Education Vs. Brainwashing

[Maou]

Oh, I agree. Even at 90k a year, those tax exemptions and deductions don't benefit me. I'm wondering how much I would have to make for them to benefit me. I'm more and more on the side of the fact that they shouldn't exist at all. I'd place removing tax exemption as part of "taxing the rich" actually.

I definitely think money made in investments should count as taxable income if unemployment payments do (especially since you already pay for unemployment out of your taxes). The more I've learned about the system we've set up, the more I learn it is rigged.

Taxes in general for lower and middle class should be what gets deregulated. And yeah, how the rich avoid paying taxes is insane. It wouldn't necessarily be "taxing the rich" but more like they are finally paying taxes. There also should not be tax on literally everything. It's complete BS unemployment is taxable. Its BS you have to pay taxes on food, inheritance, etc. The state gets to tax you on top of the fed is also BS. The government has too much money, and wastes it on self interest, not maintaining the country.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Taxes in general for lower and middle class should be what gets deregulated. And yeah, how the rich avoid paying taxes is insane. It wouldn't necessarily be "taxing the rich" but more like they are finally paying taxes. There also should not be tax on literally everything. It's complete BS unemployment is taxable. Its BS you have to pay taxes on food, inheritance, etc. The state gets to tax you on top of the fed is also BS. The government has too much money, and wastes it on self interest, not maintaining the country.

In Illinois, the state constitution says you can't actually tax the rich more. We tried to have a referendum to change that and at least one billionaire ran ads making it look like it would allow Springfield to raise taxes (which they can already do... the issue was who would be taxed) and a bunch of people fell for that.

This billionaire is on record saying that he doesn't think the rich have enough influence in politics, and he also was the number one donor to the campaign of the former mayor Rahm Emanuel (who was also Obama's chief of staff, which really tells you that this is a bipartisan problem).

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

It's also not uncommon for billionaires to donate to both parties during an election. Kind of covers all of the bases.

 

[ceecee]

It's also not uncommon for billionaires to donate to both parties during an election. Kind of covers all of the bases.

They're buying access so they have to disregard party, of course. I just wouldn't have bet a company like Toyota would be that out with their shit donor philosophy.

Toyota defends donating $55,000 to 37 Republicans who voted against certifying election result | Daily Mail Online

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

The ability to critically think. An educated person can debate and make arguments from both sides. If you are unable to articulate one side, then you do not have enough information/understanding and are probably biased, uncomfortable, ignoring, etc. Usually the result of peer pressure and stigma.

True, all because it was written, doesn't make it so.

Just look at the Middle East.

the History was written by the winners and there's an on going dispute with no end in sight.

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

Brainwashing, what if North America is Islamophobic and it's been brainwashed in?

 

[ceecee]

Brainwashing, what if North America is Islamophobic and it's been brainwashed in?

It has. Propaganda to attain support for bombing/occupying Muslim countries and killing Muslims. I don't think you will find much argument there.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

To go back to the OP, brainwashing is a specific form of ignorance: willful ignorance, imposed from the outside, but often collective in nature. You might say brainwashing is teaching designed to close off inquiry, whereas "real" education is designed to stimulate and satisfy it.

Interesting, you mean like say incorporating a more "patriotic" curriculum into schools, as though what was there didn't already leave enough out?

 

[Coriolis]

Interesting, you mean like say incorporating a more "patriotic" curriculum into schools, as though what was there didn't already leave enough out?

What would you consider to be a patriotic curriculum, and how does that tie to my comment that you quoted?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What would you consider to be a patriotic curriculum, and how does that tie to my comment that you quoted?

I'm just thinking about the "1776" project some Republicans are in favor of which I'll bet contains a lot of brainwashing and omits even more than the usual U.S. history curriculum.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm just thinking about the "1776" project some Republicans are in favor of which I'll bet contains a lot of brainwashing and omits even more than the usual U.S. history curriculum.

I have never heard of that one. I could tell you what I think should be in the U.S History curriculum, but from what you suggest it probably looks a good bit different from that.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I have never heard of that one. I could tell you what I think should be in the U.S History curriculum, but from what you suggest it probably looks a good bit different from that.

What would you include?

 

[Coriolis]

What would you include?

Three components:

1. Actual historical content about the origins of our country, including the native societies here before the colonies, and events and developments through the present day. I know this already can be divisive as people argue about what should be included, especially when it comes to perspectives traditionally left out of our history, e.g. native Americans, enslaved Africans, even women. Much of that exclusion was contemporary to those people's lives, so they can be hard to see in an honest but cursory review of the source materials. I am no history expert, but I suspect there are reliable sources, e.g. in our leading universities, that are incorporating new historical information in a responsible way as it comes to light. Obviously what is presented must be age-appropriate, with younger students getting top-level information, and older ones going into more depth and detail.
2. Information about how our government was designed to work, and actually does work in the present day. This usually is considered civics rather than history, and should be as factual and practical as possible. It should lead up to HS seniors registering to vote if eligible, and ideally direct exposure to the voting process (helping at polls, etc.).
3. Discussion and analysis of all of the above. This is where the critical thinking comes in especially. Once students learn how things are set up, they can discuss how well it is working, what issues come up, what might work better, etc. On the history side, discussion can address why things happened, and what that means for us today.

Schools often have trouble finding good math and science teachers, because especially at the HS level, those subjects are considered more challenging to teach. I actually find them much more straightforward, provided the teacher has the appropriate academic background. I have heard of far more bad history teaching, whether U.S. or world. This usually means an overreliance on memorizing dates and facts, and reciting superficial accounts rather than digging into the underlying causes and ramifications of historical events. It is much harder to teach history well.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Three components:

1. Actual historical content about the origins of our country, including the native societies here before the colonies, and events and developments through the present day. I know this already can be divisive as people argue about what should be included, especially when it comes to perspectives traditionally left out of our history, e.g. native Americans, enslaved Africans, even women. Much of that exclusion was contemporary to those people's lives, so they can be hard to see in an honest but cursory review of the source materials. I am no history expert, but I suspect there are reliable sources, e.g. in our leading universities, that are incorporating new historical information in a responsible way as it comes to light. Obviously what is presented must be age-appropriate, with younger students getting top-level information, and older ones going into more depth and detail.
2. Information about how our government was designed to work, and actually does work in the present day. This usually is considered civics rather than history, and should be as factual and practical as possible. It should lead up to HS seniors registering to vote if eligible, and ideally direct exposure to the voting process (helping at polls, etc.).
3. Discussion and analysis of all of the above. This is where the critical thinking comes in especially. Once students learn how things are set up, they can discuss how well it is working, what issues come up, what might work better, etc. On the history side, discussion can address why things happened, and what that means for us today.

Schools often have trouble finding good math and science teachers, because especially at the HS level, those subjects are considered more challenging to teach. I actually find them much more straightforward, provided the teacher has the appropriate academic background. I have heard of far more bad history teaching, whether U.S. or world. This usually means an overreliance on memorizing dates and facts, and reciting superficial accounts rather than digging into the underlying causes and ramifications of historical events. It is much harder to teach history well.

I would agree with all of that.

But some people think the only point of history is to "feel comforting". Hence, the 1776 project.

 

[Coriolis]

I would agree with all of that.

But some people think the only point of history is to "feel comforting". Hence, the 1776 project.

I see no comfort in ignorance. The best way to instill patriotism - love of and commitment to country - is to teach kids the truth about the country, including its ideals, and the tools they can use as adults to help it live up to them better.

 

[anticlimatic]

As racist and insane as universities have become, I try to remember back to the “American pie” days when absolute douchebaggery was the norm and nobody ever really felt that safe. It’s like they took the right steps somewhere but wildly overcorrected. We can’t figure out how to just educate our young minds without fucking them up in some other way it seems.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I see no comfort in ignorance. The best way to instill patriotism - love of and commitment to country - is to teach kids the truth about the country, including its ideals, and the tools they can use as adults to help it live up to them better.

Right but that upsets some people if it conflicts with what they want to believe.

 

[Coriolis]

Right but that upsets some people if it conflicts with what they want to believe.

Indeed, which brings us right back to willful ignorance, especially as collectively imposed in the guise of education.

 

[Falcarius]

Falcarius finds de-platforming, safe space, and other self-censorship a bigger issue than brainwashing in liberal democracy.

For example, Falcarius more or less went to a religious school for a handful of years but turned out an agnostic at best and an atheist at worst. Falcarius held it against, Jesus, for having to sing shitting hymns about him, being forced having to pray for one's sins, and having to say grace before eating. Hence, even with Flacarius' school best effort to indoctrinate and make him into a good Christian, in all probability, had the opposite impact on Falcarius. They tried to brainwashed Falcarius to think a certain way but can't stop him from disagreeing. Whereas self-censorship wants to stop people from thinking at all, disagreeing, and essentially everyone to think the same, which in turn goes pretty much against the very purpose of education.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Falcarius finds de-platforming, safe space, and other self-censorship a bigger issue than brainwashing in liberal democracy.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, with the possible exception of de-platforming, because it is easy for me to see how that could swing the other way. Generally I think the ability of media monopolies to shape popular opinion is disconcerting and seem to be rather effective at tamping down critical thought among those who rely on them. I remember them being quite effective at marshalling support for war in the past and they still seem to retain quite a bit of sway.

Safe spaces used to bother me, but I now think it is probably for the better if there are a set of community norms that foster inclusivity and encourage diverse perspectives. It tends to decrease assholish behavior of all sorts, from what I've witnessed. The issue, furthermore, isn't really between a safe space and freedom where people can say whatever they want, but a safe space including only one sort of person, and a safe space including many sorts of people. I've participated in a variety of internet of internet arenas over the years that were safe spaces but for white male types. Generally there wasn't much in the way of toleration of opinions, attitudes, or modes of behavior outside of their own worldview. Being a bit of an asshole was generally ok, sincerity was frowned upon. What I've found is that a great deal of outrage about safe spaces is really people being indignant that they were now overwhelmed with younger newcomers who tended to think it might be a better environment if people didn't act like assholes as often. That's true on the internet, and I'm inclined to think it holds in real life as well. The concern isn't so much about a free marketplace of ideas being taken away, it's more about finding it less easy to assert a certain authority that was previously taken for granted.

As for self-censorship, I find far less of me engaging in that lately than I have at any point in the past. I would say that for a combination of personal reasons as well as shifts in the political climate, I feel more free to speak my mind than I ever have previously. I'm not sure where this idea of self-censorship is coming from, but I've heard someone else mention this too.