4 ms·

> I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differen

> I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differences of opinion but active propaganda. The class wouldn't take either side. It would just discuss propaganda techniques and how to defeat them. Use material from some other time or place to examine it.

jfengel 3y ago
I suspect that no matter what example you chose, at least one side would find it prejudicial. A friend was just recounting a class she took in elementary school. Students read papers advocating a ban or government support for dihydrogen monoxide. (My friend knew the gag and was asked not to spoil the joke. She was allowed to portray herself as an addict, to the horror of all classmates.) That seems as neutral a piece of material as you're going to get. Still... I'm skeptical. I believe that if you rolled this out it would be presented as being an analogy to political topics and become seen as a covert argument for the other side. I have my suspicions about who and how, but that's not really the point. The point is that it would be somebody, no matter how neutrally it was designed. Neutrality itself has become a controversial political topic.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I think you (or many people, because I don't know you) buy into one side's propaganda: Hopelessness, despair. That's actually the objective of professional propaganda - to paralyze, not to persuade. What you see is out of the textbook. People can work together, can learn, can make it happen. It takes effort, it's not easy, but it's natural human instinct. It's the foundation of democracy. People much prefer it. In fact it is easy, really; the good people greatly outnumber the bad people; they are just sitting around, feeling intimidated, repeating the propaganda about how impossible it is. I remember somewhere, I was taught never to quit ...
  - jfengel 3y ago
    I appreciate you saying that. I'm afraid I've got a very well founded cynicism, but I do try. Thank you.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      I'm not doubting your reasons at all; I have many myself. What dissapoints me most is that it would usually be so easy to do better, get better results, leave everyone happier. Think also of all the reasons you have to believe; we see what we look for. People will let me down sometimes and will lift me up others. Neither solution, cynicism or optimism, gets perfect results or guarantees success or happiness. The latter sure feels better, especially if you accept that it won't always work, and most of all I think: Which sort of person do I want to be; where do I want to lead people? And finally, I find that people follow where you lead and act how you treat them, to a shocking degree; IMHO they follow the norm that they perceive; I try to set a positive norm and people surprise me often.

jfengel 3y ago

I suspect that no matter what example you chose, at least one side would find it prejudicial. A friend was just recounting a class she took in elementary school. Students read papers advocating a ban or government support for dihydrogen monoxide. (My friend knew the gag and was asked not to spoil the joke. She was allowed to portray herself as an addict, to the horror of all classmates.) That seems as neutral a piece of material as you're going to get. Still... I'm skeptical. I believe that if you rolled this out it would be presented as being an analogy to political topics and become seen as a covert argument for the other side. I have my suspicions about who and how, but that's not really the point. The point is that it would be somebody, no matter how neutrally it was designed. Neutrality itself has become a controversial political topic.

wolverine876 3y ago
I think you (or many people, because I don't know you) buy into one side's propaganda: Hopelessness, despair. That's actually the objective of professional propaganda - to paralyze, not to persuade. What you see is out of the textbook. People can work together, can learn, can make it happen. It takes effort, it's not easy, but it's natural human instinct. It's the foundation of democracy. People much prefer it. In fact it is easy, really; the good people greatly outnumber the bad people; they are just sitting around, feeling intimidated, repeating the propaganda about how impossible it is. I remember somewhere, I was taught never to quit ...
- jfengel 3y ago
  I appreciate you saying that. I'm afraid I've got a very well founded cynicism, but I do try. Thank you.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I'm not doubting your reasons at all; I have many myself. What dissapoints me most is that it would usually be so easy to do better, get better results, leave everyone happier. Think also of all the reasons you have to believe; we see what we look for. People will let me down sometimes and will lift me up others. Neither solution, cynicism or optimism, gets perfect results or guarantees success or happiness. The latter sure feels better, especially if you accept that it won't always work, and most of all I think: Which sort of person do I want to be; where do I want to lead people? And finally, I find that people follow where you lead and act how you treat them, to a shocking degree; IMHO they follow the norm that they perceive; I try to set a positive norm and people surprise me often.