Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
So you would be fine with BLM trans coloring books it’s the public school part you object to?
Parents gave a fundamental right to be allowed to indoctrinate their children, or to delegate that to whomever they trust.
The state doesn't have any right to indoctrinate anyone about anything and should be barred from doing that without exception.
Does this take surprise you in the slightest?
I guess if you view teaching tolerance for black people as cultural grooming akin to religious nuttery then it would certainly be concerning
If your concern is tolerance for trans people then I guess that would be concerning too
I don't really agree with your framing though. It just sounds like you don't like either black people or trans people
BLM isn't "teaching tolerance for black people".
Even disregarding the riots, BLM basic notion is am objective lie: that police kills unarmed black people more on purpose because of racism.
Based on that horrendous, toxic, lie, it then predicates systemic *state sponsored* anti black racism exists, and it should be fought.
That's simply, absolutely false in a complete way.
Not only there is no state sponsored anti black racism, there is explicit state sponsored pro-black racism.
Now you might disagree with my claims.
But ffs stop claiming there is no political controversy about BLM.
/
As for trans people, given 27 states ban "trans care" for minors while most of the others push it as a moral good and necessity, you have the explicit proof it is a politically controversial topic, and as such it should have absolutely no space in public schools.
Nothing that isn't considered absolutely obviously true by at least 80% of the voters of both parties should have a space in public schools.
Or in another way, if something isn't agreed upon by absolute majorities both in Oregon and in Alabama, then it shouldn't be part of school curricula.
I guess it’s just one of those things where yeah I’m trying to assess the proportion of the problem and whether there seems to be a selection bias going on. Here are a few examples recently where Republicans have attempted to introduce religion in public schools:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic...
Ten commandments displayed in every public schools is LA
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna181...
Optional classes for kids that include direct lessons from the bible, starting in kindergarten
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/okl...
Oklahoma requiring teaching the bible and including a bible in every classroom
My point is just that many people that are hyperfixated on the one issue never give their take on this issue.
Now having looked up the books they are quite cringe and seem to have been written by someone who spent too much time on tumblr or pre-Musk twitter. They also seem to signal towards being pro-communist and police abolition which I disagree with. Having said that I believe the spread of Christianity is much worse.
BLM isn't "teaching tolerance for black people".Even disregarding the riots, BLM basic notion is am objective lie: that police kills unarmed black people more on purpose because of racism.Based on that horrendous, toxic, lie, it then predicates systemic *state sponsored* anti black racism exists, and it should be fought.That's simply, absolutely false in a complete way.Not only
Taking norms into account is fine. But honestly it just doesn’t seem rational to never teach about controversial topics. Seems like there will be many questions of civics, history, religion, topics in literature, etc that will be controversial, let alone the AP classes that deal with actual college level material. I think your selection of criteria puts the cart before the horse.
Parents gave a fundamental right to be allowed to indoctrinate their children, or to delegate that to whomever they trust.
The state doesn't have any right to indoctrinate anyone about anything and should be barred from doing that without exception.
Does this take surprise you in the slightest?
It does surprise me because part of my conception of public schools is to inculcate kids into certain pro-social values. The anarchist egoist would say, hey this or that mundane thing (say, not stealing) is actually an indoctrination.
Leaving people with just the choices of private schools just pushes off the problem, because that just means that you have no democratic say over what those values ought to be in a libertarian free market. You better hope that at least some school shares your values else you might have to homeschool.
Taking norms into account is fine. But honestly it just doesn’t seem rational to never teach about controversial topics. Seems like there will be many questions of civics, history, religion, topics in literature, etc that will be controversial, let alone the AP classes that deal with actual college level material. I think your selection of criteria puts the cart before th
If a way existed to actually teach "both sides" for controversial topics it would be a lot better than not discussing it.
Given there is no way to do that , that i know of, then i think just not touching anything that is controversial politically is far preferable.
Yes the left made what was previously uncontroversial, controversial a lot for history, religion, civics. That's a problem. But we can't allow them to indoctrinate children on their own pseudo-religious values with taxpayers money.
They chose to destroy the fabric of what allows a society to function (fully shared basic values), the least we can do it to stop them propagating their nefarious, evil, toxic ideology using public money.
How do you discuss trans issues in schools when states have DRAMATICALLY different opinions about them, value-wise? what would an acceptable (for both the median democrat voter and median republican voter) curriculum look like? the entire edifice of trans issue is built upon pseudo-science invented by exclusively radical leftist extremist, including orwellian newspeak to describe stuff that we described with very different words just a few decades ago.
How do you discuss BLM if the entire movement was founded on an absolute lie? how do you treat the fact that blacks commit disproportionately more crime and thus encounter police disproportionately, and that is why they get killed more, and per encounter they aren't killed more often? if you say that , you fully negate the entire leftist narrative. If you omit that, you omit foundational facts on the topic.
It's intractable because one party is absolutely objectively wrong. It's not just a value issue, it's objective lies predicated by radical extremists vs normal people staying with facts. It's like trying to teach creationism.
I guess it’s just one of those things where yeah I’m trying to assess the proportion of the problem and whether there seems to be a selection bias going on. Here are a few examples recently where Republicans have attempted to introduce religion in public schools:
pretty sure i addressed the Oklahoma bible thing when it happened. And to be clear, it's exceptionally less terrible to teach the bible (at least a ton of actual western history and tradition and architecture and literature is linked to it) than to teach BLM or trans issues.
Still, given how controversial that is, it shouldn't be taught.
If Luciom was a US Senator:
In other news, Carlson / Cruz are basically the two people vying for the "most punchable face in the world" spot.
Of all of Lucy’s theoretical horseshit I can safely say I didn’t have ‘recycling is a Marxist scam’ on my bingo card
I’m not surprised, but still unexpected
Of all of Lucy’s theoretical horseshit I can safely say I didn’t have ‘recycling is a Marxist scam’ on my bingo card
I’m not surprised, but still unexpected
He didn't say recycling is a scam he specifically said plastic recycling is a scam but not glass or paper.
Let's try to give him the space to explain this it might be the most interesting thing I hear today.
It does surprise me because part of my conception of public schools is to inculcate kids into certain pro-social values. The anarchist egoist would say, hey this or that mundane thing (say, not stealing) is actually an indoctrination.Leaving people with just the choices of private schools just pushes off the problem, because that just means that you have no democratic say over
It was originally that, as the "western" model of public education largely stems from two influences:
1. Schooling meant to teach people to read the Bible. This was a big thing after the reformation, which held that people needed to be able to do that for themselves.
2. "The Prussian model", a tax-funded compulsory education with a meant to teach people to read, teach basic skills, instill national identity and teach Christian values.
Schools as a means to instill specific values or religion was controversial back then, and it is still controversial today. However, with industrialization came enormous demands for increasingly skilled labor, which required more education. The education systems expanded, with higher and higher emphasis on knowledge and skills and things like teaching Religious doctrine or instilling national values slowly took a back seat.
Of course, in this day and age a lot of people think "don't be mean to someone based on their skincolor" is about the most horrifyingly controversial thing you can tell a kid, so things have gotten difficult. Strangely, I have this notion that a lot of those people are just fine with the idea of Prussian teachers slapping kids around for not being deferential enough to the Kaiser.
Taking norms into account is fine. But honestly it just doesn’t seem rational to never teach about controversial topics. Seems like there will be many questions of civics, history, religion, topics in literature, etc that will be controversial, let alone the AP classes that deal with actual college level material. I think your selection of criteria puts the cart befo
Everything is controversial to some. Teach people to be responsible consumers of information and they shouldn't have a problem with controversies.
Of course, some parents or interested parties are insulted because schools allow girls to swim, for teaching basic science on the origin of species or teaching kids some very humanitarian values (aka. human rights). And sure, on some philosophical level there is a debate to be had on the state's role in teaching anyone anything. Still, at the end of the day this is also a practical debate. There is nothing to indicate that private schools somehow resolves this conundrum. Even on the free market, you can't shop for the curriculum you want, you can only shop for the curriculums offered. At the other end of the scale, homeschooling is simply too inefficient when it comes to use of resources.
this is absolutely untrue, nowhere have i ever said anything of the sortlike i said, you can say "oh so you're pro murder and stealing" if someone didn't want the ten commandments taught in school and it'd be an equally unfair attack like the one you just made to me that not wanting that in schools is akin to disliking blacks and transit's a cheap argument that is unfounded - t
You caught me. I tried to edit it out because it was a needless pot shot
Kids in all corners of the world are being given coloring books that depict a genocidal desert god destroying the entire world’s population because they were too sinful. Can you report on that too?
Can you agree that neither should be given to kids?
on the surface there's nothing wrong with itbut this is the very exact kind of grooming that the left insists doesn't exist and everyone else is making upcoordi, the main thing here is this isn't education, this is cultural programmingeven though it's stuff in which i think we can all agree is not something anyone would have issues with unless they were a terrible person - you
Why would a person be considered terrible for having issue with this? What about having certain preferences about things makes a person terrible?
It still just sounds like "we don't want our kids being taught that black/trans...."
are marginalized?
deserve empathy?
have a right to exist?
no I don't really agree
To put it another way, the US is a mixed society. Saying "tolerate black people" is beneficial to a mixed society.
Saying "practice Christianity" isn't beneficial to a mixed society that includes jews, muslims, hindus, satanists and etc.
Comparing the two is objectively nonsense unless you just want a white christian ethnostate
I think the bigger concern is indoctrinating children at this young age with any of this is problematic.
I think the bigger concern is indoctrinating children at this young age with any of this is problematic.
That doesn't make any sense. Parents indoctrinate their kids into literal cults and you guys think thats their right even if down the line their kids will ultimately reject that indoctrination and disown their family. We indoctrinate kids with the national anthem and thats okay because national pride is considered benefitial to society.
So parents can **** up their kids because of parents rights
And the nation can indoctrinate its citizens for the "benefit to society"
Even if you view tolerance as indoctrination, its objectively a "benefit to society"
None of this follows any sort of logical pathway. That, again, points to the issue being either black people or trans people and not the act itself
