Author Topic: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea  (Read 2384 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr. Perfect

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4328
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2018, 09:30:55 am »
Teaching is not the same as indoctrination.  Thatís a false equivalence.


Offline Mr. Perfect

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4328
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #76 on: February 15, 2018, 09:39:20 am »
Ok.  So it's "Insidious" if something is taught by people who are not of our idealogical tribe.

No.  Itís insidious to indoctrinate children into believing something that has no basis in reality.

Quote
Is it ok if Christians teach Christian values that overlap with commonly-held community values ?

Or is it insidious ?

Youíre conflating teaching with indoctrination again.   The why question is also important.

ďCuz God says soĒ is not a firm basis to teach values.

Quote
Is it ok if conservatives teach conservative values that overlap with commonly-held community values ?

Or is it insidious ?

Can their truth be questioned?   Teaching anything is fine.   Indoctrination isnít.   If you donít know the difference, a simple Googl search will point you in the right direction.   Hint:  religious sources will tell you theyíre the same thing....   hmmm....  I wonder why this is.


Quote
Is it ok if we teach Canadian values ?  What are Canadian values ?

Do I ask too many questions ?

Do we send children to Values re-education (like Sunday school) and teach them these values are never to be questioned because if you do, a lake of fire awaits your soul?

If so, then itís insidious.

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2922
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2018, 09:57:04 am »
Indoctrination is teaching a particular set of values.

When "conservatives" (and I use quotes because I don't believe they represent all or even the majority of conservatives) complain about children being indoctrinated in schools, they're saying that they don't ascribe to the values that are being taught. Schools must teach children how to be socially functional. When people say that schools are indoctrinating kids because schools don't allow boys to be boys because they can't punch other kids, call them names, fondle the girls, etc., those people are saying that they don't want children to be given values that promote social functioning and cohesion. Those values need to be taught for a functioning society. However, there is an increasingly large contingent of people that hold an anti-social value system that isn't interested in social cohesion. They're only interested in preserving social stratification and their dominant position within those structures. They were called The Tea Party before and now we're dealing with the Alt-Right. Their views are inherently anti-social and for some reason they believe they should be seriously humoured.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #78 on: February 15, 2018, 12:04:39 pm »
I think a more important question is whether or not schools should be teaching values. If not what would it look like if they didn't. When two kids get into a fight, are we to just let them go at it without any consequences because any sort of punishment would be value-normative? Why is it "progressive" values to punish students for behaving badly by being harmful to others either verbally or physically? Honestly, there's nothing rational about this discussion. It's just another example of individuals' unsubstantiated whining about "social justice warriors," or "progressives," or "liberals" [which ironically has nothing to do with "social justice" and more to do with liberty].

Are you under the illusion that schools allowed fighting 'back in the day'? Schools had strict rules of behaviour and strict enforcement of those rules. They did not, however, see it as their mission to ensure that every student felt good about his or herself, that they be rewarded for 'trying' even if they sucked at something, that they be protected from unflattering assessments of their schoolmates (unless teacher overheard) or that they must embrace all races, religions, ethnicities, and sexual and gender orientations without preference or prejudice. They felt it was the job of the school teacher to teach English, Math, Science, Geography and History. The job of teaching a child morality was deemed to belong to family and church.

At some point, however, the progressives in education decided it was the job of the schools to teach morality - their morality, not what the parents of the child in question might consider to be proper morality. And in general, some of this is good. But it was never the school's job, and they've pushed aside core educational needs to make more room for morality teaching - or indoctrination. 
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #79 on: February 15, 2018, 12:10:06 pm »
Indoctrination is teaching a particular set of values.

When "conservatives" (and I use quotes because I don't believe they represent all or even the majority of conservatives) complain about children being indoctrinated in schools, they're saying that they don't ascribe to the values that are being taught.

Indoctrination is indoctrination regardless of whether the school or the church is doing it, and regardless of whether it is left or right.

Quote
Schools must teach children how to be socially functional.

They always taught that - through strict rules of behaviour, but now they teach it less. Now children are protected from challenges to their fragile psyches and left largely unprepared for a life of challenge.

Quote
When people say that schools are indoctrinating kids because schools don't allow boys to be boys because they can't punch other kids, call them names, fondle the girls, etc., those people are saying that they don't want children to be given values that promote social functioning and cohesion.

Again, are you presuming that boys fought it out in the halls and school yards without punishment thirty or forty or fifty years ago? Or fondled girls or whatever?

Quote
Those values need to be taught for a functioning society. However, there is an increasingly large contingent of people that hold an anti-social value system that isn't interested in social cohesion.

Really? Progressives have been in command of schools for decades now, and teaching progressive social values for decades now. And yet you say there is an increasingly large contingent of people that hold anti-social views. Correlation is not causation of course but if what you say is true then it seems like the schools have been doing a pretty damned lousy job of teaching social values.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9053
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #80 on: February 15, 2018, 12:11:34 pm »
I think a more important question is whether or not schools should be teaching values. If not what would it look like if they didn't. When two kids get into a fight, are we to just let them go at it without any consequences because any sort of punishment would be value-normative? Why is it "progressive" values to punish students for behaving badly by being harmful to others either verbally or physically? Honestly, there's nothing rational about this discussion. It's just another example of individuals' unsubstantiated whining about "social justice warriors," or "progressives," or "liberals" [which ironically has nothing to do with "social justice" and more to do with liberty].

I assume you are asking rhetorically.  Of course schools teach values but maybe we need to build a stronger understanding for what a value is, what purpose it serves, and how we can disagree.

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9053
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #81 on: February 15, 2018, 12:14:12 pm »
No.  Itís insidious to indoctrinate children into believing something that has no basis in reality.

Such as "being kind to others is a good thing" ?

Quote
Youíre conflating teaching with indoctrination again.   The why question is also important.

I think they're two sides of the same coin.  Teaching people about climate change is seen as indoctrination by certain folks, right ?



Quote
ďCuz God says soĒ is not a firm basis to teach values.

Is "cuz we say so" more rational or even better ?

Quote
Can their truth be questioned?   Teaching anything is fine.   Indoctrination isnít.   If you donít know the difference, a simple Googl search will point you in the right direction.   Hint:  religious sources will tell you theyíre the same thing....   hmmm....  I wonder why this is.

I am honestly exploring these questions along with you so I don't have a strong position but is it really easy to parse teaching from indoctrination ?

 

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9053
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #82 on: February 15, 2018, 12:15:53 pm »
An interesting topic broke out but I am going to start a new thread.

https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/teaching-vs-indoctrination/

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2922
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #83 on: February 15, 2018, 12:30:42 pm »
The job of teaching a child morality was deemed to belong to family and church.
And when they don't, then what?

Regardless, you're completely mistaken that values weren't taught in school. Values have always been taught in schools. The high school that I went to had "teach me goodness" as part of their latin motto. Is that not values?

And as far as divorcing religion and families from schools, are you under some illusion that families and churches weren't intimately involved with the running of schools, even moreso than they are today even?

Kids don't just learn values at home and never have. They spend more time in school than anywhere else. Consequently, they learn far more about social values from their interactions at school than anywhere else. I don't know what makes you think that values were never taught in school. If you're so certain that the method of teaching values in schools has changed dramatically, perhaps you might want to give empirical evidence as the drastic changes that have taken place.

In fact, I would go so far as to say indoctrination is far less today than it ever was because socially we're moving towards greater plurality in society. As a result, children aren't being indoctrinated into any particular value, as they would have been in the past (e.g., Catholic values in Catholic schools and Protestant values in public schools). They're learning to be open and accepting to people of different backgrounds because that's a basic requirement to function within a social melieu that is increasingly pluralized over time.

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2922
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #84 on: February 15, 2018, 12:36:18 pm »
Which cuts to the exact issue you continue running into, SirJohn: plurality. Your complaints about indoctrination are the last gasps of an ideology that's mourning the loss of white hegemony. You don't want kids learning how to function in a pluralized society because you don't want a pluralized society. All of your points come down to the same white nationalist agenda, thinly veiled as concern about myriad other issues. This one just so happens to be "progressive indoctrination," the next thread will be "women-hating Muslims." It all comes down to the same sick ideology that thinks our society is weakened by plurality.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #85 on: February 15, 2018, 12:46:27 pm »
And when they don't, then what?

Was society not well-ordered in the 1950s? Were crazed anti-social loons running amok in the streets? What about the 1850s? Kids used to be free range both these times, able to wander far and wide and explore their world with each other, learning how to socialize with each other as they grew up. Now they're tied to their mom's apron springs and never leave the house alone until they're well into their teens. Is this your orderly progressive society?

Quote
And as far as divorcing religion and families from schools, are you under some illusion that families and churches weren't intimately involved with the running of schools, even moreso than they are today even?

MUCH more than today. That's the point. It's bureaucrats making the decisions, most of them driven by their own ideological social beliefs. but it's not THEIR kids.

Quote
Kids don't just learn values at home and never have. They spend more time in school than anywhere else. Consequently, they learn far more about social values from their interactions at school than anywhere else.

Yes, but those interactions are now tightly policed and guided by adults at all times. There's little room for children to figure out and learn how to interact and socialize with each other free of adults because they're never free of adults.  Every time someone does or say something they don't like they can run to teacher, coach or whatever adult is watching over all they do.

Quote
I don't know what makes you think that values were never taught in school. If you're so certain that the method of teaching values in schools has changed dramatically, perhaps you might want to give empirical evidence as the drastic changes that have taken place.

What drastic changes? Other than children not being safe to leave the house alone, and according to you, a growing number of people out there with anti-social values. Where are these people coming from?

Quote
In fact, I would go so far as to say indoctrination is far less today than it ever was because socially we're moving towards greater plurality in society.

But not in schools. At any level. Diversity is a key goal of progressives except for ideological diversity, which they shun.]
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #86 on: February 15, 2018, 12:47:23 pm »
Which cuts to the exact issue you continue running into, SirJohn: plurality. Your complaints about indoctrination are the last gasps of an ideology that's mourning the loss of white hegemony.

You really are obsessed with your racial **** aren't you?
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2922
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2018, 12:48:14 pm »
You really are obsessed with your racial **** aren't you?
You really like putting things on other people what they call out about you. It's hilariously narcissistic. I'm responding to your ideas.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2018, 12:53:10 pm »
You really like putting things on other people what they call out about you. It's hilariously narcissistic. I'm responding to your ideas.

You're imputing motivation for what others say even when that has little or nothing to do with race.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Thanks for the Ignore List Idea
« Reply #89 on: February 15, 2018, 12:58:27 pm »
There is great irony in this thread