eggynack
@eggynack.bsky.social
Teacher of some kind. Trans woman of some other kind. Mathematically inclined. She/her.
This essay seemed absurdly non-responsive to the text, is the issue, spiraling off into arbitrary garbage basically immediately. I don't think we should necessarily expect students to do this stuff perfectly. I think we have to expect better than this.
November 30, 2025 at 10:12 PM
This essay seemed absurdly non-responsive to the text, is the issue, spiraling off into arbitrary garbage basically immediately. I don't think we should necessarily expect students to do this stuff perfectly. I think we have to expect better than this.
Like, here's an entirely reasonable kind of response, I imagine. "This paper asserts that mockery locks students into particular gender roles. However, nowhere in the paper does it actually defend the claim that these gender roles are harmful, taking that merely as given. Here's why that's bad."
November 30, 2025 at 10:10 PM
Like, here's an entirely reasonable kind of response, I imagine. "This paper asserts that mockery locks students into particular gender roles. However, nowhere in the paper does it actually defend the claim that these gender roles are harmful, taking that merely as given. Here's why that's bad."
Speaking as someone who just came out of an education masters and had to do a lot of this kind of assignment, these papers are very frequently garbage. There are entirely reasonable ways to point out that they're garbage, not even using citations. It's my fave thing to do. This was not that.
November 30, 2025 at 10:08 PM
Speaking as someone who just came out of an education masters and had to do a lot of this kind of assignment, these papers are very frequently garbage. There are entirely reasonable ways to point out that they're garbage, not even using citations. It's my fave thing to do. This was not that.
The response to this was, "Gender roles are really really good. Women belong in the kitchen. God says that gender is important. Anyone denying gender stereotypes as valuable is a demon. How dare this paper imply otherwise?" Which, it's just 100% unresponsive.
November 30, 2025 at 10:07 PM
The response to this was, "Gender roles are really really good. Women belong in the kitchen. God says that gender is important. Anyone denying gender stereotypes as valuable is a demon. How dare this paper imply otherwise?" Which, it's just 100% unresponsive.
The text seems to be something like, "Particular modes of behavior, especially things like gendered mockery, can entrench children into gender roles and/or stereotypes. Here're maybe some studied outputs of that." Could be varying degrees of empirical about it.
November 30, 2025 at 10:06 PM
The text seems to be something like, "Particular modes of behavior, especially things like gendered mockery, can entrench children into gender roles and/or stereotypes. Here're maybe some studied outputs of that." Could be varying degrees of empirical about it.
An issue here is that we don't actually know what the text being responded to is. As a result, it's hard to say exactly how much this was responsive to the text. That said, from reading the essay and looking at what the class is (psychology), it seems pretty frigging off topic.
November 30, 2025 at 10:04 PM
An issue here is that we don't actually know what the text being responded to is. As a result, it's hard to say exactly how much this was responsive to the text. That said, from reading the essay and looking at what the class is (psychology), it seems pretty frigging off topic.
I love that, even on a micro level, that quote in the first screenshot doesn't say what the words say it does. That's not about veterans being disparaged. It's about dwarves not getting a constitution buff or goblins not being usually evil or whatever.
November 30, 2025 at 2:57 PM
I love that, even on a micro level, that quote in the first screenshot doesn't say what the words say it does. That's not about veterans being disparaged. It's about dwarves not getting a constitution buff or goblins not being usually evil or whatever.
She's out there scheming. She's playing the game, and playing it better than Walt a pretty reasonable amount of the time. She sometimes opposes him, but in a way that feels decidedly congruent with existing conflicts. Also, she's great.
November 29, 2025 at 12:14 PM
She's out there scheming. She's playing the game, and playing it better than Walt a pretty reasonable amount of the time. She sometimes opposes him, but in a way that feels decidedly congruent with existing conflicts. Also, she's great.
I can vaguely get this argument for, like, season one, where she has a tendency to be a bit annoying as part of the contrast between exciting meth and boring domesticity. But by the time she's figuring things out or actively participating, it all makes literally no sense.
November 29, 2025 at 12:11 PM
I can vaguely get this argument for, like, season one, where she has a tendency to be a bit annoying as part of the contrast between exciting meth and boring domesticity. But by the time she's figuring things out or actively participating, it all makes literally no sense.
I feel like a lot of the movie was good and fun, but it had a weak solve and that cast the earlier parts in a worse light. There was a similar problem with a lot of season two of Poker Face. A good solve is important and such.
November 27, 2025 at 2:58 AM
I feel like a lot of the movie was good and fun, but it had a weak solve and that cast the earlier parts in a worse light. There was a similar problem with a lot of season two of Poker Face. A good solve is important and such.
Do you have any actual basis for disagreeing with what I wrote, or do you just assume I must be wrong and proceed blindly from there?
November 27, 2025 at 1:01 AM
Do you have any actual basis for disagreeing with what I wrote, or do you just assume I must be wrong and proceed blindly from there?
In point of fact, they make a bunch of claims about the policy that are not factually represented by said policy, a reality they hide by not actually citing the policy anywhere.
November 27, 2025 at 12:54 AM
In point of fact, they make a bunch of claims about the policy that are not factually represented by said policy, a reality they hide by not actually citing the policy anywhere.
I'm aware of both of these things. However, the narrow claim being made by FIRE in the brief, which Ari has noted all over the place, is that the policy is overbroad with regard to the first amendment. And it's a claim they have no basis for.
November 27, 2025 at 12:53 AM
I'm aware of both of these things. However, the narrow claim being made by FIRE in the brief, which Ari has noted all over the place, is that the policy is overbroad with regard to the first amendment. And it's a claim they have no basis for.
I read it in its entirety. Hence my ability to point out a bunch of specific issues with it.
November 26, 2025 at 11:53 PM
I read it in its entirety. Hence my ability to point out a bunch of specific issues with it.
Oh, so you must have received an answer from either Ari or someone else at FIRE about how the procedure is overbroad. Could you please provide me with that answer?
November 26, 2025 at 11:53 PM
Oh, so you must have received an answer from either Ari or someone else at FIRE about how the procedure is overbroad. Could you please provide me with that answer?
Lol he blocked me because he can't handle that his legal arguments are completely and utterly incoherent. Wild given he keeps complaining that no one will read his stupid brief or give him hot legal critiques.
November 26, 2025 at 6:06 AM
Lol he blocked me because he can't handle that his legal arguments are completely and utterly incoherent. Wild given he keeps complaining that no one will read his stupid brief or give him hot legal critiques.
His response to me asking this was to ignore, mute, and block me, but maybe you'll get a better answer. I really fucking doubt it though.
November 26, 2025 at 2:35 AM
His response to me asking this was to ignore, mute, and block me, but maybe you'll get a better answer. I really fucking doubt it though.
But hey, maybe I'm way off. There's totally a reasonable objection to the district's policy on harassment and I've just missed it. Ari's right there. I invite you to ask him. Ask what in the procedure, precisely, he thinks is a first amendment violation. Ask for a quote from said policy.
November 26, 2025 at 2:34 AM
But hey, maybe I'm way off. There's totally a reasonable objection to the district's policy on harassment and I've just missed it. Ari's right there. I invite you to ask him. Ask what in the procedure, precisely, he thinks is a first amendment violation. Ask for a quote from said policy.
Long story short, this case they're making is complete and total bullshit. A bunch of cobbled together nonsense that doesn't actually make sense. Hence my conclusion. Explanation one isn't particularly feasible, so explanation two, transphobia, seems the most reasonable.
November 26, 2025 at 2:32 AM
Long story short, this case they're making is complete and total bullshit. A bunch of cobbled together nonsense that doesn't actually make sense. Hence my conclusion. Explanation one isn't particularly feasible, so explanation two, transphobia, seems the most reasonable.
And this all becomes even more clear if you actually, y'know, read the district's harassment policy. The policy brief says that harassment must be targeted? The listed definition of harassment includes that it must be directed. They say it has to be disruptive? So does the policy.
November 26, 2025 at 2:30 AM
And this all becomes even more clear if you actually, y'know, read the district's harassment policy. The policy brief says that harassment must be targeted? The listed definition of harassment includes that it must be directed. They say it has to be disruptive? So does the policy.
This may seem odd, but, in a way, it's actually inevitable. See, the case doesn't actually concern the written harassment policy. It concerns the fact that this transphobic pressure group called up the district to ask if the policy covers misgendering, and they said yes, in so many words.
November 26, 2025 at 2:28 AM
This may seem odd, but, in a way, it's actually inevitable. See, the case doesn't actually concern the written harassment policy. It concerns the fact that this transphobic pressure group called up the district to ask if the policy covers misgendering, and they said yes, in so many words.
He speaks exclusively in these vague generalities. Imagining policies that could be bad. You might think, "Okay, but that's just Ari, not the actual brief." And you would think wrong. The brief is about 30 pages long and, as far as I can tell, contains not a single sentence from the policy.
November 26, 2025 at 2:26 AM
He speaks exclusively in these vague generalities. Imagining policies that could be bad. You might think, "Okay, but that's just Ari, not the actual brief." And you would think wrong. The brief is about 30 pages long and, as far as I can tell, contains not a single sentence from the policy.
See, Ari keeps saying that the the Olentangy school system has a harassment policy that is, in some regard, overbroad. They have to get rid of it, swap it with something else. You may note, however, that he ever actually, for example, points to this policy. Says, "This is the overbroad part."
November 26, 2025 at 2:25 AM
See, Ari keeps saying that the the Olentangy school system has a harassment policy that is, in some regard, overbroad. They have to get rid of it, swap it with something else. You may note, however, that he ever actually, for example, points to this policy. Says, "This is the overbroad part."
Second, that they are in support of transphobic harassment. I don't think there's a third option? I could be missing something. Anyway, the question, then, is whether the first motivation holds any water. Do they, in fact, have a real first amendment issue here? I will contend that they do not.
November 26, 2025 at 2:24 AM
Second, that they are in support of transphobic harassment. I don't think there's a third option? I could be missing something. Anyway, the question, then, is whether the first motivation holds any water. Do they, in fact, have a real first amendment issue here? I will contend that they do not.
I don't think that's a particularly outrageous conclusion given the available evidence. Just at the outset, I would say there are only two plausible reasons FIRE would submit this brief. First, as you state, that they have some meaningful procedural first amendment issue with the policy...
November 26, 2025 at 2:22 AM
I don't think that's a particularly outrageous conclusion given the available evidence. Just at the outset, I would say there are only two plausible reasons FIRE would submit this brief. First, as you state, that they have some meaningful procedural first amendment issue with the policy...