Swipe to go to another post.
Nonsense. If you can't see the liberal indoctrination in the educational system, you're either just not looking or you think it's a good thing.
Said Boko Haram just yesterday.
No Vic, his name is Jerry, Jerry Hendrickson.
Is Budwick your sock?
Budwick is my NAME.
Is douche bag your game?
If that reply was meant for me. I don't have time for a sock account even if I wanted one, which I don't. There is no need, I just call it like I see it.
You gave me that whole James Bond mystique there Bud.
Thank you Jerry Hendrickson for noticing!
Education is alive and well in America. All one has to do is listen to how intelligent and articulate the students from Parkland, Florida are in speaking out against the gun debate. They make some politicians look sick.
Where were the politicians educated?
That's an inadvertent admission of the fear they're experiencing at the thought of their child confronting different suggestions. They're afraid of their child having a mind independent from their thinking / opinions. That's just wrong.
I flatly disagree with teachers pushing 'what' to think, rather than 'how' to think, on their students. But a parent's guilty of the exact same thing should they demand that their children receive instruction which never deviates from their own ideas etc.
I want my kid to think independently from me.
To be honest, I'm not sure what people mean when they say our educational system is pushing a progressive agenda, or how they would like it changed. My knee jerk reaction is to assume they want to teach things other than evolution and a 13 billion year old universe, which I am against, but I really don't know.
I was taught Christopher Columbus discovered America, which is obvious hogwash. I don't remember learning much about the indigenous peoples living hear before the Europeans came, except for things like how they sold Manhattan for a string of beads and shared a meal with the Pilgrims. I do recall one teacher telling us the"Indians" were mistreated, but I thought she was kind of radical. Eventually I graduated high school believing that the U.S. always fought (in wars) for what is just and right. That doesn't seem like progressivism to me.
However, I was also taught that America did make mistakes, that slavery was terrible, Black Americans had been discriminated against, that Martin Luther King was a great man, and that civil disobedience was sometimes necessary to enact change. Is that progressivism?
But is that what those who cry "indoctrination" are claiming: that to not indoctrinate, schools much teach "America is perfect"?
"Teachers Register Heavily as Democrats"
When it comes to the breakdown of political parties among Rio teachers, of the 49 teachers whose voter registration could be confirmed, 32 are registered as Democrats, 8 as Independents, 4 as Republicans, 2 as Libertarians, 1 as Green, and 1 as American Independent.
Self-Identifying Marxists Outnumber Conservatives as College Professors
[1 in 5 professors are marxists, 1 in 20 are conservatives]
[Maze] Are American conservatives rioting and attempting to silence liberals, or even the extreme left? Nope, but the left is attempting to silence conservatives. So who values free speech? Left or right? The extreme left only tolerates speech they agree with, just like Boko Haram.
The right, even the extreme right, only wants the freedom to say whatever they want. Right? They're the ones saying shit "you're not supposed to say" because it's bigoted or racist or whatever, but when you go around saying shit like that, you're not really in a position to tell other people they can't say what's on their minds. That's why, to the left, free speech is synonymous with offensive speech. Why isn't free speech synonymous with offensive speech in the minds of people on the right? Because you're allowed to say all the things that offend conservatives, hell, it's everywhere: TV, movies, music... school... everywhere.
Far-left “anti-fascist” rioters assaulted numerous attendees, started fires, smashed up shops and ATMs, and attacked people’s cars during the riot on Wednesday night in protest of MILO’s UC Berkeley show, forcing the event to be cancelled.
Portland rose parade canceled after ‘antifascists’ threaten GOP marchers
Pressure from Democrats, antifa movement forces cancellation of free speech rally in San Francisco
“a lot of innocent people were going to get hurt”
A separate right-of-center event slated for Sunday in Berkeley called “No to Marxism in America” also was cancelled by organizers over fears of violence.
I suggest you try convincing conservatives to become teachers.
I suspect the main reason more liberals are teaching is because they value education and are willing to work for lower wages to ensure future generations have opportunities. Conservatives value money and profits. They want to take care of only themselves and their own. They do not value educations and they see it as a source of dangerous ideas. Or is that what you just said?
No that's not what I said at all, try reading my comment before replying.
Teachers are lefties because a lot of them work for the state, and few have ever had to exist outside of the sanctuary of educational institutions. Critical thinking isn't highly valued in education, since for the most part people are merely required to absorb and regurgitate information.
As a teacher, you can believe any crazy nonsense you like as long as you show up on time and teach the curriculum. To succeed in business you need critical thinking, you need to be able to separate real truth from **** theories or you will fail. In a very real sense, right and left amount to street smarts vs book smarts.
Most people start off on the left and migrate right as they get older, that's definitely been true for me. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, it was mostly due to life experience, I got a little wiser with age and began to question the leftist orthodoxy I was bathed in throughout my youth.
I am not sure if you are suggesting eliminating education because only weak minded people are willing to teach. If you are, then that is the exact arguments boko harum uses when it raids schools and burns them to the ground.
If you are not then I go back to my original response and suggest you encourage conservatives to become teachers.
Of course I'm not suggesting eliminating education, that's ridiculous. In fact it's against my religion.
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12
I think it's unacceptable that there are open communists teaching America's youth, because we know for a fact that communism has terrible consequences - you might as well have boko haram teaching class - communism is more deadly. America fought an ideological war against communism for over 50 years, and now 1 in 5 university professors is an open **** commie? That's insane, incredibly dangerous. You have university professors leading political violence, teaching students that the American system is fascist and that communism is good, that it's acceptable or even desirable to silence your political opponents? How can you not see the incredible danger in that?
Somehow, your comment was first edited, then deleted.
I will try to answer your question, though. Women become liberals because that is the way they (we) think and the values we believe in. Life experience, associations, the way we were raised, the ideals we were taught, the way we see the world, and how we respond to it. Not all liberals are communists. Not all republicans are fascist.
Not all women marry conservatives. There are many liberal men, good looking successful men. Same goes for conservative men.
There are many single, conservative women. Some not so appealing. The same goes for liberal women.
Your opinion of women seems flawed.
By your writings, i think you believe that women are here only to serve men. That our value is based on the success of whom we marry, or if we do. That just doesnt hold up.
I thought it was a little extreme in isolation from the bigger picture, so I got rid of it. It's one facet of the way things are, but it's not the entire picture. Most of your comment is what I would have wrote if I'd put my deleted comment in its full context.
You may see me as a conservative, but I see myself as a liberal in the classical sense: free thought, free speech, free enterprise.
For almost the entire history of our species, the family unit has been the center of human life. The men went out into the world and gathered resources, the women ran the homes and looked after the children. It was a full time effort on both ends, neither had it easy, but it worked, and society grew up around it.
Then some rich people with too much time on their hands decided that with the advent of labor saving devices for the home, it would be a good idea if women could be brought into the workforce. To free them from their domestic toil? Not really, women were freer than ever before, freer than modern women in some ways. But the owners reasoned that if everyone works, that's twice the production.
As a bonus, taking women out of the home meant their children would be more susceptible to the influence of the state, through sports and after school programs, lots of homework... you know how school takes over a kid's life. The more time spent on state indoctrination, the less time parents have to indoctrinate their children into their own belief systems. And with both partners working, they welcome letting the state raise their children 5 days a week.
But we are biological beings which evolved around a family paradigm, and that paradigm has been turned completely on its head for reasons that had virtually nothing to do with improving people's lives and everything to do with corporate profits.
When marriages fail, couples keep two households, that's profitable... for the real estate market, not for them. Lawyers benefit from legal fees, people have to work harder to get by, so they produce more, and it's unlikely either partner will be putting aside money that will make them independent, both partners will likely be one paycheck from broke at all times. Children from broken homes commit more crimes, that's good for the prison industry and social work indoctrination, people buying replacement stuff they lost from theft, buying security systems etc. More police, more control. Women come to see the state as the reliable provider, not men, so they fight for the state instead of their men. It's all about money and power... for the rich, for the owners, not for you.
I have to say, maze....read an article in forbes titled the cause and consequence of women in labor.
It all started with world war two. Continued with womens new found ability to be higher educated and equal rights.
I know that big business profits from most things that push employees, but i dont think women in the workforce was part of a conspiracy.
Here's where I got the idea from:
The point being it still happens.
This is the problem with Citizens First. This is the problem with lobbying. Our elected leaders don't write legislation, lobbyist do.
Those NRA ads are a perfect example of corporations setting the agenda for Americans.
And we, including me, are all falling for it. We hear different trumpets but we all hear trumpets.
There are many things that have happened throughout history that are perceived as organic grassroots happenings that were, in fact, astroturfed. Once upon a time it was verboten for women to smoke in public. That changed after several women fired up cigarettes while walking in the 1929 Easter Parade. This was seen as an act of rebellion by those women, and ultimately of liberation for all women as they lit their "torches of freedom" in public from that day on...and tobacco sales increased, because of course, a tobacco company was actually behind the whole thing. (See video below.)
Without arguing whether women's lib was a good thing or whether it was orchestrated or not, one has to acknowledge it was a very, very good thing for corporations. Women worked for a lot less money at the beginning and still often make less. Men make less now, too, though. When most women were homemakers, men needed a "family wage". As more and more women entered the workforce, men's wages didn't keep up with rising costs. So where a man used to be able to support a family, the same middle-class lifestyle now most often requires both parents work. And single-parent households, usually headed by women...are still often poor.
Women in the workforce also brought much greater profits in many markets. Even if a family had two cars before, many more miles were put on the 'second' car after the woman began working, and had to be replaced more often. Women had to spend far more on clothing. They wanted to spend more on processed and frozen/convenience foods, and appliances to ease their homemaking burdens, which they still largely did themselves after work. And while the concept of planned obsolescence had been around for a few decades, it really took off after women entered the workforce in large numbers. I still have working kitchen appliances passed down to me that date from the 50s...you won't find appliances like that for sale today. Even many things that were initially hired out to other women to do are increasingly hired out to corporations, babysitting (daycare), house cleaning and salon services (chains).
Point being, even if women's lib began as an organic movement, it was - at the very least - soon co-opted by the corporatocracy.
Obviously women entering the workforce increases the supply of labor, and that causes wages to decline. I would just add though that regardless of this fact, without labor organizations the workers' ability to demand a living wage is also lessened. My guess is that this has more of a negative impact on wages than women in the workforce, but that's just a guess.
Labor unions served a good and necessary purpose. They are responsible for their own decline, however. When it became mandatory in some areas/jobs to join a union, many quit taking care of the members. Others, larger, more powerful ones, demanded too much. The union workers, too, are to blame. In the 90s, there was a big "Buy American!" union campaign here. Striking autoworkers carried signs with the slogan on every picket line. Yet, whenever they - who exhorted the rest of us to buy American-made vehicles, got their paychecks...they ran right on down to Wally World to spend them on products made in Asia.
My main point, however, was that most of what we see as naturally-occuring societal changes are actually manufactured by those who would benefit in some way. These changes are often attributed to a new 'age of enlightenment', so to speak, and all for the betterment of our society. In reality, there is nearly always a man/organization/industry/etc. hiding behind the curtain orchestrating everything for their own agenda or benefit.
Now, I'm not saying that necessarily means all the changes are bad, or good, for that matter. I think we see a fair mix of both. I just think it would behoove us all to be aware this happens, and whenever there is a discussion taking place that would change our society, especially in some fundamental way, that perhaps we should be looking behind curtains...not just for who is opposing something, but for who is really promoting it...and ask, "Cui bono?"
All fair points. Unions do bare a large share in the responsibility of their own demise.
I'm always surprised when someone had an outlook darker than my own.
Darker...I suppose it is, in a sense. It was certainly a very dark time for me when I discovered the truth of what I said above. There's a lot of light, too, though. There is actually much more that is good in humanity than bad, I believe. The bad are the manipulators, and though far outnumbered, they largely control business/economies, governments, and societies, so should be acknowledged and watched...and opposed. If/when enough people get tired of the appeasement of panem et circenses, and the destruction of divide and conquer and the hegelian dialectic...we could see a new paradigm. I'm not holding my breath, but I do see more people becoming aware of the men behind the curtains, so there is hope.
Having worked closely with Unions in the past I can try to dissuade you of that notion.
Picture this, a union negotiates for a $1 an hour raise - in a big factory that might mean a $20 million dollar commitment on the company's balance sheet.
The BOD then gives the CEO a $5 million a year raise. Not an equivalent $1 per hour raise ($2,000/year) or even $10 per hour ($20,000) but $5 million ($2,500 per hour) . The union then reconvenes and reasons, well we could have asked for $1.25 an hour because clearly we left money on the table. So they go back and ask for the extra $.025.
The company finally agrees and then turns around and give the CEO a $2 million bonus. The union thinks, well heck we could have got an extra dime ....
So is it the Union over reaching, or is the fault with the board who is bend on keeping the wage gap as large as possible?
In some European companies the wage cap, though large, is more reasonable. Their unions don't keep going back to the trough because the company doesn't keep driving that gap.
When a company treats its workers as valued members instead of assets to be exploited for profit, everyone benefits.
I was thinking more along the lines of unions defending unproductive workers, being against technology that improves productivity but eliminates job functions, etc.. I agree with you wholeheartedly on CEO compensation. I suspect the upper echelons are not subject to the same rules of supply and demand than the rest of labor is.. it's as if the CEO and BOD are members of the same club.
Part of the issue (that's also not the fault of the unions) is globalization. How can union factories compete with those halfway around the world that are not regulated? I'm not saying I'm against regulations - many improve the lives of masses.
I tend to see women entering the workforce as a function of economics, though I do agree with Carla that in the U.S. it started in WWII. Nowadays in our consumer/consumption focused economy families need two bread-earners to maintain their standard of living.
Are you suggesting that self-identified communists should be weeded out ideologically from educational positions? That doesn't seem like freedom of expression and speech to me. It sounds a lot like "silencing". It seems that what's important is the ability of an individual to teach the material effectively and not inject their personal bias into it. A communist is not incapable of that. Neither is a Christian or a conservative or a Muslim. One's political or religious identity should not preclude them from being an educator.
Let's turn that proposition around and look at it from another angle:
Are you suggesting that self-identified white supremacists should be weeded out ideologically from educational positions? That doesn't seem like freedom of expression and speech to me. It sounds a lot like "silencing". It seems that what's important is the ability of an individual to teach the material effectively and not inject their personal bias into it. A white supremacist is not incapable of that. Neither is a Christian or a conservative or a Muslim. One's political or religious identity should not preclude them from being an educator.
One could argue that a white supremacist educator wouldn’t be able to fairly treat and evaluate their non-white students, so they wouldn’t be exact parallels.
A white supremacist could theoretically be a teacher if he never mentioned his beliefs in class or let them affect his ability to teach (i.e. no one would have to know he was a white supremacist). But letting his potential employers know would probably cause them the same trepidation that I expressed: he wouldn't treat the students fairly. Being a teacher requires an ability to treat students fairly regardless of their race or gender (if at a co-ed institution). There are certain personal beliefs that might prevent one from doing that.
Clearly we live in a society where some ideologies are considered so dangerous, so destructive that they cannot be allowed to freely propagate.
So which is more dangerous, white supremacy or communism? Clearly both are undesirable, but communist governments have killed tens of millions of their own people and perpetrated savage injustices on their entire populations. I believe that espousing communist ideology should be considered even worse than espousing white supremacist ideology because it's even more dangerous and destructive.
Therefore, absolutely, kick every self described communist to the curb, in exactly the same manner you'd do with white supremacists. That ideology has no place in education or society in general.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. As much as I don't like white supremacists, I don't believe in stamping them out. I believe in freedom of speech to a fairly extreme degree. We can try and change people's views, but it will have to be through debate and suggestion, not through oppressive policies.
Spot on my friend. If you hate what someone else is saying counter it with logical argument and debate. Oppressive policies may benefit one side today, but tomorrow it will be used them.
There you go painting with a broad brush again, Vic. A rather bigoted and ignorant one at that.
My brother has been teaching for 38 years. He has taught in both Christian and charter schools (he currently teaches in an inner-city charter school), both of which pay teachers well below the regular union public school teachers. Contrary to your hateful assumptions, he does so precisely because he values both children and education highly...and he teaches science. Imagine that!
At an in-service day earlier this school year, someone from the state university had the teachers all fill out a "white privilege" worksheet. She explained that they were actively trying to weed certain students out of the teaching program...conservatives, Christians, people from rural backgrounds, etc. How inclusive, eh?
So here you have a dedicated teacher, who takes out of his own meager salary to buy school supplies for his students, who calmly deals with being called a "white devil" and being accused of racism for expecting his students to complete their work, who keeps both his religion and his politics out of his classroom and his work environment overall, who truly cares about his students...being told that people like him should be "weeded out".
Can you explain how you know that the questionaire was meant to weed out certain people because of their beliefs or the area which they live. Was it explained with the questionaire? Its kind of hard for me to believe it would be that blatantly expressed as it would beg for lawsuits.
As I already stated, she told them. And just to make sure I had not misunderstood him, I verified that with him before I posted.
Who's going to sue? This was an in-service day for teachers. They are already teachers. It is college students they want to weed out of the teaching program.
I think, as a teacher, i would make alot of noise about such a thing.
Most teachers are leftists and agree with it. Just sayin'...
Im a leftist and do not.
True. Nor are you a teacher.
I have to agree with you on that point. Those on the far left seem to respect free speech so long as it doesn't offend their values. That is not free speech in my book. I'm not saying they have a complete monopoly on that. I have a few personal anecdotes to the contrary, but it's something they need to get through their heads.
Look familiar in intent?
"In Berlin, as in other German university towns, un-German and indecent books are being collected by the students and publicly burned."
Conservatives do value education but are shut out in colleges due to the intolerant lefty professors who do their darkest to shut up anyone who doesn't think like them.
Kids need to learn how to think, do their math, science and literature. They really don't need to know about "Jacob's New Dress."
Everyone needs to be respected and ditch the progressive agenda or more kids will be put in private schools as public schools get worse in basic education.
I am curious to know specific examples of what qualifies as "indoctrination". The fact is that the term is often used simply to refer to any presentation of a worldview that runs contrary to your own. Is it, per Phil's example, indoctrination to teach in a history class that America wasn't perfect, that Native Americans and African Americans were treated terribly in the course of our history? What if a public school teaches about various world religions? Is it a school's duty to teach children that homosexuality is wrong? If the topic is reference in ****/health ed, how should it be covered? Is it "indoctrination" to teach only science in a science class and not expect religious dogma to be taught there as well? (This is one that I can't relate to because I attended private Catholic schools from age 5 until college. We had science classes as well as religion classes).
My point being that in order to address the concept of "indoctrination", I'd need to be pointed to some specific examples of what you all personally consider to be indoctrination, since the label's usage and effectiveness varies from accusation to accusation. The fact that more teachers are Democrats is not proof of indoctrination. The fact that some teachers are Communists is not proof any more than a teacher being a Muslim or a Christian.
We have several systems called "education" and most people lump them all together.
- vocational training
- public school
- on-the-job training
and some others. ("free university", etc)
The public school system originated in ancient Greece to train slaves to be good slaves. It was adopted in India to train lower classes, while the Brahmins hired tutors to educate their children at home. They system was adopted in Prussia to train soldiers, and that is where the only change was made. Previously classes were conducted while walking outside, but in Prussia classes were conducted while seated inside. The system was then adopted in USA and England for public schools. The modern public school system is unique in that there is no customer to demand results. The practitioners only need to avoid public embarrassment.
What we call academia originated in Akademos, a grove near Athens that was sacred to the goddess of wisdom. Membership was by invitation only. Members claimed ownership of all knowledge. Anything discovered by outsiders was rejected.
It is very difficult to carry on a meaningful discussion with people who ignore the vast differences between these various systems, all called "education".
BTW I did not click "AGREE" or "DISAGREE" because I am not sure WTF you said.
This is another post filled with right wing hatred - not to mention bull-pucky!
The military are low lifes, Trump should be impeached, Trump should be killed, Christians are stupid, conservative speakers are not allowed here, on and on! These stories are in the news daily.
Any one denying it is willfully ignorant.
Lots of willfully ignorant types around, Bud.
But of course, it's more about political power than ignorance, using the Big Lie.
No one is trying to limit education in the US, Vic, except of course the far Left.
And they've pretty much succeeded.
For help please contact us here.
You're using the touch version of Amirite, you can switch to the full site.
© amirite.com 2018. Icons by DryIcons.