and if it has inequities, we should strive to eliminate them, yes? shouldn't someone who benefits from those inequities be obligated to help those who are harmed by them?
the kids who had control of the Lego had a set of rules. other kids didn't have a say. the Lego was taken away so it wouldn't distract from the discussion, and then all the children developed rules they were happy with.
maybe not. but children do experience power imbalances in their own lives, particularly when dealing with their peers. and it's valuable to learn how to identify them, and how to build better systems that benefit everybody.
> "We’d audiotaped the discussion so that we’d be able to revisit it during our weekly teaching team meeting to tease out important themes and threads. The children’s thoughts, questions, and tensions would guide us as we planned our next steps."
is this what you're referring to?
they recorded one initial discussion so the teachers could collaborate and think more about the best way to resolve this conflict.
and honestly, it sounds like they taped it just because it was easier than having someone take meeting minutes. have you tried keeping up with 5-9 years-olds talking? it's exhausting.
so you're acknowledging that our current political/economic system has built-in inequities? that playing by the rules is not a virtue in and of itself, especially if the rules cause harm to others?
except... it isn't? that's literally not what socialism or collectivism is. socialism is just the idea that "wealth" (or any substitute, like lego) should be owned by the community, and rules that bind that community should be made by a consensus of the members.
Setting a Linux process to a "realtime" priority (using SCHED_FIFO, etc.) will put above all non-RT /userspace/ processes. But doing that still means that the kernel can preempt you, if it decides to.