Education in the USA

[crispybits]

This despite the fact that the US government on both sides of the R/D divide is further to the right than the vast majority of the rest of the world?

[Phatscotty]

This despite the fact that the US government on both sides of the R/D divide is further to the right than the vast majority of the rest of the world?

from your perspective I understand that. You should see how far left we think you are!

From here, both sides are moving in the same direction, wherever you want to call it, and they are both selling out the next generation at break-neck speed and burying them in debt and exponentially rising interest payments. We want to go the other way, away from that. Whatever direction you want to call that doesn't matter much to me.

[crispybits]

You're mixing up fiscal and social politics.

Liberals are nothing to do with financial politics. You get left wing fiscal liberals and right wing fiscal liberals. Similarly, you get left wing fiscal authoritarians and right wing fiscal authoritarians. Libertarians and religious conservatives are both right wing fiscally but have vastly different social policies. Communists and fascists are both left wing fiscally but also have vastly different social standpoints.

Education, at least the aspect you're railing against, is not a fiscal matter, it is a social one. Therefore the liberal agenda on this matter is for little or no government control over what is taught. A truly liberal education policy is one where teachers are free to teach whatever they wish however they wish. A truly authoritarian education policy is one where teachers are given little or no freedom over what to teach or how to teach it.

If you are claiming indoctrination, then this is not compatible with liberal politics. You may well be perceiving a real problem, but you're misidentifying it. If children are being indoctrinated in the education system to one particular viewpoint, then someone, somewhere is using authoritarian measures rather than liberal ones. It may well be the people that you call liberals (because I realise that the US seemingly uses different definitions for most words than the rest of the world) are the ones doing this, but you're not making a clear argument when you call it a "liberal agenda" or words to that effect.

Instead of making lazy arguments (and I'm desperately trying not to sound like BBS here) identify the actual people doing what you disagree with, identify exactly what it is they are doing that you disagree with, and argue based on those terms. When you throw liberal into arguments the way you do you muddy the waters tremendously (especially when you claim to be liberal (and fiscally right wing) yourself in virtually every political argument on this forum.

[Lootifer]

You're mixing up fiscal and social politics.

Liberals are nothing to do with financial politics. You get left wing fiscal liberals and right wing fiscal liberals. Similarly, you get left wing fiscal authoritarians and right wing fiscal authoritarians. Libertarians and religious conservatives are both right wing fiscally but have vastly different social policies. Communists and fascists are both left wing fiscally but also have vastly different social standpoints.

Education, at least the aspect you're railing against, is not a fiscal matter, it is a social one. Therefore the liberal agenda on this matter is for little or no government control over what is taught. A truly liberal education policy is one where teachers are free to teach whatever they wish however they wish. A truly authoritarian education policy is one where teachers are given little or no freedom over what to teach or how to teach it.

If you are claiming indoctrination, then this is not compatible with liberal politics. You may well be perceiving a real problem, but you're misidentifying it. If children are being indoctrinated in the education system to one particular viewpoint, then someone, somewhere is using authoritarian measures rather than liberal ones. It may well be the people that you call liberals (because I realise that the US seemingly uses different definitions for most words than the rest of the world) are the ones doing this, but you're not making a clear argument when you call it a "liberal agenda" or words to that effect.

Completely agree. Couldnt (and I have tried) to say it better myself.

Instead of making lazy arguments (and I'm desperately trying not to sound like BBS here) identify the actual people doing what you disagree with, identify exactly what it is they are doing that you disagree with, and argue based on those terms. When you throw liberal into arguments the way you do you muddy the waters tremendously (especially when you claim to be liberal (and fiscally right wing) yourself in virtually every political argument on this forum.

The problem is, to me, these anecdotal arguments are no less lazy. "Liberal indoctrination" does exist, just look at some of the terrible professors (they dont even deserve that title imo) in PS's earlier youtubes. However this does not prove system wide indoctrination in my opinion.

[Phatscotty]

I acknowledged there are some exceptions

[Phatscotty]

You're mixing up fiscal and social politics.

Liberals are nothing to do with financial politics. You get left wing fiscal liberals and right wing fiscal liberals. Similarly, you get left wing fiscal authoritarians and right wing fiscal authoritarians. Libertarians and religious conservatives are both right wing fiscally but have vastly different social policies. Communists and fascists are both left wing fiscally but also have vastly different social standpoints.

Education, at least the aspect you're railing against, is not a fiscal matter, it is a social one. Therefore the liberal agenda on this matter is for little or no government control over what is taught. A truly liberal education policy is one where teachers are free to teach whatever they wish however they wish. A truly authoritarian education policy is one where teachers are given little or no freedom over what to teach or how to teach it.

If you are claiming indoctrination, then this is not compatible with liberal politics. You may well be perceiving a real problem, but you're misidentifying it. If children are being indoctrinated in the education system to one particular viewpoint, then someone, somewhere is using authoritarian measures rather than liberal ones. It may well be the people that you call liberals (because I realise that the US seemingly uses different definitions for most words than the rest of the world) are the ones doing this, but you're not making a clear argument when you call it a "liberal agenda" or words to that effect.

Instead of making lazy arguments (and I'm desperately trying not to sound like BBS here) identify the actual people doing what you disagree with, identify exactly what it is they are doing that you disagree with, and argue based on those terms. When you throw liberal into arguments the way you do you muddy the waters tremendously (especially when you claim to be liberal (and fiscally right wing) yourself in virtually every political argument on this forum.

You are using Lootifer's words. I have tried not to use "liberal" here. I have tried to use Leftist.

[crispybits]

You've been using the two terms interchangably throughout the thread. If you mean leftist then stick to that but what you're actually arguing against is socialism not liberalism, and I could quote at least 3 posts just from the last few pages where you are staing that there is a liberal agenda.

socialism =/= liberalism

[Phatscotty]

You've been using the two terms interchangably throughout the thread. If you mean leftist then stick to that but what you're actually arguing against is socialism not liberalism, and I could quote at least 3 posts just from the last few pages where you are staing that there is a liberal agenda.

socialism =/= liberalism

Yeah I know ya can, but I have been trying not to.

[Lootifer]

Fair enough PS - ill give you the benefit of the doubt, but bear in mind that book by whats-his-face is trying to argue that it's liberal indoctrination, not leftist indoctrination; and many of your other examples have cited social or liberal indoctrination rather than left-wing indoctrination (things like global warming/feminism/gay rights etc etc are social issues, not fiscal).

[Lootifer]

Post 2) (reply to the above)

You are missing the correct perspective. But that's okay, you aren't in America and did not go through American education and do not have friends who all grew up to work in the education system, like I do

it is very true that the Left completely dominated our universities. Virtually all radicalism comes from the universities, but it's "education" so their radicalism gets mainstreamed through culture shock and emotional manipulation/control. There overall statement about Education in America is "we teach you what to think" and its NOT "we teach you how to think". That isn't to say there aren't great and wonderful teachers out there of either ideology, because there are. But it's the exception. You also need to understand I have witnessed first hand leftist brainwashing on more than a few occasions at universities and community colleges and high school I attended, my friends attended, my family attended.


If we can bring this angle full circle into how brainwashing political correctness is being indoctrinated into our children today, we see news stories everyday here in America, especially on local levels, of teachers calling students "murderers" for cutting a piece of paper into the shape of a gun, calling the police because a student bit a pop tart into the shape of a gun, suspending students for wearing 2nd amendment t-shirts, and expelling eagle scouts who left their rifle in the trunk of their car and did the right thing and notified someone that the situation needed to be corrected, but the panic came anyways. Our children are learning to fear the mention of the word "gun" in their schools, and those schools are dominated by the Left. I'm sure I don't have to go over the removal of God from schools, again, the Left makes the rules. [social issue even though you call it leftist]

Like they say with gay marriage "just wait until the young people can vote, and it won't even be an issue anymore" the same can also be said for our right to bear arms "just wait until the young people can vote, and it won't even be an issue anymore" Because, as all young people who are indoctrinated will tell you (just ask them) they know all about the world they have never stepped a foot into, and are more than willing to confront their parents and elders about how they don't know anything, and their ways are wrong, and the young people who have no experience know what's best. It's the mark of brainwash

And yes that is happening. Students are failing more and more. In New York some high schools are producing graduates at levels of 80% that are illiterate. And yes the test are also changing. They are being "standardized", and the name of that program is Common Core if you want to understand what I'm talking about here

Blue is liberal/social
Red is leftist/fiscal

So if your argument follows the standard form of argument your statment part is using the "left" argument; but you explanation is describing "liberal" issues.

This is an annoying tangent, but you did start the argument describing social issues, not fiscal ones... (not trying to gotcha, its just a fact).

[thegreekdog]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

[waauw]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

no but the problem is that socialism is a beast that is hard to controll once you let it go. Politicians have the tendency to pull more and more power to themselves. Now overall this doesn't show a bad intent per sé. However the more power a politician has, the less he'll have the propensity to listen to what the opposition says. In extreme cases where socialism has progressed so far that the government has too much power, it often does lead to indoctrination.

But even in these cases the socialist leaders might not have bad intents. They want kids to learn good moral values. Though what they consider good moral values, may not be what others consider good moral values and that's where the conflict arrises.

An argument often used on the liberal side is that the government shouldn't teach kids moral values whatsoever. It's up to the parents to teach that to their children

[Symmetry]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

no but the problem is that socialism is a beast that is hard to controll once you let it go. Politicians have the tendency to pull more and more power to themselves. Now overall this doesn't show a bad intent per sé. However the more power a politician has, the less he'll have the propensity to listen to what the opposition says. In extreme cases where socialism has progressed so far that the government has too much power, it often does lead to indoctrination.

But even in these cases the socialist leaders might not have bad intents. They want kids to learn good moral values. Though what they consider good moral values, may not be what others consider good moral values and that's where the conflict arrises.

An argument often used on the liberal side is that the government shouldn't teach kids moral values whatsoever. It's up to the parents to teach that to their children

Nonsense.

[PLAYER57832]

Standardization could go against both flavors, but it won't. There is too much on the line for any honest reform. And it's working so well, I view commoncore as a consolidation of the leftist control. I mean, the government just monopolized all student loans, they are in the business now. They aren't going to "free up" education for real reform...on the contrary, they are locking it down.

Sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory and not a lot like a logical argument.

Standardization is an authoritarian concept. You are going to have to explain to me (or show me) why anyone liberal would be in support of such a regieme... (considering authoritarianism is the antithesis liberalism).

Sure this may very well be a government control thing; but my argument has never been about government control in this thread. I my question is the prevelance of liberal indoctrination, not governmental indoctrination.

And before you say they are the same thing i'll refer you to the above point: "Standardization is an authoritarian concept". That pretty clearly shows that they are not.

Whoever is in power. The issue transcends party. I don't care what side anyone is on, they are going to want to indoctrinate whatever ideology further progresses their power. Leftism is bigger than that, and I and others have argued Leftism is currently enjoying religion/worship status, promoted on all fronts (media, education, hollywood, culture, sports, government).

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

So, you truly believe that LIBERALS are currently in control in the US????

Pretty funny, since so few here, even fewer younger than 40 even understand what liberalism really means.

[Lootifer]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

Nah if you look at his original post he is clearly outlining liberal opinions on social issues; and accuses them of indoctrination.

He can try and back peddle all he like with this tangent. But as far as I am concerned this thread was answered pages ago.

[waauw]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

no but the problem is that socialism is a beast that is hard to controll once you let it go. Politicians have the tendency to pull more and more power to themselves. Now overall this doesn't show a bad intent per sé. However the more power a politician has, the less he'll have the propensity to listen to what the opposition says. In extreme cases where socialism has progressed so far that the government has too much power, it often does lead to indoctrination.

But even in these cases the socialist leaders might not have bad intents. They want kids to learn good moral values. Though what they consider good moral values, may not be what others consider good moral values and that's where the conflict arrises.

An argument often used on the liberal side is that the government shouldn't teach kids moral values whatsoever. It's up to the parents to teach that to their children

Nonsense.

No nonsense, my country is an example of this. We have quite an extensive social system(mostly cuz of our strong cultural relations with France). When I went to high school we had to follow informational classes about ecological technologies and global warming the same way we had to follow classes about sex, anticonception, etc.
Now I personally had no problem with solar energy but they were even propagating bio-oil which is a horrible way of creating energy, yet they wanted to propagate it to 14-15 yo kids who don't really know that much of the world yet. And I call it propaganda cuz they told us all the advantages and barely any of the disadvantages, which is not exactly how you create a critical mind.

and if my example is enough, go read the books of Friedrich Hayek

[Phatscotty]

Fair enough PS - ill give you the benefit of the doubt, but bear in mind that book by whats-his-face is trying to argue that it's liberal indoctrination, not leftist indoctrination; and many of your other examples have cited social or liberal indoctrination rather than left-wing indoctrination (things like global warming/feminism/gay rights etc etc are social issues, not fiscal).

Leftism has no interest in promoting social values? Why would something being social or liberal mean it cannot be leftist?

[Phatscotty]

I'm not exactly sure where I'm gonna go with this yet, but I know some answers lie here.

It is from Dewey's own words that you can see his true intentions. He wrote and helped write the Humanist Manifesto after returning from a trip to meet with others of like mind in eastern europe. Two books he wrote tell how he planned to accomplish the goals laid out in the Humanist Manifesto through America's public school system. The first title is Faith in Education and the second is Democracy and Education.

B.F. Skinner jumped on the bandwagon, working to change the mold for American children through public schools and help that mold conform with many goals of the Humanist Manifesto. THE FATHER OF MODERN EDUCATION

John Dewey is recognized as the Father of modern education. The N.E.A. gave him high recognition for his works. Much of his changes to schools was made possible by the theory of evolution being so strongly accepted after the writings of Charles Darwin. John Dewey wrote a theory of education and democracy that was based on evolution.

The education theories of Dewey would not have been so acceptable to people had it not been for the previous acceptance of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.That theory was widely received around the world. Evolution praises change and declares the highest good is a positive change. Darwin's theory helped strengthen the ideas of relativism and positivism which had been around for ages but were reinforced by John Dewey.

John Dewey developed ideas of evolutionary democracy and evolutionary education and evolutionary law.

the rest

show

[Lootifer]

Blergh, really dont want to go down the religion in education path...

[Phatscotty]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

no but the problem is that socialism is a beast that is hard to controll once you let it go. Politicians have the tendency to pull more and more power to themselves. Now overall this doesn't show a bad intent per sé. However the more power a politician has, the less he'll have the propensity to listen to what the opposition says. In extreme cases where socialism has progressed so far that the government has too much power, it often does lead to indoctrination.

But even in these cases the socialist leaders might not have bad intents. They want kids to learn good moral values. Though what they consider good moral values, may not be what others consider good moral values and that's where the conflict arrises.

An argument often used on the liberal side is that the government shouldn't teach kids moral values whatsoever. It's up to the parents to teach that to their children

That's what this was all about

[Phatscotty]

Blergh, really dont want to go down the religion in education path...

then take the religion out of it or skip it, and focus on the J. Dewey parts. I didn't want to break it all up

I don't think it's possible to understand the history of our education without the religion in education "path". That is our history

[thegreekdog]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

Nah if you look at his original post he is clearly outlining liberal opinions on social issues; and accuses them of indoctrination.

He can try and back peddle all he like with this tangent. But as far as I am concerned this thread was answered pages ago.

I agree that this thread ended pages ago (since I ended it motherfucker).

Phatscotty uses the terms "liberal" and "socialist" and "Democrat" interchangeably. In his defense, many people do this and do it the other way too ("conservative" and "libertarian" and "Republican" and "Tea Party [whatever]") interchangeably.

[Phatscotty]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

Nah if you look at his original post he is clearly outlining liberal opinions on social issues; and accuses them of indoctrination.

He can try and back peddle all he like with this tangent. But as far as I am concerned this thread was answered pages ago.

I agree that this thread ended pages ago (since I ended it motherfucker).

Phatscotty uses the terms "liberal" and "socialist" and "Democrat" interchangeably. In his defense, many people do this and do it the other way too ("conservative" and "libertarian" and "Republican" and "Tea Party [whatever]") interchangeably.

Which is why, again, I am using the term Leftism. Look at the original statement, and look at the top of this page and the last page. I've hardly even used the term Democrat or Socialist even. You are reading someone else's post and juxtaposing it on me. I swear you do this on purpose. You are the one who introduced "Democrat" just a bit ago, so wtf is your deal in saying I have been using those terms? (I haven't)

[crispybits]

What does "leftist" mean then if it isn't "democrat" or "socialist" or "liberal" PS?

[Phatscotty]

What does "leftist" mean then if it isn't "democrat" or "socialist" or "liberal" PS?

Leftism - The ideology of the political left.

Your point does not in any way mean I have been using terminology that I have not been using/trying not to use. Everyone is trying to use it