Education Vs. Brainwashing

[Falcarius]

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.

People like to say media moguls like Rupert Murdoch shape popular opinion but it not really the case. For example, here in England, News Corp's Sun newspaper actively supports the Conservative Party unless they think they are going to lose (in other words when Tony Blair was PM) while in Scotland supports the SNP. The Sun in Scotland was neutral in both EU and Scottish independence referendum while in England it was for Brexit and against Scottish independence. The same is true with the Irish Sun where it bigs up whenever it does a nationalist film or book review by calling it "heroic and revolutionary" while at the same time in the Scottish and English editions will call it a book or film about "murders and terrorists".

Even if Fox News does not have to fudge political position as it knows its viewer already expect it to be the voice of conservative America since very few people who are not already right-wing would bother tuning into Fox News. It is kind of patronizing to think it is brainwashing them since it is trying to represent the opinion of its viewers rather than shaping opinion. Media organizations are there to make money for the most part rather than shape popular opinion; hence, Rupert Murdoch doesn't really care about the average viewers' opinion politically as long as they keep turning in.

The USA has gone to war more than any country since WWII, has 800 military bases in more than 70 countries, and the biggest defense budget which is bigger than the next two highest-spending countries combined not because of media but because its citizens are hawkish and want that on the whole.

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.

Safe spaces are not to "foster inclusivity and encourage diverse perspectives" but to do the reverse by creating echo chambers they just use emotion and sensibility as an excuse. Nobody with self-confidence in their belief and values should have a problem debating them.

Self-censorship is all the rage with political correctness and can have devasting consequences. For example, In Falcarius hometown there was a child grooming case that went "unnoticed" for a decade, despite the child protective services and police knowing full well what was happening simply because the perpetrators were not white, so the social workers and police were too scared of being accused of being racist.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

People like to say media moguls like Rupert Murdoch shape popular opinion but it not really the case. For example, here in England, News Corp's Sun newspaper actively supports the Conservative Party unless they think they are going to lose (in other words when Tony Blair was PM) while in Scotland supports the SNP. The Sun in Scotland was neutral in both EU and Scottish independence referendum while in England it was for Brexit and against Scottish independence. The same is true with the Irish Sun where it bigs up whenever it does a nationalist film or book review by calling it "heroic and revolutionary" while at the same time in the Scottish and English editions will call it a book or film about "murders and terrorists".

Even if Fox News does not have to fudge political position as it knows its viewer already expect it to be the voice of conservative America since very few people who are not already right-wing would bother tuning into Fox News. It is kind of patronizing to think it is brainwashing them since it is trying to represent the opinion of its viewers rather than shaping opinion. Media organizations are there to make money for the most part rather than shape popular opinion; hence, Rupert Murdoch doesn't really care about the average viewers' opinion politically as long as they keep turning in.

The USA has gone to war more than any country since WWII, has 800 military bases in more than 70 countries, and the biggest defense budget which is bigger than the next two highest-spending countries combined not because of media but because its citizens are hawkish and want that on the whole.

The fact that media organizations are there to make money means that they will share stories that make money, which tends to be sensationalist "journalism." Presenting the facts in an unbiased manner doesn't really make the sweet ratings go up the way fear-mongering or capitalizing on outsized personalities does. The chief goal of these organizations is not to provide people with the most accurate information possible, but rather the stories that will keep the ratings up.

Last summer media outlets (probably not fox) was sharing a story about Russia paying bounties to the Taliban for American soldiers. Now it's been shown that the claims for this is dubious. During the run up to the war in Iraq, the information that the WMD claims were bogus was floating around out there, but this was not something that was seen worthy of top coverage.

Perhaps brainwashing isn't the right word, but these media empires basically profit off of misinformation if it will keep the ratings up. It's not profitable to do due diligence and you know, examine stories about Russian bounties before running that story. Better to just put it Tout there since it will keep people glued to the TV set. They also covered Donald Trump more than anyone else during 2016 since it was so good for ratings (this isn't just fox, and even now turn on MSNBC and they still talk about Trump constantly). To me it's impossible to look at the sorry state of corporate "journalism" and not conclude that this is probably the biggest threat to democracy.

I'll also note that sensationalism often trades in fear, and frightened people are easy pickings for unscrupulous politicians.

I'll also note that in your own country, didn't the media paint Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi? That definitely sounds like brainwashing, especially since they were doing it after he went to a Passover Seder.

Self-censorship is all the rage with political correctness and can have devasting consequences. For example, In Falcarius hometown there was a child grooming case that went "unnoticed" for a decade, despite the child protective services and police knowing full well what was happening simply because the perpetrators were not white, so the social workers and police were too scared of being accused of being racist.

In that case, they need to do their jobs. I still think it's less of an issue than all the things mentioned above which, for one thing, has a much higher body count in the past two decades and is being used to frighten people away from challenges.

Safe spaces are not to "foster inclusivity and encourage diverse perspectives" but to do the reverse by creating echo chambers they just use emotion and sensibility as an excuse. Nobody with self-confidence in their belief and values should have a problem debating them.

It depends. I think you could call a community where racial and homophobic slurs are not permitted a safe space. I'm fine with that, since I don't feel that adds to the quality of the discussion and isn't really presenting an idea, but just insulting people. I don't think "woke orthodoxy" is something that should be treated as an unquestionable political doctrine, but I'm not sure that when people want safe spaces that's always what they are talking about. I think there is value in creating certain standards of respect, and I think there are definitely instances when this is all people who want safe spaces are asking for. If that's too much for folks, we should really not insist on any standard of behavior at all.

 

[Coriolis]

The fact that media organizations are there to make money means that they will share stories that make money, which tends to be sensationalist "journalism." Presenting the facts in an unbiased manner doesn't really make the sweet ratings go up the way fear-mongering or capitalizing on outsized personalities does. The chief goal of these organizations is not to provide people with the most accurate information possible, but rather the stories that will keep the ratings up.

Last summer media outlets (probably not fox) was sharing a story about Russia paying bounties to the Taliban for American soldiers. Now it's been shown that the claims for this is dubious. During the run up to the war in Iraq, the information that the WMD claims were bogus was floating around out there, but this was not something that was seen worthy of top coverage.

Perhaps brainwashing isn't the right word, but these media empires basically profit off of misinformation if it will keep the ratings up. It's not profitable to do due diligence and you know, examine stories about Russian bounties before running that story. Better to just put it Tout there since it will keep people glued to the TV set. They also covered Donald Trump more than anyone else during 2016 since it was so good for ratings (this isn't just fox, and even now turn on MSNBC and they still talk about Trump constantly). To me it's impossible to look at the sorry state of corporate "journalism" and not conclude that this is probably the biggest threat to democracy.

I'll also note that sensationalism often trades in fear, and frightened people are easy pickings for unscrupulous politicians.

The media do the equivalent of give unlimited candy to children. The children may enjoy and clamor for it, but it is not in their best interests. This is what happens when profits come before the common good. Ideally there will be a balance. Companies will make money by providing goods and services that add substantively to people's quality of life. Too many instead make money by playing on people's emotions while providing little of real worth. It is like the rats that will keep pressing the button that gives them - I can't recall exactly what - some drug or other stimulus that triggers their pleasure center. They will push on this button to the exclusion of meeting their basic need for food.

It depends. I think you could call a community where racial and homophobic slurs are not permitted a safe space. I'm fine with that, since I don't feel that adds to the quality of the discussion and isn't really presenting an idea, but just insulting people. I don't think "woke orthodoxy" is something that should be treated as an unquestionable political doctrine, but I'm not sure that when people want safe spaces that's always what they are talking about. I think there is value in creating certain standards of respect, and I think there are definitely instances when this is all people who want safe spaces are asking for. If that's too much for folks, we should really not insist on any standard of behavior at all.

Safe spaces are not to "foster inclusivity and encourage diverse perspectives" but to do the reverse by creating echo chambers they just use emotion and sensibility as an excuse. Nobody with self-confidence in their belief and values should have a problem debating them.

Self-censorship is all the rage with political correctness and can have devasting consequences. For example, In Falcarius hometown there was a child grooming case that went "unnoticed" for a decade, despite the child protective services and police knowing full well what was happening simply because the perpetrators were not white, so the social workers and police were too scared of being accused of being racist.

To both of you: what is your definition of a "safe space"? This seems like just another buzzword where people will disagree because they are not talking about the same thing.

As for self-censorship, we do it all the time. How many people think their boss is a jerk, or their mother-in-law an overbearing busybody, but don't come out and say so? That "self-censorship" may save their jobs and their relationship with MIL. Ideally they will find a more constructive way to address legitimate conflicts in either situation. Some degree of self-censorship is needed just to demonstrate common courtesy, and to avoid acting on assumptions that prove to be false. The fact that the example you cite is an inappropriate case of self-censorship does not mean it is never beneficial.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

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.

Back before the internet (up to the early 90s), I think there was a consensus in "good society" about how society was supposed to act. Sure, there was douchebaggery and outright crime on "the other side of the tracks," that is, in the frat houses, in the blue-collar districts, in the ethnic districts, etc. But if you stayed on the right side of the tracks (in the good neighborhoods), then you should be okay. You did your thing, and the folks on the other side of the tracks did theirs. You took care of your own, and the folks on the other side were free to fend for themselves. (And that was fine with many minority communities--they were happy to be allowed to do their own thing in peace.)

Poverty, the AIDS crisis, the crack epidemic, etc.--that wasn't your problem if you were a middle- or upper-class white. If you wanted an adventure, go to a rock concert and buy some pot or something. Get out of your element for an afternoon, but then retreat back to the safety of the white suburbs by dark.

But nowadays with the internet and the modern news media, suddenly "the other side of the tracks" is right there on your computer screen. 24/7 news media is always looking for (and broadcasting) any kind of freakish news, creating a sense of immediacy and impending disaster. And on the internet, just a quick search and you can be chatting with communities of furries and bronies and white nationalists and black nationalists and PUAs and incels, and so on.

So how do lefties and righties handle that?

Leftists don't want to exclude minority and marginal communities, but they also want everything (the internet, the media, the world) to be a safe space for everyone. So we've basically returned to the bad old days of chivalry. For example: Include women in everything, but also treat them like china dolls and don't ruffle their feathers or hurt their feelings in any way. Other minority communities are given much the same treatment.

Intersectionality is basically chivalry by another name. White males, with their privilege, are expected to serve as white knights, fighting for and defending those with less privilege. And the less-privileged groups are encouraged to play the victim in need of rescue. Intersectionality sets up a rigid social hierarchy that's almost medieval in structure. (Look up "Great Chain of Being" in Wikipedia for the medieval version of intersectionality.)

But intersectionality is a difficult sell. There's a heavy censorship element involved. And a lot of people don't fit neatly into the rigid white-knight-vs-victim hierarchy dictated by intersectionality. Also there's a tremendous amount of culture clash when previously marginalized communities are allowed into the mainstream. (Some trans issues in the news recently illustrate this problem.)

But I'm not sure the righties are offering anything better. They basically advocate a return to the days of simply tuning out "the other side of the tracks." They want to just say, "Hey, it's none of my business. I don't hate them, but I shouldn't have to carry them either. Let them fend for themselves." But is that really possible anymore? You can't just tune out gay marriage, for example. It's legal. It's on the books. So laws and protections have to be written for gay couples to assure some kind of parity with straight couples. Gay marriage has to be factored into pretty much every aspect of family law, at a minimum. Then you have to consider social aspects and courtesies and customs pertaining to marriage. And so on. You can't just turn back the clock and pretend it doesn't exist.

So inevitably there is going to be a need for compromise. Lefties can't just unilaterally impose intersectionality and damn the consequences, but nor can Righties unilaterally turn back the clock. Meantime, both sides need to work together to minimize culture clashes (such as trans issues). These days, hot-button issues (like trans issues, or like the situation at the southern border) are simply held hostage for purposes of political gain and aren't represented fairly or honestly by either side. Both sides basically just engage in theatrics and photo ops and try to spin the issue to make the other side out as the bad guy. Voters get disgusted at the blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle and tune out, and then the politicians complain about voter apathy.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

My previous post was kind of off-topic. Therefore, on the general subject of how to teach history in schools (focusing on the example of US history in particular):

US history should be taught fairly and honestly, the good and the bad, warts and all. (I think that's pretty much standard practice these days anyway.) But US history should also be taught in the context of world history so that people can see that the world in general operated by those rules (instead of implying that the US in particular is some kind of uniquely evil place).

These days I don't think anyone is asking for a "whitewashing" of US history. Certainly I personally would oppose any rendition of US history that simply omitted its errors. It should all be taught, the good and the bad. But put it in proper historical context.

I think this guy in the video below has it about right. The video is only 3 minutes long. The speaker is a Lebanese Jew who fled to Canada to escape war and persecution. He's a psychologist, a conservative, and he is congratulating the US on July 4th. He gives ample recognition to negative aspects of US history: he speaks eloquently on the subjects of slavery and racism. But he insists that those aspects be put in proper historical context.

Link: Happy Birthday to the Greatest of All Nations - USA! (THE SAAD TRUTH_ 1265) - YouTube

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Leftists don't want to exclude minority and marginal communities, but they also want everything (the internet, the media, the world) to be a safe space for everyone. So we've basically returned to the bad old days of chivalry. For example: Include women in everything, but also treat them like china dolls and don't ruffle their feathers or hurt their feelings in any way. Other minority communities are given much the same treatment.

Intersectionality is basically chivalry by another name. White males, with their privilege, are expected to serve as white knights, fighting for and defending those with less privilege. And the less-privileged groups are encouraged to play the victim in need of rescue. Intersectionality sets up a rigid social hierarchy that's almost medieval in structure. (Look up "Great Chain of Being" in Wikipedia for the medieval version of intersectionality.)

But intersectionality is a difficult sell. There's a heavy censorship element involved. And a lot of people don't fit neatly into the rigid white-knight-vs-victim hierarchy dictated by intersectionality. Also there's a tremendous amount of culture clash when previously marginalized communities are allowed into the mainstream. (Some trans issues in the news recently illustrate this problem.)

I would say that you've reminded me of how the conversation has shifted. In 2015 on another form I said that this was infantilizing woman and I was told that it sounded "psychotic". I don't see those kinds of reactions to these critiques anymore. Anyway, the other thing is that even when the white men do this, they will get criticized for not letting women and people of color speak to their own experiences. It's exhausting. Like I said, I really do get the sense that this is shifting and this has all peaked. I think there's an awareness creeping in that all this stuff is really ineffectual.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

My previous post was kind of off-topic. Therefore, on the general subject of how to teach history in schools (focusing on the example of US history in particular):

US history should be taught fairly and honestly, the good and the bad, warts and all. (I think that's pretty much standard practice these days anyway.) But US history should also be taught in the context of world history so that people can see that the world in general operated by those rules (instead of implying that the US in particular is some kind of uniquely evil place).

These days I don't think anyone is asking for a "whitewashing" of US history. Certainly I personally would oppose any rendition of US history that simply omitted its errors. It should all be taught, the good and the bad. But put it in proper historical context.

I think this guy in the video below has it about right. The video is only 3 minutes long. The speaker is a Lebanese Jew who fled to Canada to escape war and persecution. He's a psychologist, a conservative, and he is congratulating the US on July 4th. He gives ample recognition to negative aspects of US history: he speaks eloquently on the subjects of slavery and racism. But he insists that those aspects be put in proper historical context.

Link: Happy Birthday to the Greatest of All Nations - USA! (THE SAAD TRUTH_ 1265) - YouTube

I think the U.S. has positive aspects, but I'm leery these days of calling it the greatest country in the world, primarily because I've come to associate that with a way of justifying a political agenda that is harmful (that is, the idea of imperialism and neoliberalism as both justified by and the cause of said greatness).

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I think the U.S. has positive aspects, but I'm leery these days of calling it the greatest country in the world, primarily because I've come to associate that with a way of justifying a political agenda that is harmful (that is, the idea of imperialism and neoliberalism as both justified by and the cause of said greatness).

Dr. Saad was entirely clear about why he was calling the US the greatest country in the world. That was simply his own opinion, and he justified it in his own manner. It didn't have anything to do "the idea of imperialism and neoliberalism as both justified by and the cause of said greatness."

Meantime, if you want to spin the conversation in that direction and start complaining about "the idea of imperialism and neoliberalism as both justified by and the cause of said greatness" on the part of the US, that's fine. As I said, I'm all in favor of the teaching of history, warts and all. Bring up all the negativity that you want. But as I suggested in my previous post, do it honestly and fairly. Such things should be discussed in the context of world history so that people can see that the world in general operated by those rules (instead of implying that the US in particular is some kind of uniquely evil place).

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I would say that you've reminded me of how the conversation has shifted. In 2015 on another form I said that this was infantilizing woman and I was told that it sounded "psychotic". I don't see those kinds of reactions to these critiques anymore. Anyway, the other thing is that even when the white men do this, they will get criticized for not letting women and people of color speak to their own experiences. It's exhausting. Like I said, I really do get the sense that this is shifting and this has all peaked. I think there's an awareness creeping in that all this stuff is really ineffectual.

In the past I was fine with all those liberal ideas about intersectionality and giving women and minorities special treatment. But then we got into that phase a few years back where feminists were suddenly declaring that "all men are (potential) rapists." At that point I got irritated and started pushing back, and I kind of burned my bridges here at TypoC by going against the tide and raising an illiberal (anti-feminism) fuss. Mainly I just didn't like being arbitrarily branded with "the R word." But in recent years the feminists have backed off on that particular argument, or at least have reframed it in the context of intersectionality. So I mostly don't care any more. I'm a liberal at base, as long as people don't go out of their way to insult me with their own more-extreme versions of liberalism.

Meantime, I just brought all that intersectionality stuff up in the previous post for purposes of showing historically where the Left and Right diverge, in my opinion. I'm not putting it down, necessarily; I'm just saying that it can be a difficult sell.

 

[Coriolis]

In the past I was fine with all those liberal ideas about intersectionality and giving women and minorities special treatment. But then we got into that phase a few years back where feminists were suddenly declaring that "all men are (potential) rapists." At that point I got irritated and started pushing back, and I kind of burned my bridges here at TypoC by going against the tide and raising an illiberal (anti-feminism) fuss. Mainly I just didn't like being arbitrarily branded with "the R word." But in recent years the feminists have backed off on that particular argument, or at least have reframed it in the context of intersectionality. So I mostly don't care any more. I'm a liberal at base, as long as people don't go out of their way to insult me with their own more-extreme versions of liberalism.

Meantime, I just brought all that intersectionality stuff up in the previous post for purposes of showing historically where the Left and Right diverge, in my opinion. I'm not putting it down, necessarily; I'm just saying that it can be a difficult sell.

I find it odd how often giving equal opportunity to people in these groups is viewed as "special treatment", as if it is special to be judged on your own merits in hiring, allowed to marry the person of your choosing, or simply allowed to walk the streets unaccosted. The "special treatment" is what most of these groups want to get rid of. The special treatment that excludes or handicaps them because of some demographic attribute, most of which we cannot control, or paints a target on their back that says it is OK to harass or abuse them.

Leftists don't want to exclude minority and marginal communities, but they also want everything (the internet, the media, the world) to be a safe space for everyone. So we've basically returned to the bad old days of chivalry. For example: Include women in everything, but also treat them like china dolls and don't ruffle their feathers or hurt their feelings in any way. Other minority communities are given much the same treatment.

Intersectionality is basically chivalry by another name. White males, with their privilege, are expected to serve as white knights, fighting for and defending those with less privilege. And the less-privileged groups are encouraged to play the victim in need of rescue. Intersectionality sets up a rigid social hierarchy that's almost medieval in structure. (Look up "Great Chain of Being" in Wikipedia for the medieval version of intersectionality.)

But intersectionality is a difficult sell. There's a heavy censorship element involved. And a lot of people don't fit neatly into the rigid white-knight-vs-victim hierarchy dictated by intersectionality. Also there's a tremendous amount of culture clash when previously marginalized communities are allowed into the mainstream. (Some trans issues in the news recently illustrate this problem.)

So now anyone who speaks up for someone else is a "white knight"? There we go again with labels. If you are with a friend, neighbor, or coworker and someone starts harassing them - in any way, for any reason - I hope you would support them. To me, that is just the right thing to do. In some environments, certain demographics are more likely to be on the receiving end of harassment than others, which means that coworker or neighbor is more likely to be female, black, gay, disabled, or whatever else the bigot's flavor of the month is, than white, male, straight, etc as presumably you are.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I find it odd how often giving equal opportunity to people in these groups is viewed as "special treatment", as if it is special to be judged on your own merits in hiring, allowed to marry the person of your choosing, or simply allowed to walk the streets unaccosted. The "special treatment" is what most of these groups want to get rid of. The special treatment that excludes or handicaps them because of some demographic attribute, most of which we cannot control, or paints a target on their back that says it is OK to harass or abuse them.


So now anyone who speaks up for someone else is a "white knight"? There we go again with labels. If you are with a friend, neighbor, or coworker and someone starts harassing them - in any way, for any reason - I hope you would support them. To me, that is just the right thing to do. In some environments, certain demographics are more likely to be on the receiving end of harassment than others, which means that coworker or neighbor is more likely to be female, black, gay, disabled, or whatever else the bigot's flavor of the month is, than white, male, straight, etc as presumably you are.

Intersectionality, critical race theory, and all that other stuff is literally about differentiating between people and according them different treatment (UNequal treatment) based on their sex, race, etc. Hence anticlimatic's post about how the universities have overcorrected and become racist. (I got involved in this thread to address that point specifically.)

My point is that yes, it is kind of racist. But you have to address these issues SOMEhow. You can't just turn back the clock. So there's a need to compromise at some point. My position is that one-off compromises are probably needed. Such compromises are recognized in law (such as to redress segregation), though mostly on a temporary and one-off basis to address a specific harm.

Naturally you're going to jump in at this point and start playing your silly word games. It's what you do. You'll insist that intersectionality is all about redressing society-wide inequities and establishing equality where there was inequality. But my response is that broad-based society-wide regulations such as intersectionality prescribes would permanently enshrine UNequal treatment before the law based on things like skin color and sex. That kind of thing goes against the Constitution. Anticlimatic was correct on that score.

So if you want to play Orwellian word games and insist that unequal treatment = equal treatment (or vice versa), then go for it. Personally I don't really care. (And I'm going to drop out of the debate after this post; I'm not going to waste time and energy playing your word games with you.*) My point remains the same throughout: Do what you want, but frankly you're going to find it a difficult sell outside of the nice little leftist echo chamber that you all have going here. One-off compromises should be achievable. But rewriting the Constitution to enshrine UNequal treatment before the law based on things like skin color and sex? That's kind of problematic. (Intersectionality has been around for 30 years and hasn't made any significant advances due to this very problem.)

_______________
* To explain for those who will complain that I'm not allowed to cut debates short and leave until everything has been argued ad nauseum: I have an apartment move going on. And the traffic at this message board is so slow that I can't justify wasting my time engaging in endless debates over nitpicky terminology interpretations that might only get read in full by four or five people total, if that. Honestly, I can't understand posters who love to debate minutia for dozens or even hundreds of long-winded, boring posts on political topics. Hell, I'm retired, and even I don't have the kind of time required to keep up with the nonsensical mental masturbation that happens here among the lefty regulars on a daily basis. Have you all really nothing better to do with your lives? Make one good statement of what you believe on a given issue and then drop it, FFS.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

My previous post was kind of off-topic. Therefore, on the general subject of how to teach history in schools (focusing on the example of US history in particular):

US history should be taught fairly and honestly, the good and the bad, warts and all. (I think that's pretty much standard practice these days anyway.) But US history should also be taught in the context of world history so that people can see that the world in general operated by those rules (instead of implying that the US in particular is some kind of uniquely evil place).

These days I don't think anyone is asking for a "whitewashing" of US history. Certainly I personally would oppose any rendition of US history that simply omitted its errors. It should all be taught, the good and the bad. But put it in proper historical context.

I think this guy in the video below has it about right. The video is only 3 minutes long. The speaker is a Lebanese Jew who fled to Canada to escape war and persecution. He's a psychologist, a conservative, and he is congratulating the US on July 4th. He gives ample recognition to negative aspects of US history: he speaks eloquently on the subjects of slavery and racism. But he insists that those aspects be put in proper historical context.

Ok.. I watched the video and there are a lot of claims for which I'd like to see evidence.

"No country has granted more freedoms to people than the U.S." What is the evidence for that? The electoral college isn't even particularly democratic and this was the whole point because the Founding Fathers were afraid of people having too much of a say (read James Madison).

"The U.S. is unique in its ability to redress the issue of slavery." Uh, Great Britain outlawed slavery before the U.S. (And regarding women's suffrage, New Zealand did that first.) If we're the unquestioned leader of freedom in the world how come other countries tend to beat us to the punch?

Also, WWII was more than 70 years ago. The legacy of the U.S. in the world in the last 20 years isn't nearly so great.

Typically, the claims about the U.S. being the greatest country are being made to invoke a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality." If we're the greatest, naturally we can't be broken. I don't think that mentality is going to serve us very well in the decades to come. Waving flags is great and all, but I really think instead of patting ourselves on the back for winning a war 70 years ago, we should try and address current problems and problems facing us down the road. I'd maintain that wanting to make your country better is something you would only do if there was some love for it, but that's not the view normally endorsed by people who like to talk about the country being the greatest ever.

I walk around my neighborhood on July 4th, and I like much of what of I see, but I remember at the same time Chicago is a violent hellhole to many Americans, and the South Side is seen as a violent hell hole to many Chicagoans. The things people consider America "great" for when the talk about it being the greatest country in the world are obviously not the things I consider it great for. That can never leave my mind when I hear people bloviate about the greatness of the US.

 

[Coriolis]

Intersectionality, critical race theory, and all that other stuff is literally about differentiating between people and according them different treatment based on their sex, race, etc. Hence anticlimatic's post about how the universities have overcorrected and become racist. (I got involved in this thread to address that point specifically.)

My point is that yes, it is kind of racist. But you have to address these issues SOMEhow. You can't just turn back the clock. So there's a need to compromise at some point. My position is that one-off compromises are probably needed. Such compromises are recognized in law (such as to redress segregation), though mostly on a temporary and one-off basis to address a specific harm.

Naturally you're going to jump in at this point and start playing your silly word games. It's what you do. You'll insist that intersectionality is all about redressing society-wide inequities and establishing equality where there was inequality. But my response is that broad-based society-wide regulations such as intersectionality prescribes would permanently enshrine unequal treatment before the law based on things like skin color and sex. That kind of thing goes against the Constitution. Anticlimatic was correct on that score.

So if you want to play Orwellian word games and insist that unequal treatment = equal treatment (or vice versa), then go for it. Personally I don't really care. (And I'm going to drop out of the debate after this post; I'm not going to waste time and energy playing your word games with you.*) My point remains the same throughout: Do what you want, but frankly you're going to find it a difficult sell outside of the nice little leftist echo chamber that you all have going here. One-off compromises should be achievable. But rewriting the Constitution to enshrine unequal treatment before the law based on things like skin color and sex? That's kind of problematic.

_______________
* To explain for those who will complain that I'm not allowed to cut debates short and leave until everything has been argued ad nauseum: I have an apartment move going on. And the traffic at this message board is so slow that I can't justify wasting my time engaging in endless debates over nitpicky terminology interpretations that might only get read in full by four or five people total, if that. Honestly, I can't understand posters who love to debate minutia for dozens or even hundreds of long-winded, boring posts on political topics. Hell, I'm retired, and even I don't have the kind of time required to keep up with the nonsensical mental masturbation that happens here among the lefty regulars on a daily basis. Have you all really nothing better to do with your lives? Make one good statement of what you believe on a given issue and then drop it, FFS.

Well, yes - there is a certain efficiency in throwing your ideas out there, and leaving them to be misrepresented by others. It's just an internet forum, after all. I do like to make sure I am being understood, however, often more for the general reader than the person I am replying to. I also cannot help but take umbrage when someone else tries to tell me what I think, want, really mean, or will insist upon, especially when they are wrong.

First, I don't talk about "intersectionality", or critical race theory. They are just buzzwords for some of the ways we try to understand, not how to treat different groups differently, but how and why they have been treated differently. I made no recommendations as to how to address this, and am well aware that the world is full of stupid ideas, as well as some rather good ones. We can separate the wheat from the chaff without denying there is a problem, which to your credit, you seem to agree with. My personal preference is to follow the food chain back as far as you can, to understand where and how the disparities arise, and address it there, but that is another discussion. Oh, and finally to enshrine in that Constitution that equality under the law may not be denied or abridged on the basis of race, sex, and all these other traits. That should align with your desire to treat everyone equitably.

 

[Falcarius]

To both of you: what is your definition of a "safe space"? This seems like just another buzzword where people will disagree because they are not talking about the same thing.

From Falcarius' knowledge the concept came from the LGBT community, spread to the feminist community, and then university campus and wider society. The idea being society being so bigoted and homophobic that they needed to make a place for people like themself to feel safe to share ideas and debate issues. The first safe spaces were gay bars but in theory it could be anywhere that seeks to regulate and control debate.

The fact that media organizations are there to make money means that they will share stories that make money, which tends to be sensationalist "journalism." Presenting the facts in an unbiased manner doesn't really make the sweet ratings go up the way fear-mongering or capitalizing on outsized personalities does. The chief goal of these organizations is not to provide people with the most accurate information possible, but rather the stories that will keep the ratings up.

Last summer media outlets (probably not fox) was sharing a story about Russia paying bounties to the Taliban for American soldiers. Now it's been shown that the claims for this is dubious. During the run up to the war in Iraq, the information that the WMD claims were bogus was floating around out there, but this was not something that was seen worthy of top coverage.

Perhaps brainwashing isn't the right word, but these media empires basically profit off of misinformation if it will keep the ratings up. It's not profitable to do due diligence and you know, examine stories about Russian bounties before running that story. Better to just put it Tout there since it will keep people glued to the TV set. They also covered Donald Trump more than anyone else during 2016 since it was so good for ratings (this isn't just fox, and even now turn on MSNBC and they still talk about Trump constantly). To me it's impossible to look at the sorry state of corporate "journalism" and not conclude that this is probably the biggest threat to democracy.

That story about the Russian bounty program was reported by New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press. It has not actually been outright denied nor falsified but rather United States Intelligence Community said they had "low to moderate confidence" in the bounty allegations. If news outlets think that stories noteworthy and in the public interest they should be running them even if they might not be totally completely factual. For example, When BBC report live stories such as US Presidental election or Surfside condominium building collapse it will not report the deaths tolls or states won until they are 100% sure of the outcome. It will just say "Fox News are say X, CNN are Y, Trump's team says Q, Biden's teamare saying W, the election services are saying U, and the emergency services are saying V. We will let you know when we can verify it", and pretend Trump didn't lose for a week. Every media outlet in UK will report the outcome of stories before BBC. It is not because BBC does not know but rather they have higher expectations of objectivity on themselves. There are two ways of looking at this: 1) BBC essentially is self-censoring. 2) BBC is just being objective and doesn't want to report as fact until it is sure.

What do you want the US media to do on the Russian bounty program story just ignore it despite it being a possibility?

Also, on the WMD story what was the media supposed to do: ignore the claims until they could verify the Bush administration and defence community claims?

Falcarius has to admit that US news television channels are weird for outsiders. For example, Fox News and CNN would probably be shut down in the UK as news reporting on TV is heavily regulated. Airtime for political parties is regulated on the basis of past election results and current polling candidates/party. News broadcasters have to either present stories as news or opinion pieces not blur the two like Fox News especially does. Newspapers are the UK's wild west of news in that they are regulated as they are magazines so one can pretty much print what they want in them as long as it is not libelous.

That said, as you pointed out, brainwashing and misinformation are not the same things. In North Koreas, the Government controls the news and literally controls all the media from books, newspapers, internet, and not only that but it only teaches its citizens things it wants them to know about, and if they dare to think or speak differently it sends them to its equivalent of the gulag. Americans presumably know that their news outlets like Fox News and CNN are not impartial, but they have the choice to watch both or neither. They have a whole host of resources from books, radio, newspapers, local/ state media, social media, web media, and access to foreign media.

I'll also note that in your own country, didn't the media paint Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi? That definitely sounds like brainwashing, especially since they were doing it after he went to a Passover Seder.

Anti-Semitic not Nazi.

The problem is Corbyn not only associated himself with people who are that way inclined, did not do enough to condemn anti-Semitism, and allowed anti-Semitism within the party to be normalized as he didn't want to offend his supporters. He was completely unwilling to defend people within his own party like Luciana Berger from anti-Semitic abuse. Equality and Human Rights Commission found the Labour Party was "responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination" as it failed to protect complaints regarding antisemitism from political interference, provide adequate training to those handling antisemitism complaints, and allowed harassment to happen. Corbyn then got suspended for downplaying the Equality and Human Rights Commission findings and basically calling the whistleblowers liars.

As for the story, you referenced, Corbyn attended Seder celebration organized by the radical Jewish group 'Jewdas'. He was questioned by the mainstream Jewish community why he as a non-Jew decided to join a group with questionable views on Israel describing the country as “a steaming pile of sewage which needs to be properly disposed of” and repeatedly downplayed anti-Semitism "accusations'" as "the work of cynical manipulations by people whose express loyalty is to the Conservative Party and the right-wing of the Labour Party". Hence, the mainstream Jewish community took attending the group's Seder as baiting them.

The problem is Corbyn not only associated himself with people who are that way inclined, did not do enough to condemn anti-Semitism, and allowed anti-Semitism within the party to be normalized as he didn't want to offend his supporters. He was completely unwilling to defend people within his own party like Luciana Berger from anti-Semitic abuse. Equality and Human Rights Commission found the Labour Party was "responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination" as it failed to protect complaints regarding antisemitism from political interference, provide adequate training to those handling antisemitism complaints, and allowed harassment to happen. Corbyn then got suspended for downplaying the Equality and Human Rights Commission findings and basically calling the whistleblowers liars.

How is the above brainwashing or sensationalism by the media since the party now accepts the "accusation" as true; it has agreed to pay whistleblowers compensation and accept Equality and Human Rights Commission's findings that it covered up racism from its members?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

From Falcarius' knowledge the concept came from the LGBT community, spread to the feminist community, and then university campus and wider society. The idea being society being so bigoted and homophobic that they needed to make a place for people like themself to feel safe to share ideas and debate issues. The first safe spaces were gay bars but in theory it could be anywhere that seeks to regulate and control debate.

I don't see how a gay bar is the same as a place that seeks to regulate and control debate.

That story about the Russian bounty program was reported by New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press. It has not actually been outright denied nor falsified but rather United States Intelligence Community said they had "low to moderate confidence" in the bounty allegations. If news outlets think that stories noteworthy and in the public interest they should be running them even if they might not be totally completely factual. For example, When BBC report live stories such as US Presidental election or Surfside condominium building collapse it will not report the deaths tolls or states won until they are 100% sure of the outcome. It will just say "Fox News are say X, CNN are Y, Trump's team says Q, Biden'sare saying W, the election services are saying U, and the emergency services are saying V. We will let you know when we can verify it", and pretend Trump didn't lose for a week. Every media outlet in UK will report the outcome of stories before BBC. It is not because BBC does not know but rather they have higher expectations of objectivity on themselves. There are two ways of looking at this: 1) BBC essentially is self-censoring. 2) BBC is just being objective and doesn't want to report as fact until it is sure.

What do you want the US media to do on the Russian bounty program story just ignore it despite it being a possibility?

Also, on the WMD story what was the media supposed to do: ignore the claims until they could verify the Bush administration and defence community?

Yes, why is that being treated as an insane expectation? Is it crazy to expect the news to report facts and to regard their willingness to spread claims of dubious veracity as an actual threat to democracy? American and British troops have died because people put these claims at face value, not to mention a lot of Iraqi civilians and the whole Syrian refugee crisis which is in turn triggering far-right European extremism. It is not a small matter that these reports were found to be false.


Ideally the news should only report on things that are totally completely factual and the fact that it doesn't is a huge problem. Much hay has been made about the perils of social media in spreading misinformation, but it turns out that that the conventional media making said hay are not blameless in this either, and that's actually what most voters get their news from (which makes sense when you consider the average age of voters).

As for the story, you referenced, Corbyn attended Seder's celebration organized the radical Jewish group 'Jewdas'. He was questioned by the mainstream Jewish community why he as a non-Jew decided to join a group with questionable views on Israel describing the country as “a steaming pile of sewage which needs to be properly disposed of” and repeatedly downplayed anti-Semitism "accusations'" as "the work of cynical manipulations by people whose express loyalty is to the Conservative Party and the right-wing of the Labour Party". Hence, the mainstream Jewish community took attending the group's Seder as baiting them.

Why is it unacceptable to have a debate on Israel? It seems to me like you are the one actually saying that debates about certain topics should not be permitted, not me. I am for inclusion but I don't interpret that as meaning that countries like Israel or China should not be criticized.

 

[Falcarius]

Yes, why is that being treated as an insane expectation? Is it crazy to expect the news to report facts and to regard their willingness to spread claims of dubious veracity as an actual threat to democracy? American and British troops have died because people put these claims at face value, not to mention a lot of Iraqi civilians and the whole Syrian refugee crisis which is in turn triggering far-right European extremism. It is not a small matter that these reports were found to be false.

If CNN, Fox, or anyone else reports "Trump says the election was rigged", it would be factual in that he actually believes that and said that. The same is true in the military and intelligence community with the WMD story; they had every right to run stories saying "the military, intelligence communities, Brush administration believes Iraq has WMD" since they seem to have believed it at the time.

Imagine if Iraq actually did have WMD and used them since the media did not report the Bush Administration suspicions as the media had no evidence. Imagine if the election was really rigged and the media just ignored it as it had no evidence. Would that really be any better?

What you are advocating is essentially censorship; you don't want stories that you disagree with published. Falcarius disagreed with the Iraq war and thought the WMD story was bullshit at the time and thought it was not grounds for an invasion anyway. That said ,he thinks the media had every right to run the stories on WMD as it was in the public interest. As of consequence of the handling of WMD fiasco the government, intelligence community, and military are not going to be trusted so easily. You seem to just want the media to pretend that they have not heard from the intelligence community about the Russian bounty program. Is it not better if the public just hears them and decided if they are true or not; What good is ignoring the story due to lack of evidence actually doing?

Falcarius has no idea what Syrian refugee crisis has to do with Iraq.

Why is it unacceptable to have a debate on Israel? It seems to me like you are the one actually saying that debates about certain topics should not be permitted, not me. I am for inclusion but I don't interpret that as meaning that countries like Israel or China should not be criticized.

Falcarius saw your edits.

Let's get something really clear, this is not a case of people being unwilling to debate Isreal. The criticisms regarding anti-Semitism with elements within the Labour Party are a serious matter and should not be belittled or undermined which you seem to be doing.

Falcarius has no problem with debates on Isreal, especially as he actually very critical of Isreal's government on a range of things from its occupation of land, "two-tier" judicial system, and treatment of Palestinians.

The Seder story is a non-story in that nobody really cares if Corbyn attends a Seder celebration or not. But the media had a right to run it since it was a story in the public interest as both MP's in his own party and Jewish organizations criticized him. The media has the right to publish stories like that as it is both factual and in the public interest. If an MP criticizes their own leader attending an event it is newsworthy and if sections of the Jewish community question Corbyn attending Seder celebration it is newsworthy. They gave their reasons and Corbyn gave his reasons; what is the problem?

 

[anticlimatic]

Education is when new ideas are presented objectively long enough to be remembered.

Indoctrination/brain washing is when an old idea is repeated perpetually as a filter for all subsequent new ideas to the point that all new future information is affected by it.

ABCs are education. Critical theories/religious theories etc are brainwashing.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If CNN, Fox, or anyone else reports "Trump says the election was rigged", it would be factual in that he actually believes that and said that. The same is true in the military and intelligence community with the WMD story; they had every right to run stories saying "the military, intelligence communities, Brush administration believes Iraq has WMD" since they seem to have believed it at the time.

Imagine if Iraq actually did have WMD and used them since the media did not report the Bush Administration suspicions as the media had no evidence. Imagine if the election was really rigged and the media just ignored it as it had no evidence. Would that really be any better?

What you are advocating is essentially censorship; you don't want stories that you disagree with published. Falcarius disagreed with the Iraq war and thought the WMD story was bullshit at the time and thought it was not grounds for an invasion anyway. That said ,he thinks the media had every right to run the stories on WMD as it was in the public interest. As of consequence of the handling of WMD fiasco the government, intelligence community, and military are not going to be trusted so easily. You seem to just want the media to pretend that they have not heard from the intelligence community about the Russian bounty program. Is it not better if the public just hears them and decided if they are true or not; What good is ignoring the story due to lack of evidence actually doing?

Falcarius has no idea what Syrian refugee crisis has to do with Iraq.

First, I want to thank you for not taking my edited out comments too seriously.

Why didn't they push the story about the yellowcake in Africa being falsified as much as th WMD thing? This was known before the invasion happened. I know because I read about it. It was not mentioned nearly as much, and today politicians who voted for the war defend it by telling the lie that "nobody could have known" that the WMD was false. The media makes choices on which stories to cover more, and here the thing they choose to cover more was the administration's line in Iraq. It's in the public interest to know if the intelligence they are using is bullshit as well. Similarly many editorial opinions (where such things are actually distinguished in American journalism) was often in favor of the war, calling for instance " a bold strategy.... we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here." To me it really seems like they already had an opinion, and they were going that by opinion to decide what to support. That is not in the public interest, unless you hold to some sort of elitism that says that the staff of these outlets will have better judgement on such things than the layperson (which I think we can demonstrate is false given how wrong their judgement has been shown to be).

The media does the same thing for, say, primary contests, too, where they have candidates they like and candidates they dislike, and they give favorable or unfavorable coverage accordingly. Admittedly, by talking about Jeremy Corbyn, I'm a little bit out of my wheelhouse, but to me it seems like this very much could be a parallel instance of that in British media. I don't mean to suggest that antisemitism doesn't exist among the British left (personally, I've actually encountered on other forums, although one of those people rode the Q train to become a Trump fanatic). but I have to wonder if it isn't a parallel to news outlets trying to cast doubt on Sander's attitudes towards race while neglecting to mention Biden's actual record or offering apologetics for it. Again, I concede that I am not enmeshed in the U.K side of things the way I am in the U.S., so that could in fact not be the case.

Regarding Syria, do you think that the instability in Syria and the involvement of ISIS would have happened without Operation Iraqi Freedom? Is it really the unreasonable to conclude that the conflict from neighboring Iraq spilled over? At any rate, Iraqi refugees are certainly caused by the war in Iraq. Incidentally, some of those refugees did end up in Syria, and appear to have fled there since the civil war started.

But I do think this kind of thing is a problem, and I tend to roll my eyes at journalists at major outlets patting themselves on the back as guardians of truth, given the examples with the American thing I mentioned, which is still an issue. You will not hear about the Russian bounty thing being dubious nearly as much as you heard about initial report, and this is the problem. Will Rachel Maddow spend 20 minutes talking about how the Russian bounty thing is dubious, like she did when she was suggesting it definitely actually happened? As a result of that story, I'll bet lots of people think that still happened. It is in the public interest to know that it probably didn't, and I'm sorry, but I don't think that's in the public interest.

 

[Coriolis]

From Falcarius' knowledge the concept came from the LGBT community, spread to the feminist community, and then university campus and wider society. The idea being society being so bigoted and homophobic that they needed to make a place for people like themself to feel safe to share ideas and debate issues. The first safe spaces were gay bars but in theory it could be anywhere that seeks to regulate and control debate.

Is it better for people to feel unsafe to share their ideas? Should they have to be willing to risk insults and shouting down in order to speak their mind? We regulate debate and discussion in many settings, from courtrooms to legislatures to competitions to those indigenous peoples who pass the peace pipe and if it's not your turn to hold it, you must be quiet. We make a space safe for debate and sharing ideas primarily by excluding the kind of behaviors that don't support that: things like insults, namecalling, ad hominem attacks, shouting people down, etc. All of that seems quite appropriate in an academic setting, where grades often depend on class participation, and standing up to bullies is not part of the syllabus. To me, safe space means your ideas can be attacked, but not yourself.

What do you want the US media to do on the Russian bounty program story just ignore it despite it being a possibility?

Also, on the WMD story what was the media supposed to do: ignore the claims until they could verify the Bush administration and defence community claims?

The media should present whatever evidence has come to light about the claims. If there is none, they need to say as much and provide as much information about the source as possible so the public can gauge the credibility of the claim. They should then follow the story, and provide updates when available. Making false claims like these is a great way for people in power - or out of it - to influence the public debate and popular sentiment when they can't make a proper case for what they want. Part of the job of the media is to investigate such claims and present what the find, whether it supports or refutes them.

As of consequence of the handling of WMD fiasco the government, intelligence community, and military are not going to be trusted so easily. You seem to just want the media to pretend that they have not heard from the intelligence community about the Russian bounty program. Is it not better if the public just hears them and decided if they are true or not; What good is ignoring the story due to lack of evidence actually doing?

THe public cannot decide what is true or not. Either Iraq had WMD or it didn't. Either Russia paid bounties for American soliders or it did not. The reality of the situation is independent of whether the public believes it or not, and whatever "the public" thinks, there will always be dissenters, even, as we have seen with the recent election, when a claim has been refuted well beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, it is the media's job to help bring the evidence to the public attention, but that doesn't always pay, and the media are driven by money like any other business. That may be the most unfortunate aspect of U.S, media.

 

[Alice Unchained]

It's brainwashing because most people have no interest to understand most of the things taught in school. Not trying to be condescending here - teachers themselves don't necessarily understand their subject. It's even worse - scientists/experts sometimes don't understand their subject, they only know stuff. For some people, it is education, for others it is brainwashing. Nobody can force you to think against your will, it would be unethical