, and recruiters contact me two or three times a week trying to hire me to do Unix stuff for them or their clients.
It's not a bad way to earn my daily bread. So go ahead and be Mr. Windows...you just make less competition for me. B-)
Why work for Red Hat, now that its IPO is over, when you can work at the next IPO? Why work at any IPO, when you can hold your own IPO?
Gee, has someone figured out a foolproof way to know - far enough in advance to get the big options - what companies are going to have wildly successful IPOs?
While you wouldn't know it from the.com hype, most companies do not have IPOs that run up to hundreds of dollars per share. Picking winners ain't that easy.
(If I had that sort of crystal ball, I would have gone into debt to buy all the TIS options I was entitled to (this was years before they went public) then sold out when they got bought out by Network Associates and NETA peaked, and I would have netted about a quarter million dollars in profit. The fact that I am still hacking for food may inform you that this did not happen. (Though I did make a few dollars off the deal.)
You all remember SDI, don't you? The Strategic Defense Inititive? Star Wars? Ronald Regan? Savings and Loan? Gorby? A Black Michael Jackson? Sheesh, I'm old.:-)
Hey, I remember. But maybe I'm just old too. I just turned 30, I don't wanna talk about it.
But it looks like some of that 80's stuff is coming back. I'm seeing 80's hair styles full of gel - even Mohawk haircuts. "Greed is good" seems to be a popular message again. SDI, or a similar program, is being discussed seriously. Some guy named Bush is running for president.
But I think we can forget about ever seeing a black Michael Jackson again. B-)
Anyone up for creating a website devoted to musical artists who want to share their contributions with the world? I got the idea earlier when someone mentioned that music should be open sourced.
hence you see small corps with about the power of city governments in their range.
They've done a good job of camoflaging their prisons.
They get to use the state's.
The military-industrial complex has grown into the government-megacorporate complex. It's getting impossible to tell where one ends and the other starts.
Targeting ads at me doesn't force me to buy some. I and I alone am responsible for my purchase habits, not some mega-database.
Everyone says that. "Nope, I don't let advertizing influence my buying." Yet, when companies stop advertizing, their sales go down. Not just for things you wouldn't know about if not for advertizing; I'm talking Coke, Pepsi, Levis, M & Ms...you'd know about them even if you never saw another TV commerical.
Do you really think that all these companies are dumb enough to spend millions on advertizing that doesn't influence buying? Forget it. The ad companies even have a target demographic for people who think they're too smart for advertizing to affect them.
We are programed by our genes and by our environment, nothing else. Every bit of information that goes into your mind programs it a little bit. You have the opportunity to choose your programming; choose carefully.
(1) Freedom to do whatever you want, subject to the visibility and scrutiny of others (no privacy)
Self-contradictory. If I am required to make myself available to the scrutiny of others, then by definition I don't have the freedom to do whatever I want.
(2) Freedom to do whatever you want in complete privacy, with the risk of people using the combination to commit crime and take advatange of you
That's life. So it goes. Those who trade freedom and privacy for security end up with none of the above.
(3) No freedom whatsoever, total privacy, and total security. (Anyone caught doing something wrong is punished)
If I have total privacy, I can't be caught and punished (unless I'm invading someone else's rights), and therefore have total freedom.
The other replies to this explain the legend of the groundhog, but I wanted to point out why it's today. February 2nd is the cross-quarter day, midway between the winter solstice and the spring equinox. It's celebrated by many pagans as Imbolg or Candlemas.
So because your compiler says there is a difference between 0 and NULL, we just solved one of the greatest debates in math.
1: In C, NULL is 0. That doesn't meant that the null pointer is 0, however. (I.e., the compiler might not make (char *)0 point at memory location zero.) As an abstraction, though, I highly recommend using NULL for pointers, '\0' for chars, and 0 for ints.
2: What debate? 0 is defined to be a number, unless you want to argue that being a member of the reals somehow doesn't qualify it more number status. Infinity is generally not, though IIRC there are exceptions, contexts where the number system is extended to include infinities.
You don't have to write your "proof" here, but surely if this is one of the "greatest debates in math" you can point us to a page with more info.
The countdown until Sun Sep 9 03:46:39 2001 when we'll hit 999999999 with time_t? Or want to wait a second for the big billion?
Is that UTC?
That means that somewhere around September 20, 2001, (have to look up the exact time on my birth certificate and figure in time zones and daylight savings time) I'll have been around for one billion seconds. Time for a party!
Ths simple fact is that *anyone* applying to enter *college* should be well read enough to know the trivial facts that a regatta is a (sail)boat race, and a buttercup is some kind of flower.
The "buttercup" example was from a test for younger students, elementry or middle school. I don't think I would have known "regatta" when I stumbled across that example (I was in high school) if it hadn't popped up in some SF story featuring a spaceship race.
But that's beside the point. If one person has to be marginally well-read to have encountered a word, while for the other it is part of ordinary experience, that's bias. Any person trying to get into college now should know what RAM, gigabyte, or microprocessor means, but a test with many questions along those lines would be biased towards geeks.
In fact, it seems that it's your comment that contains the subtle racial bias, by implying that somehow, certain races can't be expected to measure up, so we'll have to cut them some slack. This is surely the most vile and corrosive form of racism possible!
Horseshit, and insulting horseshit at that. I was clearly speaking of cultural, social, and economic factors.
Read what I wrote: "there are differences in vocabulary and usage between socioeconomic groups, and these groups correspond strongly to race." Do you disagree that the typical vocabulary and usage differ between poor urban people and rich country-clubbers? I think a few minutes casual observation will demonstrate this.
Do you disagree that people of African, Hispanic, or American Indian ancestry are more likely to be amoung the urban poor in this nation than are people of European ancestry? I think the stats are pretty clear.
Do I therefore think that people should receive some sort of preferential treatment based on race? No. If we want to "right the wrongs", we need to look at the real causes, at the socioeconomic and cultural factors that put some students at a disadvanteage. If we are to apply some remedial preference to college admissions, it should be based on factors like the parents' educational level and income, the availability or lack thereof of good schools and libraries, and so on. We should imagine a world of, say, 50 years hence, where race is no longer an issue, and ask if our policy would still be helping disadvantaged students.
The process should not be "Student A and Student B both ran the course in the same time, but Student A has darker skin so we'll prefer him." It should be "Student A and Student B both ran the course in the same time, but Student A was dragging a ten-pound chain behind him. If we invest a little extra effort into breaking that chain, he'll be damn fast. We'll take Student A for our team."
I'm just asking for an example or two to back these statements up.
(Apologies if this is a duplicate; browser's acting funny.)
I don't know about "thinking differently", but certainly there are differences in vocabulary and usage between socioeconomic groups, and these groups correspond strongly to race.
One example that I saw in (IIRC) a study guide based on old SAT tests was something like "Regatta is to boat as..." That's one's not just culturally biased, it's geographically biased - how many people living in landlocked Iowa, compared to costal Maryland, know what a regatta is?
Another one, that I read about in an article on standardized tests, involved the word "buttercup". Imagine that you live in the ol' concrete jungle, where wildflowers are not exactly common. You might just think that a buttercup was perhaps some sort of a kitchen implement, whereas suburban kids like myself used to pick buttercups for our moms.
You know people must think that everywhere at every time that people absolutely *HAVE* to live where they are. If I live in complete and desperate poverty or are dodging bullets or what not I can always get up off my ass and actually leave.
And go where?
How do you intend to afford to move to a new place when you're in "complete and desperate poverty"? How do you afford to travel to your intended new neighborhood to hunt for an apartment? How do you come up with the security deposit for your new place - and the deposit for the electric service, and for the phone? How do you get your stuff (meager though it may be) to your new place?
Have you ever actually known any poor people, slashdot-terminal? I think that if you did, you'd know that moving to a better place is at the top of many poor people's dreams. But it's much easier said than done.
Take a look at public (K-12) education in America today. It's not education, it's indoctrination into a particular worldview.
And a religious education, or a military academy, are somehow worldview neutral? Or home schooling, which often (not always, by any means, but often) serves primarily to see that children are not exposed to any worldview other than that of their parents?
Education without some form of indoctrination is a myth. The best we can do is to minimize the indoctrination component by exposing the student to a variety of views, while at the same time giving them the tools to compare, contrast, and realize the full implications of each one.
In summary, it is my opinion that an education that isn't based on an objective standard is worse than useless, encouraging intellectual laziness and relativism.
In many areas of human endeavor, there is no objective standard. Is the "Ode to Joy" a better piece of music than "Axis: Bold as Love"? (I'm not touching that question with a ten-foot pole, thanks.) Science is not immune: we have to deal with questions like what makes a theory more "elegant" than another, or what does the collapse of the quantum wave function really "mean"?
Even mathematics is built of a heap of axioms, which in themselves are not objective. The only thing that sets the axioms apart from some other set of declarations is that they are useful to us - they help us deal with the universe in such as way as to meet our wants and needs and enjoy our lives. Which is, at its heart, a very subjective recommendation.
So what's the standard? I can't see a sound argument for anything other than, "Does this improve the quality of my life?"
they're taught not to judge, not to compare, but to accept other viewpoints as equally valid.
This is a favorite claim among those who think that only ideas that originated from white guys who've been dead at least a hundred years can be valuable, but it's pretty questionable. If students were being taught this - at least, if they were learning it - there would be at least one large positive effect: sexism, racism, and homophobia would be extinct amoung our youth. Doesn't seem to be happening.
Bloom's just another cultural supremicist who equates "different (i.e., non-DWEM) ideas may be valid" with "all ideas are equally valid".
(For the record, I should point out that about 50% of my ancestors are DWEMs, and I bear them no ill will. I'm a fan of many DWEMs, but there are also people who aren't dead, white, European, or male, who I highly respect.)
That tends to reinforce the other idea taught by movies, music, peers, and television -- that authority is, intrinsically, something to be distrusted.
And if this were being learned, school uniforms and student drug tests would never be accepted. We'd have students standing up in the middle of DARE lectures asking about prohibition-fueled violence, or history students demanding to be taught about the labor movement of the late 1800s. At the very least we'd have more 18-year-old voters registering as something other than Demopublican or Repubicrat. I don't see this happening, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't want your kids looking at what you consider porn? Great. Don't show it to them, and exercise a little fucking parental responsiblity when you take them out to the library, bookstore, or video rental place, or let them out on the net. But don't even try to force others to accept your defintion, or accept your opinion about what is or isn't appropriate for children to view.
But why single out sex? Surely, we must also remove any content dealing with other frivalous soruces of pleasure. Why subsidize the arousal of your artistic passions by keeping all those art books around? Or arouse your literary passions with those thick tomes of poetry? Why spend money on books about music, good food and drink, travel, and all those other trivial pleasures that distract people from what's truly important?
No sir. The only books the public libraries need are the Bible and books on job skills (100 copies of, say, "HTML for Dummies") and playing the markets.
Of course, I suppose if you're really a Tight-Assed Conservative, you'd want to close the libraries entirely and have the local government sell the building to WalMart to fund a tax cut.
The WWWebster dates "yo" back to the 15th century, as an interjection "used especially to call attention, to indicate attentiveness, or to express affirmation."
And if you want to go independent of an ISP's possible content restrictons, a DSL line isn't out of reach for middle income Americans. I'm going to be moving my personal site, and starting a few new sites, on a home network of cheap used PCs with a 192k SDSL line; costs me $137 a month, plus a couple bucks for the electricity. I wouldn't spend that much just for kicks, I do expect to eventually make a few bucks off web services - but, some people do spend that much on cellphone or long distance bills. You can get a few folks together and split the cost, or find someone (like me) with a DSL line who will let you put stuff on their server for a few bucks.
So, publish away. If you've got something to say and a reasonable amount of tech-savvy, there's no reason not to say it on the web. The only real barriers are those of knowledge and comfort with the technology. Censorship looms as a possible future problem, but for now seems limited to things like the DeCSS harassment - which, while very serious, only affects a small portion of net communication.
Certainly, if I thought Jesus was responsbile for the way most Christians practice their faith, he'd be on my list of Most Contempable People. But while he might have been either an insightful mystic, or a mentally ill person who really believed he has the son of the Jewish god, I don't doubt that his teachings have been so distorted over the years that he bears little responsibility for "Christianity".
At first I though your subject should have read "Bring me the heads of Kanter & Siegel." Then I recalled that they probably only have one brain between them - if that many.
I'm in. Death to spammers. Hmm, where'd I leave that katana?No, no, no, it's "Imminent death of USENET predicted - GIFs at 11." (More modern pundits can substitute "MPEGs" for "GIFs".)
I got on the net (which at the time, pretty much meant USENET and e-mail) in 1989. I thought it would be realy cool if someday, everyone had net access. I take it back!
It's not a bad way to earn my daily bread. So go ahead and be Mr. Windows...you just make less competition for me. B-)
While you wouldn't know it from the .com hype, most companies do not have IPOs that run up to hundreds of dollars per share. Picking winners ain't that easy.
(If I had that sort of crystal ball, I would have gone into debt to buy all the TIS options I was entitled to (this was years before they went public) then sold out when they got bought out by Network Associates and NETA peaked, and I would have netted about a quarter million dollars in profit. The fact that I am still hacking for food may inform you that this did not happen. (Though I did make a few dollars off the deal.)
But it looks like some of that 80's stuff is coming back. I'm seeing 80's hair styles full of gel - even Mohawk haircuts. "Greed is good" seems to be a popular message again. SDI, or a similar program, is being discussed seriously. Some guy named Bush is running for president.
But I think we can forget about ever seeing a black Michael Jackson again. B-)
The military-industrial complex has grown into the government-megacorporate complex. It's getting impossible to tell where one ends and the other starts.
Do you really think that all these companies are dumb enough to spend millions on advertizing that doesn't influence buying? Forget it. The ad companies even have a target demographic for people who think they're too smart for advertizing to affect them.
We are programed by our genes and by our environment, nothing else. Every bit of information that goes into your mind programs it a little bit. You have the opportunity to choose your programming; choose carefully.
Suggested further reading: Adbusters.
The other replies to this explain the legend of the groundhog, but I wanted to point out why it's today. February 2nd is the cross-quarter day, midway between the winter solstice and the spring equinox. It's celebrated by many pagans as Imbolg or Candlemas.
2: What debate? 0 is defined to be a number, unless you want to argue that being a member of the reals somehow doesn't qualify it more number status. Infinity is generally not, though IIRC there are exceptions, contexts where the number system is extended to include infinities.
You don't have to write your "proof" here, but surely if this is one of the "greatest debates in math" you can point us to a page with more info.
I don't know that it has any "real" significance, other than an interesting quick of our numbering system. But if the digits of numbers describing natural phenomena obey Benford's law, who knows what sort of wacky stuff number-theory geeks could find in dates?
That means that somewhere around September 20, 2001, (have to look up the exact time on my birth certificate and figure in time zones and daylight savings time) I'll have been around for one billion seconds. Time for a party!
But that's beside the point. If one person has to be marginally well-read to have encountered a word, while for the other it is part of ordinary experience, that's bias. Any person trying to get into college now should know what RAM, gigabyte, or microprocessor means, but a test with many questions along those lines would be biased towards geeks.
Horseshit, and insulting horseshit at that. I was clearly speaking of cultural, social, and economic factors.Read what I wrote: "there are differences in vocabulary and usage between socioeconomic groups, and these groups correspond strongly to race." Do you disagree that the typical vocabulary and usage differ between poor urban people and rich country-clubbers? I think a few minutes casual observation will demonstrate this.
Do you disagree that people of African, Hispanic, or American Indian ancestry are more likely to be amoung the urban poor in this nation than are people of European ancestry? I think the stats are pretty clear.
Do I therefore think that people should receive some sort of preferential treatment based on race? No. If we want to "right the wrongs", we need to look at the real causes, at the socioeconomic and cultural factors that put some students at a disadvanteage. If we are to apply some remedial preference to college admissions, it should be based on factors like the parents' educational level and income, the availability or lack thereof of good schools and libraries, and so on. We should imagine a world of, say, 50 years hence, where race is no longer an issue, and ask if our policy would still be helping disadvantaged students.
The process should not be "Student A and Student B both ran the course in the same time, but Student A has darker skin so we'll prefer him." It should be "Student A and Student B both ran the course in the same time, but Student A was dragging a ten-pound chain behind him. If we invest a little extra effort into breaking that chain, he'll be damn fast. We'll take Student A for our team."
I don't know about "thinking differently", but certainly there are differences in vocabulary and usage between socioeconomic groups, and these groups correspond strongly to race.
One example that I saw in (IIRC) a study guide based on old SAT tests was something like "Regatta is to boat as..." That's one's not just culturally biased, it's geographically biased - how many people living in landlocked Iowa, compared to costal Maryland, know what a regatta is?
Another one, that I read about in an article on standardized tests, involved the word "buttercup". Imagine that you live in the ol' concrete jungle, where wildflowers are not exactly common. You might just think that a buttercup was perhaps some sort of a kitchen implement, whereas suburban kids like myself used to pick buttercups for our moms.
How do you intend to afford to move to a new place when you're in "complete and desperate poverty"? How do you afford to travel to your intended new neighborhood to hunt for an apartment? How do you come up with the security deposit for your new place - and the deposit for the electric service, and for the phone? How do you get your stuff (meager though it may be) to your new place?
Have you ever actually known any poor people, slashdot-terminal? I think that if you did, you'd know that moving to a better place is at the top of many poor people's dreams. But it's much easier said than done.
Education without some form of indoctrination is a myth. The best we can do is to minimize the indoctrination component by exposing the student to a variety of views, while at the same time giving them the tools to compare, contrast, and realize the full implications of each one.
In many areas of human endeavor, there is no objective standard. Is the "Ode to Joy" a better piece of music than "Axis: Bold as Love"? (I'm not touching that question with a ten-foot pole, thanks.) Science is not immune: we have to deal with questions like what makes a theory more "elegant" than another, or what does the collapse of the quantum wave function really "mean"?Even mathematics is built of a heap of axioms, which in themselves are not objective. The only thing that sets the axioms apart from some other set of declarations is that they are useful to us - they help us deal with the universe in such as way as to meet our wants and needs and enjoy our lives. Which is, at its heart, a very subjective recommendation.
So what's the standard? I can't see a sound argument for anything other than, "Does this improve the quality of my life?"
Bloom's just another cultural supremicist who equates "different (i.e., non-DWEM) ideas may be valid" with "all ideas are equally valid".
(For the record, I should point out that about 50% of my ancestors are DWEMs, and I bear them no ill will. I'm a fan of many DWEMs, but there are also people who aren't dead, white, European, or male, who I highly respect.)
And if this were being learned, school uniforms and student drug tests would never be accepted. We'd have students standing up in the middle of DARE lectures asking about prohibition-fueled violence, or history students demanding to be taught about the labor movement of the late 1800s. At the very least we'd have more 18-year-old voters registering as something other than Demopublican or Repubicrat. I don't see this happening, do you?