4 ms·

The US formalism and legal system around public education specifically calls out its purpose for creating nationally aligned citizenship. For example a few yea

The US formalism and legal system around public education specifically calls out its purpose for creating nationally aligned citizenship. For example a few years ago Colorado proposed to educate High Schoolers using a textbook that highlights morally questionable aspects of American history from the perspective of "The Left" (Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"), it was rejected by the courts on the grounds it would not accomplish the required purpose of creating nationally aligned citizens, crucially NOT because it wasn't a good textbook for teaching history.

analog31 7y ago
The public high schools in my locale use that textbook.
basch 7y ago
I've often felt that despite going to a high school that championed critical thinking, that certain topics were closer to indoctrination. I've noticed, with much of the public, if democracy is criticized the response is usually akin to "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" more often in the form of "well what do you think is better" followed by the bad sides of that system. It doesnt actually address the argument. That single catch phrase became a way to shut down critical thinking before it began. "Nope I have the ultimate rebuttal, I wont even entertain other premises, even hypothetically." People were taught that, despite its flaws, its best, and dont question that it might not be the best. To question democracy itself, as not superior to everything else, is painful and frightening to many, as it fractures their worldview and lenses theyve built with which they understand the world. Defense of democracy feels more like fanaticism, the way people choose a sports team and then never question it. (Lions fans may question their allegiance, but thats a different story.) It becomes a bit recursive, as democracy is powered by and predicated on an educated electorate.
- stjohnswarts 7y ago
  If you are going to posit such questions then you should be able to answer their question with your opinion/thoughts. It's your responsibility as the person asking the question in 99% of the situations that it would come up. If you have a good firm grounding for meritocracy, fascism, technocracy, etc then you should have a sound argument to present it. At that point you can look down upon them for defaulting to democracy.
  - basch 7y ago
    The conversation cant happen. People can be unwilling to entertain a conversation because of an axom in their beliefs, that they cant let go of, even hypothetically. >If you have a good firm grounding for meritocracy, fascism, technocracy, etc then you should have a sound argument to present it. This is almost the same thing. Youre saying "if its not democracy it must be one of these other ones that has already been thought up and that the case must be made for another to make the case against valid" as if a new new, different form of rule, ever unthought up before cant exist. Im not even making an argument against democracy, I am saying one day I realized that through all my schooling I never actually questioned the tenant that it might not be the default right answer. It was a scary and intriguing experience to suddenly realize "I just assumed this was the best answer because I was told it was and the argument sounded good at the time and I based my opinion of everything else on that assumption, I never really questioned that belief, maybe I shouldnt do that. Maybe there were ulterior motives for teaching me it was the default correct answer (Democracy sustaining itself?) If education was able to get me to belief this thing without questioning it, what other biases did I absorb that I am unaware of and should also be questioning?" Democracy very well might be the best right answer, but its better for me to be able to question that belief, its origin, its purpose, and its validity, than for me not to be able to question at all. For me its better to not have faith that it is correct, but instead judge it from a leveled objective playing field. It's better for my critical thinking skills to not take "the worst form of Government except for all those others" as the gospel of a dogma.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  > To question democracy itself, as not superior to everything else, is painful and frightening to many, as it fractures their worldview and lenses theyve built with which they understand the world. What's truly frightening are the conclusions that follow this realization: most people do not think about their beliefs and straight up hate you if you question them; it's useless to debate those people since that brings only suffering and persecution; better to somehow seize power and impose one's world view on them.
  - basch 7y ago
    >better to somehow seize power and impose one's world view on them. That's sort of what politicians do. Over half the population doesnt vote for them, and the majority of what they said to get votes was platitudes and lies anyway. Trump and Hillary got less than half the vote each, from 61.5 percent of the population. Trump played a well crafted and complicated game, one where he got less votes than his competitor, to take charge with only 28.3% of the voting age population picking him. He did so despite the entire party he ran in wanting "anybody but him." He is like a parasite that took over its host, and in a way it was very interesting to watch someone hijack a party against the partys will. Campaigns are basically reduced to who can lie the loudest and most convincingly. Who can say the right things, even if those things have nothing to do with what they do when they get into office. (Any republican even whispering the words small government lately.) Even a candidate like Bernie's platform, is largely the job of the house and senate. If he didnt also get both, theres no way hed be anything more than a bully pulpit president. Saying what he wants, not getting it, unable to do anything about it. Maybe making compromise to get a shell of what he wants passed. I have to think a bunch of Trump's support was just that finally someone kept going after a recording or scandal came out. Instead of letting the "we caught you, now youre unelectable" committee of the fifth estate disqualify everyone they didnt like, someone running finally said "i dont care, im not quitting, youre not in charge of who the people get to vote for." Basically where im going with this incredibly off topic and unfocused rant is that i would call; hijacking a party that doesnt want you (GOP establishment), getting less than 30% of people to vote for you, and doing so by shouting what amounts to nonsense; either seizing power (or maybe just the electorate saying "we are done with all these other "approved" people you keep trying to force down our throats, we give up. Nonsense is better than your narrative.)

analog31 7y ago

The public high schools in my locale use that textbook.

basch 7y ago

I've often felt that despite going to a high school that championed critical thinking, that certain topics were closer to indoctrination. I've noticed, with much of the public, if democracy is criticized the response is usually akin to "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" more often in the form of "well what do you think is better" followed by the bad sides of that system. It doesnt actually address the argument. That single catch phrase became a way to shut down critical thinking before it began. "Nope I have the ultimate rebuttal, I wont even entertain other premises, even hypothetically." People were taught that, despite its flaws, its best, and dont question that it might not be the best. To question democracy itself, as not superior to everything else, is painful and frightening to many, as it fractures their worldview and lenses theyve built with which they understand the world. Defense of democracy feels more like fanaticism, the way people choose a sports team and then never question it. (Lions fans may question their allegiance, but thats a different story.) It becomes a bit recursive, as democracy is powered by and predicated on an educated electorate.

stjohnswarts 7y ago
If you are going to posit such questions then you should be able to answer their question with your opinion/thoughts. It's your responsibility as the person asking the question in 99% of the situations that it would come up. If you have a good firm grounding for meritocracy, fascism, technocracy, etc then you should have a sound argument to present it. At that point you can look down upon them for defaulting to democracy.
- basch 7y ago
  The conversation cant happen. People can be unwilling to entertain a conversation because of an axom in their beliefs, that they cant let go of, even hypothetically. >If you have a good firm grounding for meritocracy, fascism, technocracy, etc then you should have a sound argument to present it. This is almost the same thing. Youre saying "if its not democracy it must be one of these other ones that has already been thought up and that the case must be made for another to make the case against valid" as if a new new, different form of rule, ever unthought up before cant exist. Im not even making an argument against democracy, I am saying one day I realized that through all my schooling I never actually questioned the tenant that it might not be the default right answer. It was a scary and intriguing experience to suddenly realize "I just assumed this was the best answer because I was told it was and the argument sounded good at the time and I based my opinion of everything else on that assumption, I never really questioned that belief, maybe I shouldnt do that. Maybe there were ulterior motives for teaching me it was the default correct answer (Democracy sustaining itself?) If education was able to get me to belief this thing without questioning it, what other biases did I absorb that I am unaware of and should also be questioning?" Democracy very well might be the best right answer, but its better for me to be able to question that belief, its origin, its purpose, and its validity, than for me not to be able to question at all. For me its better to not have faith that it is correct, but instead judge it from a leveled objective playing field. It's better for my critical thinking skills to not take "the worst form of Government except for all those others" as the gospel of a dogma.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
> To question democracy itself, as not superior to everything else, is painful and frightening to many, as it fractures their worldview and lenses theyve built with which they understand the world. What's truly frightening are the conclusions that follow this realization: most people do not think about their beliefs and straight up hate you if you question them; it's useless to debate those people since that brings only suffering and persecution; better to somehow seize power and impose one's world view on them.
- basch 7y ago
  >better to somehow seize power and impose one's world view on them. That's sort of what politicians do. Over half the population doesnt vote for them, and the majority of what they said to get votes was platitudes and lies anyway. Trump and Hillary got less than half the vote each, from 61.5 percent of the population. Trump played a well crafted and complicated game, one where he got less votes than his competitor, to take charge with only 28.3% of the voting age population picking him. He did so despite the entire party he ran in wanting "anybody but him." He is like a parasite that took over its host, and in a way it was very interesting to watch someone hijack a party against the partys will. Campaigns are basically reduced to who can lie the loudest and most convincingly. Who can say the right things, even if those things have nothing to do with what they do when they get into office. (Any republican even whispering the words small government lately.) Even a candidate like Bernie's platform, is largely the job of the house and senate. If he didnt also get both, theres no way hed be anything more than a bully pulpit president. Saying what he wants, not getting it, unable to do anything about it. Maybe making compromise to get a shell of what he wants passed. I have to think a bunch of Trump's support was just that finally someone kept going after a recording or scandal came out. Instead of letting the "we caught you, now youre unelectable" committee of the fifth estate disqualify everyone they didnt like, someone running finally said "i dont care, im not quitting, youre not in charge of who the people get to vote for." Basically where im going with this incredibly off topic and unfocused rant is that i would call; hijacking a party that doesnt want you (GOP establishment), getting less than 30% of people to vote for you, and doing so by shouting what amounts to nonsense; either seizing power (or maybe just the electorate saying "we are done with all these other "approved" people you keep trying to force down our throats, we give up. Nonsense is better than your narrative.)