Catnip just posted the topic: "Did you hate school as a kid?" She then proceeded to describe how "dummies" and "dummoids" held up the her class and it was frustrating for her.

I understand that sometimes posters become overly passionate and emotional when describing their experiences in the Mormon church and aren't always careful with the adjectives they use. This post, however, is off topic and has nothing to do with recovery from Mormonism. It basically berates students, who for whatever reason, did not do well in school.

Another poster called her on her comments, and I also agreed, and both our posts were promptly removed, but not Catnips.

I don't understand why the admins are allowing such insensitive comments, calling those who did not do well in school, for whatever reason, "dummies" and "dummoids." Remember, there are people of ALL ages and backgrounds who read this forum. Many are suffering from the ill effects of mormonism and have low self esteem and don't also need to be reminded that they are "dummies" if they also did not do well in school.

^^^ ^^^ ^^^

The content of the above post is a good example of how a situation like this (where someone is using language which is insensitive or offensive) could be better handled...

...by explaining that it IS insensitive or offensive language or characterization...and "why" it is...and how it could be better expressed to get the point across without insulting anyone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2017 09:48PM by Tevai.

I genuinely had no idea that anyone in this group might identify with the people to whom I referred, in extreme frustration, as "dummies" or "dummoids."

My best friend was an elementary school teacher throughout her career - a good one - and the greatest exasperation in her life, to hear her tell it, was "the dummies." I don't think she meant people who were intellectually challenged. (She is deceased now, so there is no way to check.)

I think she meant the kids who would not try. The ones who, no matter what, would not do the work they were supposed to. They would talk, play, or not pay attention, thus forcing her to go back over information and bore everyone else witless.

Would you call a child to his/her face a "dummie" or "dummoid" if they had low grades on their report card? There are many reasons that some students do not do as well as others. Calling them "dummies" will not help them but will most certainly hurt.

If a kid is tuned out to that great a degree, there is probably not much you can do anyway. Most kids can be reeled back in, and a certain amount of talking, playfulness, inattentiveness, etc. is normal. After all, they are *kids*. But a few kids are very disinterested in school, and a few are very rude, disrespectful, and violent. All the repeating in the world will not get through to those kids. You just have to hope that a someone else can reach them down the road.

I always say, we teach everybody. Literally, everybody. We see a small slice of human society in our classrooms every day. Sometimes I look at my little human beings, and try to imagine them as grownups. How will they turn out? That is the mystery.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2017 10:51PM by summer.

My grandma told me to my face that i was messed up but i didn't think so i was just abused. I think its a generational thing, like my grandma still called people colored or the n word. But she is dead and i am still surviving on my own without any supports so who is the dummy now?

I agree with Tevai. this seems like such an ignorant way to get your point across. there are so many reasons why a child in school does not do well. off the top of my head, there could be learning disabilities, dyslexia, ADHD, problems at home, problems with friends...just to name a few. there are also many different learning types, hands on, visual and auditory.

to group everyone that does not learn like you as a dummies seems very ignorant, insensitive and frankly very mormon.

very surprised that previous entries of this post were deleted.

ban all "dummies" and "dummoids" ~

must be ok if it passed the can't use words check....

The regular posters on this board (or those who used to be regulars, and come back again for a brief visit, or to stay awhile, or even longer) gradually become members of what amounts to an online "family,"...and family dynamics begin to become a part of what goes on here.

As in any family, people sometimes inadvertently say things which hurt the feelings of other family members...but you give them slack, because they are members of your family and that's what families do.

When a family member inadvertently messes up in some way, you try to explain to them what happened...and most of the time, those family members are mortified when they learn that they hurt someone else's feelings.

Trolls or fly-bys are one thing...

...long-time members of this board are another...

...just like families, where strangers are one thing, and your relatives are another.

Those same dynamics apply here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2017 10:13PM by Tevai.

I don't agree with that position, Tevai. Polite behavior should be an equality issue - no points awarded because someone has learned the "secret handshake" of RfM, or has won some sort of "R(f)M" status for years of missionary work.

In fact, were I to turn an administrative eye toward "whom" posted a crass generalization of some "lesser" group, it would carry a view of "S/he has been around long enough to know better, and/or what a poor example."

Integrity would demand an admin not look at the "who," because as I have learned here, that leads to ad hominem. Only the "what" should matter to an admin.

Opinion Piece Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't agree with that position, Tevai. Polite
> behavior should be an equality issue - no points
> awarded because someone has learned the "secret
> handshake" of RfM, or has won some sort of "R(f)M"
> status for years of missionary work.
>
> In fact, were I to turn an administrative eye
> toward "whom" posted a crass generalization of
> some "lesser" group, it would carry a view of
> "S/he has been around long enough to know better,
> and/or what a poor example."
>
> Integrity would demand an admin not look at the
> "who," because as I have learned here, that leads
> to ad hominem. Only the "what" should matter to
> an admin.

This is a good response.

I will be thinking about each of your points.

Thank you.

What word or words would the complainants suggest have been used to describe an all too real situation?

Sure, I'll grant you that the OP's choice of words left her open to criticism, but I have absolutely no doubt that she did not chose the words she used in order to cause pain to anyone who happened, while in grade school, to not be humming on all cylinders.

The phenomenon of slower learners requiring more attention from a teacher is a reality. And yes, no child should be left behind, etc., etc.


I'm reminded of some Kurt Vonnegut short stories, in which a society is created, by force, in which ALL people are made equal, meaning that the 'weakest link' human being becomes the standard, and those with qualities exceeding the 'weakest link' are handicapped so as to have no advantage.

Beautiful people must wear grotesque masks, strong-bodied individuals must carry an appropriate amount of iron weights, tall people are belted so as to be forced to stoop, intelligent people have to take mind-numbing drugs, or wear earphones so that loud noises constantly disrupt their thinking, etc.

Some times I wish I were White..., and taller, and had a singing voice, and soft, curly hair and a finely chiseled chin (with a dimple!), and more rounded eyes and no ear hair...

<sigh>

The words were describing completely anonymous students or maybe just certain types of students. It was a poor choice of words definitely, but it isnt as if she was insulting specific people.That said, there are more compassionate ways of getting a point across.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 12:51AM by bona dea.

I am trying to think if I would prefer to be called slow, not bright, intelligence challenged,stupid, dim, a brick short of a load, or, well, you know, actually. . . dummy has more personality and has a friendly ring in a way, so I'm going with that--though actually what I label myself is "late bloomer." I think because of the stunting caused by Mormonism I did everything three to five years behind everybody else--who wasn't Mormon.

Nerd used to be a slur in my day and now everyone is claiming they were one. Even super models and actors are claiming it in inteviews as they sit there in their glamor. Anti-cool is the new cool I guess. Wait. Chill. I mean "chill." Hard to keep up. Bad now means good. Wicked means fabulous. Hopefully dummy will mean hotshot very soon.

Qu**r. I liked that word. Hated the word "gay." Words. They are all over the place.

Sticks and stones . . . ya know?

I think our outstanding volunteer admin folks have enough troubles without trying to make us politically correct.

I appreciate all they do and know there are many behind the scence things we don't see.

I can't imagine having to read all the foul and truly vile things day after day and clean it up plus keeping the board running.

I don't think we need to pressure them to cater to everyone who might have hurt feelings.

People should have artistic license to use vocabulary at will, unless it is truly offensive or vulgar.

In the context it was used for the other thread was neither insensitive or vulgar IMO.

Regardless, it was easy to understand what was meant by that expression, and I read it as a form of slang.

The American language is built on slang which deviates from proper English.

Bottom line is: so what?

No one was being insulted personally on the board. It was a slang expression.

Some people really need to lighten up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2017 11:18PM by Amyjo.

Amyjo, there were some who took offense but for some reason, some of those posts were removed.

Here is the sentence where Catnip used the word "dummoid":

"I can remember getting in trouble for telling the teacher, "You already talked about that, last Thursday." And other kids would chime in, "Yeah, you did. Let's move along." And of course, the poor teacher could not come right out and say "Sorry, guys, I have to keep saying it over and over until the dummoids have got at least a partial grip on it."

"She couldn't even let the bright ones do something else while she repeated herself ad nauseam to the dummies."

I think the use of "dummies and dummoids" was very unnecessary and insensitive.

It's the juxtaposition that unintentionally hurt.

Just because a person doesn't understand why certain language or behavior upsets another person doesn't mean that the person who is upset has a problem, should lighten up, or shouldn't be heard.

I didn't find catnip's post to be crude or insensitive. She was relaying an experience she had from grammar school.

We share things all the time on here from the past, including childhood memories.

She shared an experience as she remembered it. That's not an anomaly on the board.

Being a grammar Nazi, on the other hand, is against forum posting rules. Someone didn't like her choice of words, and made derogatory statement that dummoid isn't actually a word at all, so why was it being used?

That's being a grammar police to deride that.

...has more to do with subjects and verbs not agreeing. Dangling participles. Stuff like that, especially because English is not everyone's primary language.

That's a different situation than the one we're discussing.

The brightest of the bunch doesn't need a lesson in grammar, amitrite?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2017 11:43PM by Beth.

Telling catnip that her choice of a non-word was unacceptable because it is slang OP finds objectionable is what I found objectionable, and more offensive than catnip's choice of a slang word.

So what if it was made up? That's what slang is.

Making mountains out of molehills is the essence of the OP. They're taking something said way more personally than the context of what was actually meant.

I don't see it.

The grammar cop humiliates you in front of everybody.
The grammar nazi burns an Oxford comma in your lawn.

The coffee Nazi...

eh. never mind.

I'm not some kind of elitist who takes offence because you might want to spent your precious money for exorbitantly priced brew derived from burned (if exotic) beans in the snobbish atmosphere of some Seattle-styled lah-de-dah bistro. I actually visit them once in a while myself--to scoop up the discarded newspapers so I don't have to pay for one.

Nah, I'm just your basic blue-collar under-educated low-brow cheapskate who, on the rare occasion he buys somebody's hot product, reuses the Dunkin Donuts styrofoam cup fifteen or twenty times as a travel mug.

But I would NEVER disparage anybody who feels obligated to obey the Law Of Diminishing Returns as they part with their hard-earned money to indulge in "gourmet" coffee!

FTR, we don't have Dunkin' Donuts here, and that's crap. I didn't expect a Wawa, but no Dunkin' Donuts? I boo the PNW.

Unrelated, I've learned that you don't "catch" elk.

Dunkin Donus is seeking to expand franchises nationwide. Seriously, I consider their coffee a more real-world product, but tastes are individual.

If anybody is interested in a business opportunity, and there is no (or few) Dunkin Donuts in your area, they'll set you up with a franchise for very cheap (relative to the Northeast).

Exactly right. That's why there are forum posting rules about that.

That's not the point. Your takeaway is not the point.

The point is that some people, people who may have been told they were dummies, people who think they aren't intelligent, and/or people who didn't do well in school can rightly infer that they are they type of person being denigrated. Lump that on self-esteem issues related to TSCC in general, and it can be hurtful.

*You* do not have to understand why some might feel that way.

Catnip was not casting aspersions on anyone here.

We use derogatory terms all the time to describe Mormonism and some of the whackos from the cult.

That's right, to each their own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 07:35AM by Amyjo.

Sounds to me as though catnip belonged in a gifted/talented class; which if her school was similar to the ones I went to, didn't exist.

Children of all IQ levels were thrust back then into the same classes where the smarter kids and those who were average or slow learners were expected to learn at the same pace.

Catnip was expressing her frustration at being impeded in moving along and getting stymied in her schooling.

However someone here was obviously upset at hearing the word dummie in that context, and here we are.

Catnip is the last person to be insensitive to others. In the context she shared I still have a hard time understanding why someone would make a whole thread about it.

The post/s on her thread accusing her of insensitivity were removed because they violated forum posting rules. Catnip's posts were not. That is the difference I'm addressing here.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 07:36AM by Amyjo.

Maybe I should have clarified my point in another way.

What caused me no end of frustration, to the point of not wanting to go to school any more, was REPETITION of things we had already been taught. I honestly believed that I could get away with skipping, say, every other day of school without missing much of anything. But my parents wouldn't let me.

As a sophomore in high school, I wrote a scorching editorial in our school paper, touching on the same basic theme. This is after a whole summer of R & R, when we are refreshed, filled with resolutions to do better, eager to learn new material, what do the teachers do? They bore us witless with a re-run of the material we covered last spring. By Thanksgiving, everyone has tuned out again.

My Journalism teacher told me I had nailed it. But he also said that Administration would not let him run the piece, because they had no way to refute it without stepping on toes.

I took part in a Psych experiment while in college. They played a regular class lecture about a third-again faster than the professor originally delivered it, and then had a quiz on the material. (You could use your notes.) About a third of us nailed the quiz. The whole point was that some of us were capable of learning at a faster pace than others. It made us wonder: if this was possible, why wasn't it more common??

It wasn't until I reached university that I was allowed to do what I had been capable of doing all along. I felt like a racehorse, with the gate clanging open. The whole point was to blister along, down that track, and be the first one across the finish line. And often, I was. I loved it.

This isn't about putting anyone down. It is about being allowed to run without hobbles.

congratulations! You just made your point without calling the slower learners in your class "dummies" and "dummoids." It wasn't that difficult, was it?

Wow. You defend Catnip for using "dummies" and "dummoids" to describe students in her class who she decided were not as bright as she was but call me on using "slow learners." I was actually trying to use an unoffensive term.

It seems there are posters who will stick together and defend each other no matter what. If you're not one of them, look out.

Except when you lash out at a fellow recovering mormon poster, one who is alive and not from a foggy past of 20 or 30 years. We're not here to call fellow posters bad names as you have been doing while worrying about second hand strangers who someone, not you, knew when they were tykes.

I deal with dummies on a daily basis.
I also get flipped off on a daily basis.

I think getting flipped off is in my job description.

By OP's standards you shouldn't be allowed to use that word here.

Then where else would you go to vent?

:)

Why vent at all on a forum about recovering from Mormonism about being frustrated in school because some of the students were "dummies" and "dummoids." Why is this forum the only place a person feels comfortable to vent about such a thing?

A question for you, Amyjo, if your child was doing poorly in school, would you be OK with your teacher labeling him/her a dummy or a dummoid? Would you be OK with a newspaper article describing the slower learners or children who did not have good grades in your child's class, especially if your child were one of the students who did not do well, as "dummies" or "dummoids?" Probably not.

And that's really the best of this unfortunate turn of events - the thinking part.

Do I think catnip intentionally hurt anyone's feelings? No, I don't. Do I think it was an inadvertent faux pas? Yes, I do.

I'm glad that you started this thread, not to lambaste catnip, but simply to bring the issue to light.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 12:15AM by Beth.

Food for thought:

Aren't temple patrons a bunch of dummies?
They go to the temple for the same ritual over and over again. They keep returning because they haven't learned anything. A bunch of dummies if you ask me.

Exactly right.

I guess catnip was using the words that she used for describing those people at that time, just like I called them douchebags, even though some of those douchebags became better people and I also called myself sh#t.
I just used those tough words because they were good for describing that moment and I guess catnip did the same thing.

That's exactly how I read her post too.

Really? So is it okay to refer to African Americans, the LGBT community and others using derogatory words from the past that are now considered inappropriate and offensive? Referring to slow learners or others who don't do well in school as "dummies," even though that word, along with "retard," is no longer acceptable, is not okay and should not be accepted on this forum.

Manners toward fellow posters count. Think about it.

Talking about sensitivity toward school kids who are now grown and gone is not covered in RfM rules, nor should it be.

who, IMHO, had every right to be irritated at what I perceived to be unnecessary repetitions of material.

Unless the topic was math, (and then I fit right in with the dummies; I was at home there) I generally picked up on information the first time it was presented. So yes, I have experienced life at the other end of the learning spectrum. I learned that I needed to avoid math and anything related to it, as soon as possible, which I did. This has proven to be a correct life-decision.

I didn't really appreciate education until I got to university, where the professors didn't belabor a point until your eyes rolled back in your head. They moved right along, and you were expected to keep up with them.

At this point, Beth, I agree with you. It's all gone to glue!

Yes, you have every right to be frustrated, although it sounds like it happened many years ago... I still don't understand why you had to label the students you perceived to be not as bright as you as "dummies and dummoids."

You're right, there is a lot of back and forth on this topic. I hope it will help posters think before describing groups of people using labels that might be hurtful.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 12:23AM by Beth.

I'm of the opinion that all of us (the OP, the criticizers, the lurkers, etc.) can learn something from a post with perhaps ill-considered words, followed up by reasonable criticism, followed up by a discussion.

And that none of us will learn anything if any post with any perhaps ill-considered words is immediately taken down, with no criticism, argument, or discussion.

It would be rude to use such names in referring to posters who will read the insults. But we all have memories of children in class or on playgrounds growing up. It's normal to recall them as we experienced them long ago. I think now that we're adults we can realize that these memories might be foggy or flawed. I don't see anything in RfM rules that bans us from using such terms about non-posters from when we were kids.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 10:17AM by Cheryl.

I don’t find the word offensive. I find the use of the word revealing. It displays Catnip’s ignorance - not realizing many of the “dummies” were faster racehorses than her.

I too had moments of academic success, (after years of academic failure). Though I enjoyed my success, I wasn’t dumb enough to think I was smarter than the “slow learners”.

Was that politically incorrect?

Sensitive teachers wouldn't use it on a report card or cum record or in a parent conference.

That’s good.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don’t find the word offensive. I find the use
> of the word revealing. It displays Catnip’s
> ignorance - not realizing many of the
> “dummies” were faster racehorses than her.

In a thread devoted to the discussion of inadvertently insensitive language, your use of the word "ignorance" as a characterization of Catnip is an illustration that we still have a ways to go on this issue.

Secondly: I don't understand how you know the students in Catnip's classes deeply enough to be able to say that "...the 'dummies' were faster racehorses than her." On what facts are you basing this statement?



> I too had moments of academic success, (after
> years of academic failure). Though I enjoyed my
> success, I wasn’t dumb enough to think I was
> smarter than the “slow learners”.

I am glad that you enjoyed academic success in your later school years, because this is an important kind of success to attain when a child is growing up...

...but why would you say that you weren't "dumb enough to think that [you] were smarter than the 'slow learners' " ? Are you saying that, in a given classroom of general students (means: students who have not been academically tracked) that there are no differences in learning abilities, or in the rapidity of learning, between the various students in a class? If this is what you are saying, this is not true. It would be mathematically improbable (to say the least) that all of the thirty or so students in a given classroom, who had NOT been previously evaluated for their learning abilities and skills, had equal scholastic abilities.

In most any general-population school the students in a given classroom are going to be from a spectrum of academic abilities, rather than all of them being at the [in general] "same" level. [And for whatever reason. I know a now-retired elementary school teacher who said he could tell in the first few days of a new semester which kids had alcoholic parents, because the kids would be either sleepy to the point of not being able to pay attention, or in some cases were actually sleeping in their seats, because they had not been able to sleep the night before due to the alcoholic chaos in their families.]


> Was that politically incorrect?

I don't think "politically incorrect" applies to your post or to this thread.

All kids aren’t at the same level. But some of the kids that appear to be slow learners or dummies might be children of alcoholics, victims of abuse, depressed, extremely uninterested in School, fascinated by what they are learning elsewhere - racehorses.

I’m not the first person to point out that sometimes struggling students are the truly brilliant kids. I spent most of my education daydreaming and flunked out of a few universities. Some people have enough going on in their mind that they aren’t paying attention the first time let alone the second third or fourth time.

So I’m not going to dismiss the kids who didn’t get A’s in Mrs. Jones’ fourth grade class. Or the security guard at the bank, or the country guitar player from Modesto who didn’t finish high school but who is brilliant.

We don’t all learn the same but I’d suggest it’s a mistake to dismiss kids as dummies or slow learners because they can’t parrot back what the teacher said. Really, if somebody thinks that their superior performance in public school means they’re smart and the poor performers are dummies, well, I have to wonder who the dummy is.

By the way, I have no doubt that the public school system was holding Catnip back. But I don’t think the problem with the public school system is dumb students.

http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2017 06:59AM by thingsithink.