He said schools give varying points of view which is incompatible with indoctrination thus by default he says they don't indoctrinate kids. Fairly simple. But to rub it I he claims the parents indoctrinate their kids in home school, which is a fair assumption I suppose, but comes off as more of a personal bias to me. I've never heard of a home school kids drowning out public speaker and opposing point of view with white noise machines is all I'm saying on that.
This is the kind of "one way of thinking" thing that's a problem these days. You can indoctrinate while also exposing to different viewpoints. It's not black and white, it's a spectrum. What's clear is that public education has more opportunities and more likelihood to expose an average child to a greater variety of experiences than being homeschooled. This doesn't mean the education provided to a homeschooled child can't be good or valuable, but it's silly to argue that public education indoctrinates while praising homeschooling when both can be used to indoctrinate. They do it better than that. They disassociate with people who don't share their views. It's called "ghosting." Ask any non-Mormon children who live in a majority Mormon neighborhood - a lot of them will have very few friends because the Mormon parents won't even let them play with non-Mormon children because they will be a "bad influence." (For the record, I have a lot of Mormon friends, so I am not hating on them specifically, but it's true that religious communities are often not very welcoming of opposing views.) This isn't a homeschool problem, but homeschooling is popular in religious communities precisely because it allows them to filter out unwanted viewpoints. Well, when you are using psuedo-science to push agendas and playing fast and loose with facts...
Fast and loose with facts....he's a senior psychologist with numerous peer reviewed papers that simply disagreed with the government passing a law that allowed them to force speech. Attempting to talk about it and refusing to accept it got him labeled a ****, and the results are easy to observe. You can't preech about opposing views and never permit them to talk, not sure how you can claim it's a spectrum when simply showing a video of an opposing point of view can land you in a disciplinary tribunal in Canada. Schools are echo chambers now, "maybe" when we grew up they were different but not now, honestly I don't know I went to a Catholic school so ya....doubt it. I've read Bill c-16 and come to the same conclusion he did.
pretty sure the ERMAGERDSAFESPACE movement on college campuses has been pretty much proven to be a vocal minority, as well as your garden variety type of student to whom it sounded like a good idea til they thought it through a bit more.
He literally goes on stage without any prep and just ad-libs it. He even admits this. Doesn't mean he isn't smart, or that his papers aren't good, or that he doesn't have good ideas, but he clearly knows his base and who he is pandering to these days. Also, how many of his "numerous... papers" have you actually read vs how many of his videos have you seen? I am going to guess the latter outweighs the former. I don't have a problem with him talking. I think he is selling snake oil the same way that Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Molyneux and Dr Oz, etc. all are, but he's allowed to talk. It's a spectrum because it is, and I don't see how Peterson was treated is relevant. Here's the point: there are more than two sides. Some people like to pretend it's only two, but the reality is that there is a wide spectrum of viewpoints. In general, academia is pretty open to MOST of these viewpoints. I agree that there's a pressing concern of certain right-leaning viewpoints being suppressed in some cases (though I believe the right completely exaggerates it while ignoring religious indoctrination for some reason), but that doesn't negate the fact that you can be open to many viewpoints while still indoctrinate against some.
Ya it's going out of style fast now, I heard it compared as follows. The SJW's of today are the Goths of the past Still the group's while often small have serious impacts, and have reaching effects off campus and on. Certain schools though in the US...man they are bad...
It's a common tactic, take a small (maybe even fake problem), play the victim card, and blow the problem way out of proportion. The difference between the left and right on this is that the right doesn't realize they are doing it too.
i'm really not sure how much it was "in style" to begin with, at least to the extent anyone would complain about being silenced in some way or whatever by it. just easy to circlejerk about
It's always telling when you hear more people complain about a thing than the thing itself. Also, there's this weird trend where disagreeing with a viewpoint is often considered shutting it down or being "intolerant." And here I am sitting thinking, "Wait, I am only disagreeing... not trying to control what you are saying?" In any case, I don't have a problem with homeschooling as a concept. I may even be doing so with my own children. I just think that whether a kid is "indoctrinated" depends on the educator, not the system, and I can just as easily indoctrinate a kid via homeschooling. I don't understand why this is controversial.
That said, there's something that people are going to have figure out where they stand on in regards to private companies and free speech (there's obviously a slightly different, but related debate when it comes to publicly funded institutions). Do you think Youtube should have the right to decide what content they will host as part of their free speech? Or do you believe that users of the platforms' own free speech trumps that of Youtube's?
Really? Guess it's my echo chamber or maybe cause I'm in Canada but massive riots like that from the BLM or campus white noise protests, I literally can't go a day without some seeing some anti white racist comment being made by someone saying you can't be racist to white people, all taught to them by modern social politics courses in college and universities. If you are looking for names and dates though I could take an hour to find you hundreds of examples to explain my point of view. I assume you don't really want to hear it and quite frankly I don't want to do it if I don't have to. Side story that's quite funny to me, yesterday I was defending women in a comment thread some MGTOW thing people were taking too far and than someone who's username was killallthewhitepeople was agreeing with my point of view....i had to bow out of that one.
Didn't see your question before (maybe you edited). I would classify this on the same level as the White Supremacist that ran over someone. They are both things that shouldn't happen, and are also fringe elements. And people who conflate Antifa with "the left" are doing the same thing that people who conflate White Supremacists with "the right." Also, when the school stopped the next "high risk" talk, that's a reasonable thing for them to do, IMO. It's not ideal, and in a way it means the "terrorists win" but as long as they continue to allow lectures/talks once they have coordinated with police and figured out what the security situation is, that's fine. (I also think sometimes people hold these kinds of talks not from a good faith or discussion perspective, but just to rile people up... but that's another discussion and I think one can argue that agitators play a valuable role too even.) Again, not sure what your point was since you said nothing but posted a video, so maybe I am completely misunderstanding what you are trying to get at. Feel free to follow up.
Tangentially relevant: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/there-really-are-plenty-of-conservative-columnists.html
Yup, seen that and others like it. There's a looooooooooooong debate about it. tl;dr There were warning signs waaaaaay before anything truly bad happened, and CPS (and the neighbors) did nothing to stop it. Neither did the school. Which had encouraged them to leave... And if I recall, the parents had ignored court dates on the few times that anything was done. And nothing was done in response... So, basically, sure, it happened in a home that had declared itself as homeschooling. But it could have easily been stopped, but no one did what they were supposed to or should have. Again. It seems to be a trend with child protection agencies and public schools, where they don't do what they're supposed to... Yeah, because they're incompetent when it actually matters. "Someone chained their children to their beds and forced them to dig during the night!" "meh, we're busy" "Someone let their child play outside alone!" "Mother of pox! Stop them!" Seriously... I am ironically also in favor of that sort of direction. Not in CT... In CT, it's illegal to lower the budget for publicly funded schools. Our teachers are overpaid. And our schools waste their money on nonsense. "What's that? We have more money? Double the height and number of the sports field flood lights! That will help education!" I kid you not. That is EXACTLY what they do here. But then, CT sucks anyway so it's not really surprising. hehehe Ironically, the fastest growing group of homeschoolers are agnostics and atheists that are frustrated with public schools. Child brides? I assume you mean in Mormon and Muslim communities? Ya' know, the ones that the government barely does anything about. Yes. But guess how much of those that oppose homeschooling would agree with you? (not many) Homeschoolers have been shown to, on average, be more open to debating view points and accepting new ideas. As opposed to almost every single public schooler I've met. hahaha no. In fact, homeschoolers on average (oh look, again) often have even more opportunities than public schooled students. And on average are more likely to travel to more historical sites, museums, go to cultural festivals, etc. Public education systems, almost by default because of how they're set up, are built to indoctrinate. That's not really the fault of the teachers, it's just how it's set up. Homeschooling, while it clearly has the potential, is set up in such a way that it's solely dependent on the teacher. Which means it's much easier to fix when it comes up, much easier to see, and much less likely to happen in general. I think I'm beginning to understand where your viewpoints on religions folk come form... Yeah, no one likes the Mormon communities outside of the Mormons. No other religious person I've known has not been willing to say that Mormon communities are too closed off, and actively work to indoctrinate. They're very different from the vast majority of other religious communities (except Muslims, who are a bit similar). Where did you get these ideas about him? How did you reach these conclusions? As far as I've been able to tell in what little research I've done, he's very credible. And, in theory, if he is as smart as some people think he is, he likely doesn't need to prepare any talks. If you know the material well enough, you can just start talking. Because that's actually common treatment for anyone that holds even vaguely similar viewpoints to him. Sure, it's a spectrum. Most of the spectrum is weighted towards bad treatment. Can you explain why you believe this to be true? Are you saying the left doesn't realize it does this? Or are you saying the left knows and doesn't care? Usually. But that only works if you aren't actively looking for as many viewpoints as possible on "the thing". When I go looking, I see an even amount of people doing "the thing" and people complaining about it. You may feel that way. And on the internet, I'm certain people would accuse you of it. It's the internet, where everyone is bound to be an ignorant jerk at least once. And I'm sorry if that does happen to you. People have gotten to a knee-jerk reaction point, because they're tired of actually being shut down or silenced. And yes, it's happened to me and plenty of people I know. Posts being removed, comments being flagged and never allowed to be posted, etc. And the posts and comments are usually even nicer and more moderate than what I post here... I think Youtube and other major websites have long presented themselves as unbiased and objective. With them now taking more and more biased actions, it's making people understandably angry. And the fact that they have often gone out of their way to deny their bias makes it worse. So, I think businesses have a right to decide what is and is not allowed on their websites, store fronts, who they service, what they do, etc. But I do think that lying about it is not excusable. Wait, murder is the on the same level as harassment? jk, I know that's not what you mean, but it was too easy. Okay... Maybe. But when I talk to left leaning people, they generally won't denounce Antifa. But when I talk to right leaning people, it doesn't take much to get them talking about how much they despise White Supremacists. And then they get threatened by the students if they contemplate allowing another talk... Yup. That's actively happened several times. I'm not really happy about that. But, when it happened, their stated purpose was to try and show people how easy it was/is to get people to riot about even the mildest things. ("Men are usually taller then women." "RIOT AND THROW ROCKS AT THEM!" I kid you not, that stuff has happened and still happens.). So, while I'm unhappy that they did it with the knowledge that people would riot, I do kinda agree with their point...
