Yes, you to can inject Liberal Social Justice Racism & Exclusion into any equation.
The phrase “two plus two equals five” (“2 + 2 = 5”) is a slogan used in many different forms of media, most notably in Part One, Chapter Seven of the book 1984 by George Orwell. In the novel, it is used as an example of an obviously false dogma that one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans promoted by the Party in the novel. It is contrasted with the phrase “two plus two makes four”, the obvious—but politically incorrect—truth.
the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls one’s own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink (“Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once”)
Reality is set by The Party. The Party is Reality.
Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. … The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened” – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs.”
So if The Party (aka Democrats and SJW Liberals) say 2+2=5, then it does. The End.
The Party is Reality and Reality is The Party. Math included.
- Teach for America and EdX are partnering to provide a training course for middle-school math teachers on how to incorporate social justice into their curricula.
- According to the course developers, regular math is “too abstract” for many students, and incorporating social justice can help them better understand “the power and meaning” of math.
This summer, middle school math teachers can learn how to incorporate social justice issues like racism and privilege into their classrooms.
“Teaching Social Justice through Secondary Mathematics” is a six-week online course designed by Teach for America and offered through EdX, which provides free online classes from top universities such as Harvard University, MIT, and Columbia University.
“Do you ask students to think deeply about…social justice issues within your mathematics classroom?”
Unveiled earlier this month, the course aims to teach math instructors how to craft lesson-plans that incorporate social justice in order to raise their students’ awareness.
“Do you ask students to think deeply about global and local social justice issues within your mathematics classroom?” a course overview asks. “This education and teacher training course will help you blend secondary math instruction with topics such as inequity, poverty, and privilege to transform students into global thinkers and mathematicians.”
According to the website, the course can even help students to learn math, because while many aspects of middle- and high-school math “can seem abstract to students,” the developers claim that “setting the mathematics within a specially-developed social justice framework can help students realize the power and meaning of both the data and social justice concerns.”
Participants in the online course are given sample ideas for lessons they could create, such as using math to teach students about “Unpaid Work Hours in the Home by Gender” and “Race and Imprisonment Rates in the United States.”
The module also identifies five main themes of “intersectional mathematics,” including “mathematical ethics,” which refers to the notion that math is often used as a tool of oppression, according to the instructors.
“For centuries, mathematics has been used as a dehumanizing tool,” they write, citing the example of how IQ can be used against people who score in the lower half of the distribution.
To remedy math’s contribution to oppression, teachers are thus encouraged to think of ways that math can be used to advocate for marginalized populations, to which end they are encouraged to read an article by an English teacher from Hawaii, Christina Torres, who argues that failing to teach students about social justice is a “wasted opportunity” to provide them with the “tools to subvert power, question normalcy, and change society as we understand it.”
Despite its emphasis on liberal priorities, the instructors insist that social justice can be taught “without bias” as long as instructors select topics that they feel they can discuss with neutrality.
“This is not an opportunity for a teacher to impose his or her beliefs on the students. It is important to choose topics about which you feel you can be pedagogically neutral,” they state, clarifying that “Quality social justice and mathematics exploration in the K-12 classroom should be apolitical and non-agenda-driven.”
Danielle Montoya, vice president of communications at Teach for America, told Campus Reform that social justice is a part of “culturally responsive teaching” while praising the course as a model for promoting “positive change” and civic engagement.
“We share the understanding that social justice is recognizing and acting upon our individual and collective ability to create positive change,” Montoya said. “This is one way to give students the tools to be engaged citizens, prepared to contribute to their communities.”
2+2=5 because they say so. Period. The End. That’s is the reality of The Left.
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?