Is Aeon a useful resource or liberal hogwash?

neoliberal

READ PALLADIUM

have sex

Agree.

retards are not welcome on Yea Forums

proselytizers belong in prison camps

What can 'cosmopolitan' worldview now mean other than the bourgeois values of neoliberalism?

>What can 'cosmopolitan' worldview now mean other than the petit bourgeois values of neoliberalism?
Fixed for you.

If you've read any of their articles, you would realise that they are essentially anti-neoliberalism. They're "cosmopolitan" in the ACTUAL sense of the word, i.e. considering oneself a citizen of the entire cosmos, not just sheltered inner city yuppie sandwich circles. They routinely put out articles lamenting the loss of nature, the need to reduce exposure to advertising/ambition/greed, the lack of authentic metaphysics in western society, etc.

They're not perfect by any measure but they're still very insightful a lot of the time.

Is there any website that is like that but is explicitly against cultural marxism, identity politics and queer globohomo?

Yes and they're all trash

Why not just try aeon? You don't have to agree with 100% of a what a website says to get value out of it

>We need the singular ‘they’ – and it won’t seem wrong for long
>Western Philosophy is Racist
>A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you
>The African Enlightenment
>Black Achilles
Based and progressive-neoliberal-globalist-technocrat-pilled

Arktos, maybe. Quillette.

Palladium.

The American Conservative

Looking through a few pages of their articles it seems like literary xanax for educated people, easing their discomfort that the system and society they are a a part of is reducing human beings, cultures and nature to a set of liquid commodities to the benefit of commodity exchange and little else.

aeon.co/ideas/why-streaming-kids-according-to-ability-is-a-terrible-idea
I went there for 2 minutes and this article pissed me off so much. Just a typical libshit journal or whatever.

Like, he himself admits that streaming kids makes classes much better to conduct and doesn't slow the top kids for the sake of retards, but then he turns around and says that this should be stopped because... because retard kids are underperforming.
Of course retard kids will underperform, and for most of them there's nothing you can really do since intelligence is mostly biological. Just admit this and maybe train those kids to do something fit for their intelligence level. Don't just drag down the smart kids for the sake of retards. I hate that type of leftist thinking.

4channel formerly Yea Forums

Tarantulas spit venom, who knew?

Schools should primarily cater to children that perform well. Anything else is absurd.

fpbp

I found Peterson's cultural marxists' hideout.

>Of course retard kids will underperform, and for most of them there's nothing you can really do since intelligence is mostly biological
You say this while citing a research that they do better in non-streamed classes. Get a grip, /pol/lack.

Attached: 1542903290782.jpg (2919x4096, 950K)

So you can essentially trade gifted kids' relative success for retarded kids' relative success. But should you?

>technocrat
>meritocracy bad
They are even worse, they are neoliberal globalist hippies

newyorker+guardian+meditation podcast

Weel clearly it's a useful resource to learn about liberal hogwash.

Fortunately, we don't have to make this choice.

The thrust of the author's article follows this review paper they cite:
>On average, pupils experiencing setting or streaming make slightly less progress than pupils taught in mixed attainment
classes.
>The evidence suggests that setting and streaming has a very small negative impact for low and mid-range attaining learners,
and a very small positive impact for higher attaining pupils. There are exceptions to this pattern, with some research studies
demonstrating benefits for all learners across the attainment range.
>Overall the effects are small, and it appears that setting or streaming is not an effective way to raise attainment for most pupils.
>Setting or streaming may also have an impact on wider outcomes such as confidence. Some studies from the broader evidence
base conclude that grouping pupils on the basis of attainment may have longer term negative effects on the attitudes and
engagement of low attaining pupils, for example, by discouraging the belief that their attainment can be improved through
effort.
Not as onions as at first sight.

>considering oneself a citizen of the entire cosmos

Exactly, neoliberal.

Fortunately, we don't have to make this choice.

The thrust of the author's article follows this review paper they cite:
>On average, pupils experiencing setting or streaming make slightly less progress than pupils taught in mixed attainment classes.The evidence suggests that setting and streaming has a very small negative impact for low and mid-range attaining learners,and a very small positive impact for higher attaining pupils. There are exceptions to this pattern, with some research studies demonstrating benefits for all learners across the attainment range.
>Overall the effects are small, and it appears that setting or streaming is not an effective way to raise attainment for most pupils.Setting or streaming may also have an impact on wider outcomes such as confidence.
>Some studies from the broader evidence base conclude that grouping pupils on the basis of attainment may have longer term negative effects on the attitudes and engagement of low attaining pupils, for example, by discouraging the belief that their attainment can be improved through effort.
Not as onions as at first sight.

Are there seriously people over the age of 30 and never got over their "le cosmopolitan" phase? Phew

I wonder how different the researched range of pupil ability was in the first place. I would argue positive effects of mixed environment (more social than educational) overweight the negative as long as the spread is not too big.

has some good stuff imo. what other publications you guys follow?

This.

Do the reddit tourists that come here every week think they’re being witty when they say this? You complain about Pepe but Leftists haven’t had any new material since the nineties.

I just love it when they assume from the beginning that you share their ethical views.

>DUDE EVERYONE IS A HUMANIST LMAO
>OTHERWISE YOU GOT BAD DEFENSES SON

The fall of peoples and mankind etc etc
t. Max Lowbrow

Let's face it, those retard kids will never be Einstein even if they do slightly better in school. This is why I call it leftist thinking, you guys are willing to base the whole education system on the feelings of losers, instead of what works best and you drag down smart kids in the process.

Nice try, boomer, but you've already fucked up society enough. You're just as obsessed with feelings as those 'leftists'; your own.

Attached: 1549618329743.png (1200x1200, 258K)

It was boomers who created the notion that all races and sexes are equal and that we should give participation trophies to everybody so nobody feels left out. I have no respect for boomers.

just from that image i can tell the people in charge of it should be shot and thrown in an unmarked grave

The article in the pic is especially terrible.

Except the research also says that other studies suggest streaming is better for all students. In other words, we are not certain that streaming hurts all students, but we are certain that "mixed attainment" hurts the best students. So, we have one scenarios which we know to have negative effects, and another scenario which certainly has some benefits and may or may not be beneficial to all. Further, the method which has some certain benefit is also the traditional method, which we know from experience worked. We also know why we changed from the traditional method, and as much as we are uncertain whether this new method helps anyone, we know our most gifted are hurt by it, and it almost certainly causes ancillary issues which do not directly affect academic success, but do hurt life success. So why then do we insist on a method which has no proven benefit and several proven harms over the method which has some proven benefits and no proven harms?

Alright, fine you would argue it. But what is your support? What are these benefits, and what are the negatives they outweigh? How do you determine the weight? Or is it simply your feeling?

>dumb kids do better when they can cheat off somebody
interdasting

Where did you get this idea?

The worry over reactionary and white nationalist infiltration of classics and medieval studies is completely disproportionate to how much infiltration there actually is (which I would guess it's zero).

The whole thing is just an excuse to purge non-progressives as covert racists.

i went to school

Yeah. I'm sure there's a non-zero increase in digital sales of classics by online white nationalists, but I would be shocked if there is any meaningful number actually making it through any university humanities departments. It's far more likely that an adjunct professor in debt who tends to be more conservative would be frustrated and lonely in the purity-testing social environment of these universities, and over time fall by degree into a white nationalist ideology through online communities. Ironically, the solution to that problem is the opening up of academic discourse, not the closing off.

>cultural marxism
imagine thinking this is a thing

You are a racist though

Transgender people are mentally ill, and gay people are too.

>Except the research also says that other studies suggest streaming is better for all students.
More accurately, there are outliers to the general trend observed.

>In other words, we are not certain that streaming hurts all students,
No, the preponderance of evidence suggests "on average, pupils experiencing setting or streaming make slightly less progress than pupils taught in mixed attainment classes;" though there may be more to the story than we currently know.

>but we are certain that "mixed attainment" hurts the best students
He says, citing the exact same research he tried to paint as uncertain!

>hurts
Cute framing btw. Really brings out the hysterics and outrage. The reality is "overall, the [academic] effects are small," but streaming "may have longer term negative effects on the attitudes and engagement of low attaining pupils" as explicitly stated in the report.

Really interesting exercise in motivated reasoning on your part. It was fun to pick it apart.

Attached: 1545973747949.jpg (360x360, 29K)

You went to school and never had a friend help you out when you were struggling to understand something?

Hogwash.

no

No. There are other studies. It isn't a statement about outliers. It is largely invalid to try and use the results of a study as datapoints in a meta-analysis. I know it's popular right now, but it's completely absurd in almost every case. As it stands, there is disagreement among researchers. Scientific discovery is not a democracy. It doesn't matter if more studies lean one way. Currently, there is enough conflicting evidence that a firm conclusion can't be reached. All the research agrees that the best students do worse under "mixed attainment" methods. Only some of the research concludes that anyone is helped by this method. I don't know why I'm bothering with this though, because you are clearly struggling with basic scientific reading. I wasn't saying the research itself was flawed, but that the wide spread of research was in conflict in some areas, and in agreement in other areas. My whole point was that you are taking one study (not even an experiment) as the truth, without critical analysis of its methods, and without even excepting the paper's own recognition of other conflicting research. You are precisely the kind of non-scientifically literate, uncritically-thinking pseud that researchers complain about.

It's easier than you think. I'm a straight up reactionary and I'm a member of a bunch of prog cabals, NGOs, etc. Keep your enemies close and all that. Plus the networking opportunities are great. Applied Moldbuggery works.

I like the term 'cultural marxism', not because i think all the worlds problems can be traced to an irrelevant clique of midcentury kvetching jews, but because pisses all the right people off. Besides progs don't give a shit about the use of clear etymologically sound language so why should I?

Progs invented 'Alt Right'. They deserve all the shitty labels you can put on them.

Attached: The Final Friendship.jpg (960x397, 48K)

And so are ugly incels on /pol/

AEON
NAUTILUS
ARTS & LETTERS DAILY
ERGO-LOG

ALL CONTAIN INDISPENSABLE CULTURE AND KNOWLEDGE FOR TRUE PATRICIANS

I actually read, and it wasn't that bad. Sure, it had the mandatory neoleftist talking points, but it as also a huge middle finger the the plebs that think pre-industrial living was some utopia.

>provincial worldview

Parochialism is the solution. Balkanize the world.