EhForumUser
The dictionary defines refugee as : “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.” While those could lead to mortal danger, they may only lead to undue suffering. Fleeing one’s home to avoid said undue suffering still qualifies as refugeeism, as refugee is defined by the dictionary.
Of course, the dictionary is only a record of observation around how people have commonly use words in the past, not some kind of rule of law. Language is merely a tool, and one that is available to be used by the user as they see fit. Refugee is whatever we want it to be, and from context we understand that refugee here means someone who left Reddit to use Lemmy. How refugee is used in other contexts is irrelevant.
Wouldn’t you say that the real problem is that the entire system of government is designed around the concept of local representation, whereas the people actually want global representation?
We have come up with hacks like political parties to try and bolt global representation onto a system designed for local representation, but these are ultimately hacks. FPP is quite well suited to the original structure of the Westminster system, but is incompatible with the hacks we’ve introduced along the way. If we are adamant that we must keep this system of hacks, then adding more electoral reform hacks on top is a necessity to keep things functioning well.
But do we need hacks at all when we also have the ability to start from the ground up and establish government around global representation from the get-go?
I give my children unfettered access to technology. It is very much a last resort for them, only picking up a device when they have exhausted all other visible opportunity to do something more interesting. Suggesting that they do almost anything else is met with “Yeah! Let’s do that!”
If a student is reaching for their phone in class, the problem is with something about the class. Being old, cell phones came in giant bags when I was a student, but we played with our calculators, doodled, or anything else to stave off the same boredom when we had a horrible teacher who had no clue as to what they were doing. The phone is just a more modern version of the exact same quest for distraction.
I think the point is that we need to question why we are wasting our students’ time in classes which are not providing value. There is a lot of sentimental attachment to school, but ultimately there is no need for make work projects. The focus needs to be on delivering value and where that is not being delivered a rethink is necessary.
Phone use, or any such distraction, is a symptom telling us that there is a problem in value delivery. Suppressing a symptom does not cure the illness.
Distractions don’t help, but they also don’t hinder, so long as value is being delivered. What would even compel one to reach for their phone if greater value is derived by not using it?
Of course, if you have attended school before you know full well that value is not consistently delivered. A lot of teachers don’t know how to approach a class, period. Even when they do, not all students can be approached the same way. When the stars align value can be provided, but it is a highly imperfect system.
Nothing in life is perfect, and knowing that, why shove the clearly imperfect parts down students’ throats unnecessarily? They are not deriving value from it. Again, I understand the sentimental attachment, but that is not a good reason.
A distraction, by definition, must provide some amount of value. The amount is likely low, but must offer more than what it is in competition with. Certainly when a class is offering no value, the value of a distraction need not be high to be able to offer more value.
We agree that students not deriving value are a distraction to the teacher. Send them on their way to find something that is providing them value/more value than TikTok. While we have primarily focused on the wasting of student time, we have also touched on it being a waste of teacher time. As before, we don’t need make work projects.
The focus must be on value delivery. When value is not being delivered, there needs to be a rethink. Suppressing a symptom does not cure the illness and sentimental attachment is not good reason to hang on to an illness.
What did you change?
The fundamentality of cost is a means to manage scarcity. If something is running thin, meaning there is less of a thing than those who wish to have that thing, then cost must rise such that enough people lose interest in having that thing (i.e. it becomes unaffordable), yielding to those who still do want the thing.
The addition of ‘unaffordable’ changes nothing. It is already encoded in the original statement.
A distraction must provide value and it must provide more value than the alternative. Humans always seek to maximize available value, so if there is no value proposition then the behaviour will not take place.
The dopamine hit of TikTok can be pretty decent value, all things considered. An un-engaging teacher droning on is of decidedly low value. If the teacher cannot rise above TikTok, TikTok is going to win every time.
Decent value is not high value, though. It is not that hard to provide value that exceeds that of TikTok. You only have to step outside to see kids doing all kinds of interesting things without phones in their faces. Again, you only see the phones come out when the alternative is of depressingly low value.
I get the feeling you are trying to push what you find valuable onto others. Life doesn’t work that way. Value is determined by each individual for themselves.