Quote from: James J SkachWow, and you claim Spike is playing games with the language? Jesus, that's a stretch. Why don't you call it CBS/RS theory and get Edwards to join you?

OK - that's a bit harsh. But man, you're turning cartwheels to keep certain things being labeled a way you don't seem to prefer.  Could it be it strikes to close to home?  Is one's preference for consensus-building blah blah blah so strong that one feels the need to indocrinate 8 year olds not an ideology?

I am very careful in how I describe things because I think proper descriptions of things are important. I think it is impossible to know many things or to arrive at correct conclusions about them without proper and accurate descriptions of them. My gripe with Spike is precisely that he isn't as careful in describing things as I am. I think many of the terms being thrown around in this debate by others are pejorative and inaccurate, and I refuse to get suckered into using them.

QuoteUmmm...OK.  I dont' have the right to teach my children as I see fit?  I'll tell you what, you raise your children that way, and I'll raise mine the way I see fit, K?  I mean, no offense, but what the fuck would give anyone the right to say I can't "push [my] own political viewpoints on [my] children?"

Your children are people too, albeit people of a diminished capacity. Just as it's wrong to coerce other people to do what you want without good reason, it's wrong to coerce children to do what you want without good reason. Children do have a diminished capacity, so what constitutes a "good reason" is broader than it is with an adult, but it has a limit.  

QuoteNow I happen to personally believe in exposing my kids - when the time is right - to various political thoughts.  I'm sure they will go through periods of various perspectives - fight with me sometimes, agree with me other.  But until they are 18, I'm responsible for them and I'll push whatever idea on them that I see fit.

Your children are not your property.

QuoteBut you, or the article (or both), are missing that ingredient.  Where are the parents in this?  Except for references to demographics and being "socially liberal," we have no idea if they object or not. The teachers simply take it upon themselves - the parents don't even get a chance to object.

When I was a child, my parents would ask me what I did at school that day, and I would tell them. If the parents of these children are not even taking that much interest in their children, I am highly unsympathetic to them. If they are, they would presumably learn about events like this. But you are correct that we have no idea if they object or not. It therefore does not follow that the parents did not have a chance to object. We simply lack information to establish a conclusion either way.

QuoteNow you may like calling yourself reasonable for not objecting to having your children exposed to these ideas - it's really just a cute way of calling someone who does object unreasonable..so..yeah..fuck you, then, ok?

:rolleyes:

If you don't like being called "unreasonable", then don't be so unreasonable.

QuoteOh...umm...sorry...system of economic organiztion then.  Again with the games.  You know what the fuck was meant.

Yes I do. What was meant was a pejorative term that inaccurately describes what was going on, but that reduces a complex situation and set of positions into easy talking points.

QuoteOK, let's play your game, what word would you use describe your long, biased description? Biased, you say?  When it's consensus or sharing, it's "developing" or "superior."  But when it's ownership, it's "asserting" and "confronting" and "tresspass." You can't see your own bias?

It's not my "bias". I was recording there what the teachers wanted to teach in the kind of language they would use. Once again, you don't seem quite capable of understanding that I am not a socialist, or a "collectivist" or whatever the term of approbation is this week.

QuoteWTF?  The defintion of indoctrination is "To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view."  What term would you use for teachers that "cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature?" I can see why you didn't find their excercise dishonest - look at your response!  You can't respond, so you're calling into question the use of word that are plainly defined in any dictionary.  The entire excercise was dishonest - from the reasons for it's implementation to it's facade of learning over indoctrination.

You have to justify the last statement, not just assert it.

I don't think it was indoctrination because I disagree that the definition you just provided conveys the entirety of the meaning of the word. "Indoctrination" means that the doctrine or position being advocated is presented in a dogmatic way, and without much critical investigation. I think that this accords with a perfectly ordinary way of using the word.

Please don't pretend in future that dictionary.com is an authoritative and exhaustive source on what words mean and how words are used.

I think that the teachers did not teach the children in a dogmatic way, and they tried to operate within the critical capacity of the children. They say that they had extensive discussions in class about how the children felt, and some of the children are recorded as disagreeing with the teachers. Because of this, it does not seem like it was "indoctrination".

QuoteHmmm...you can call it what you like.  But "consensus based" "resource sharing" sounds an awful lot like "The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively" - the definition of "collectivism."

Actually, they sound very different. One describes how a social group acts - by building consensuses and by sharing resources amongst its members. The other describes a system or set of principles that is very abstract. Reducing one to the other is sloppy at best.

QuoteYeah, see, you say this.  And it's why I say you seem to be conflicted.  "Consensus-based" and "resource sharing" and individual human freedom are a bit at odds.

I don't recall advocating "resource sharing", and merely saying that I like consensus-building in communities is hardly contrary to favouring freedom and dignity.

QuoteIf the consensus says I should give up my property..oh wait..it's not mine, it's the community's...so where again does my indivdual human freedom come into play?

I don't know. This is a silly example that seems to exist as part of a rant rather than real reflection on how such a society would operate.

QuoteI'm free as long as I don't try to own anything of my own?  Unless, of course, you are assuming the "consensus-based" "resource-sharing" is voluntary - which totally takes you out of the realm of "consensus-based" "resource-sharing."

Please save this kind of self-righteous bloviating for your personal blog. I am uninterested in it.

QuoteAnd drop all the names you like.  It means nothing.

You seem dedicated to demonstrating that I am sort of secret socialist. I fail to see how this is relevant. I am not, but even if I were, it would not make my arguments any less valid or sound.

QuoteNo, they hid the entire dishonest indoctrination mess behind the facade of "exploring power." Makes the skin crawl.

So does the idea that you have children.

Quote from: JimBobOzFuck Ayn Rand and take objectivism out the back and put a bullet in its neck.

 Jeezus...it was just a joke one liner.

Quote from: JimBobOzAuthority and force were used to create collectivism here, and it didn't "develop" at all.

It doesn't seem to be quite _that_ simple. It's a bit like planting something. The soil has to be right for the plant in order for it to go. You don't just drop the seed down from on high, command it to grow, and bam, there's your azaleas or whatever.

The kids clearly had sentiments that were suitable to a sort of organisation that shared resources like LEGOs, and some sentiments that weren't. What the teachers did was use their authority as teachers to pick activities that would encourage the kind of sentiments they like and discourage the kind that they didn't like.

That's not "force" and it's not really an inappropriate use of "authority", especially since it's part of the reason that we give teachers authority over children in the first place.

Now, it's true, the sentiments that they chose to encourage, and the kind of form they chose to give to those sentiments isn't to my taste, but I don't think it was especially nefarious. The children aren't guaranteed to grow up bolsheviks, and more of them get to play with the LEGOs than before.

Psuedo: I am going to have to stop arguing with you here. You do nothing but attack me, rather than respond to what I say.  In fact, I keep waiting for a response from you that isn't just a lot of

'Nyah Nyah, you wrong... and a poopy-head'. So far the closest you've come is an appeal to authority (Jesus Christ) like I give two fucks about what some dead guy has to say in support of your ideology... oops, you refuse to admit to it being an ideology. Well, me caveman grasp of words not good enough to use other word. So: Ideology.  

I could go on about the hierarchal nature of civilizations and the human animal, and the proper use of authority and power, particularly when engaged in a training or educational system.  But you have a closed mind on the subject and seem to think that I am in some weird way contradicting myself.  So, I won't waste my time with you.

This is pretty much why I didn't bother, you know? Spike, man, I don't have anything against you, but it's like you're not reading what Psuedo is saying. And, Psuedo, I respect what you had to say here, but you're not going to get anything for your effort in this thread.

I don't know what it is, but this kind of topic rarely goes well, on the internet or in person. Personally, I don't feel emotionally invested in discussing teaching techniques and their like on a rpg site, so I don't, suffice to say that the people who are feeling 'sick' or the like have seriously misplaced where they ought to be feeling their outrage, and from whom.

These teachers? Maybe naive, but not nefarious. Worried about indoctrination? Man, these are not the people you need to worry about.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo, because you haven't clarified what you mean by "succeeded better in life" or how a society has a "life" to "succeed" in. I am uninterested in listening to mealy-mouthed rants about the glories of your favourite form of political organisation. Please save them for your blog.

With respect to "succeeding in life", I simply used a variation of your own phrase, which you didn't define, either.  So feel free to define what you mean by it.  As for how a society has a "life" to succeed better in, look at the society from top to bottom and assess the bottom, average, and top.

As for rants about the glories of our favorite forms of political organizations, yes, let's save them for blogs instead of indoctrinating children in them like these teachers did.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am doubtful that the number of winners in a classroom game increasing from two to three demonstrates the fundamental fairness of capitalism itself, everywhere and throughout all time.

Define what you mean by "fair".  Because how you define that word will determine what you consider good and what you don't consider good.

But that wasn't the issue I was responding to.  Spike claimed, "And not one instance of telling them to 'keep trying' or 'hard work and playing smart can let you win."

In response, you claimed, "That's because the latter would be a lie, and the former would simply frustrate the children."

The fact that an additional child was able to win the second round despite the fact that the game was rigged to prevent it suggests that the latter wasn't a lie.  And teaching children to give up as soon as they get frustrated and don't see instant results is an awful lesson to teach.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere are plenty of potential ways that we could organise our political economy. Capitalism is certainly one of those ways, but not the only way.

Sure.   We pick all sorts of other organizations including totalitarianism and fascism, but don't you think the quality of the results should have at least some bearing on whether a "political economy" should be considered good or bad?  Or are you simply engaging in the postmodern game of denying differences so you can claim everything is the same, in order to justify a choice that's clearly inferior?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am uninterested in being drawn into a situation in which we throw unsupported talking points at one another, hoping to sway a non-existent audience.

Apparently you've never gotten a letter or message from a lurker telling you that your "unsupported talking points" have swayed them.  Maybe you should try supporting your "talking points" or at least pick some that sound sensible to the lurkers you think are "non-existent".

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am interested only in talking about this particular situation in this particular classroom.

Given that the teachers lesson was based on how to organize a "political economy", that broader context matters, don't you think?  Would you have been just as defensive of them if they were teaching the children to organize their Lego usage based on the free enterprise system and free trade capitalism?

No...actually...what we do is read Pseudo and respond with actual definitions of words of the English language.  In response, we get "that doesn't fully cover what is meant when the word is used..." Bullshit.

Look, words mean things. If you want to assume that I meant indoctrination as pejorative - good, I did!  That doesn't mean the word isn't accurate; it doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Likewise collectivism, etc.

So, Pseduo, you can go play your semantic games with someone else. Words do have meanings.  In this particular case, they've been used correctly.  You've successfully derailed the point of the conversation by tangents about the meanings of words even though they've been used properly because the use seems to offend your delicate sensibilities - they're so...judgemental!

Face it - these teachers had an agenda; to teach that capitalism (a word you don't seem to have a problem using as a simple label as opposed to a long-winded set of terms to better describe a complex situation) is unjust. They weren't trying to explore "power" or any other bullshit.  They just wanted the kids to come away with the same political view as they have (which is perfectly valid if that's what the parents wanted - but we have no idea as they don't talk about that) but in such as way as to hide the fact that they used their power to do so.  They wanted everyone - including the reader of the article, to come away with the belief that the kids just naturally came to the conclusions that the teachers wanted (Capitalism=Bad, Collectivism=Good). It's a dishonest sham.

They wrote this article as if it's some proof of something - as if this example is to be followed.  Look - we can teach collectivism! Look - we can teach kids Social Justice! Look - we can teach kids that Capitalism is BadWrong! And they come to the conclusion naturally!

If you want to dodge that discussion with a word dance, find another partner.

Quote from: droogMy own daughter, who has just started school, is continually being exposed to viewpoints (not to mention grammatical constructions) of which I disapprove. And it's not just the teachers.

Yes, but the question is whether you or someone else has more of a right than you do to shape your daughter's opinions and way of looking at the world.  That was the claim.  Even though I don't personally agree with your political perspective, I don't think that teachers or other people (including me) have the same rights as, or even more rights than, you to shape how your daughter thinks (except in cases of gross physical or psychological abuse).  She's your daughter, not mine.

ADDED:  I think that this is a fundamental issue off respecting other people, even if you disagree with them, and it's the foundation of democracy.  Once you disrespect people because they have different opinions, it's just a skip and a jump to all sorts of nastiness.

Meanwhile, just a few (non Lego) blocks away, look what else is happening in the neighborhood of Queen Anne. Even though there is an unequal distribution of hats, this school presses on without imposing a hat ban for "...five months of naming and investigating the issues of power, rules, ownership, and authority..."



Hopefuly they'll be able to survive without learning gems like "Collectivism is good."

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am very careful in how I describe things because I think proper descriptions of things are important. I think it is impossible to know many things or to arrive at correct conclusions about them without proper and accurate descriptions of them.

Defining things with the"proper descriptions" to assure that people "arrive at correct conclusions" is called "spin".  You may not think that's what you are doing, but it is.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMy gripe with Spike is precisely that he isn't as careful in describing things as I am. I think many of the terms being thrown around in this debate by others are pejorative and inaccurate, and I refuse to get suckered into using them.

In other words, you don't like Spike's spin and would rather substitute your own under the guise of being more careful about your use of language.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYour children are people too, albeit people of a diminished capacity. Just as it's wrong to coerce other people to do what you want without good reason, it's wrong to coerce children to do what you want without good reason. Children do have a diminished capacity, so what constitutes a "good reason" is broader than it is with an adult, but it has a limit.

And who gets to determine what a "good reason" is and, once there is a "good reason", who gets to coerce them?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYour children are not your property.

As you've said, children are "people of a diminished capacity".  Whose responsibility are they and what does it mean to be responsible for a child?

Out of curiosity, do you have any children?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf you don't like being called "unreasonable", then don't be so unreasonable.

You, of course, aren't being unreasonable, right? :rolleyes:

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYes I do. What was meant was a pejorative term that inaccurately describes what was going on, but that reduces a complex situation and set of positions into easy talking points.

As various people have pointed out, it quite accurately describes what was going on.  Why do you think "collectivism" is a pejorative term?  What sort of complexity was present in this situation that's unjustly reduced or ignored by that term?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's not my "bias". I was recording there what the teachers wanted to teach in the kind of language they would use.

OK.  So then do you agree that the teachers were biased?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineOnce again, you don't seem quite capable of understanding that I am not a socialist, or a "collectivist" or whatever the term of approbation is this week.

So you don't agree with the ideology that the teachers were teaching, then?  What is your point in defending the teachers, then?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou have to justify the last statement, not just assert it.

Several people already have.  At the very least, they were dishonest when they claimed:

"After nearly an hour of passionate exchange, we brought the conversation to a close, reminding the children that we teachers didn't have an answer already figured out about Legotown. We assured them that we were right there with them in this process of getting clearer about what hadn't worked well in Legotown, and understanding how we could create a community of fairness about Legos."

It's quite clear, based on other statements made in the article, that they already know what kind of answers they wanted and were imposing their own ideas on the children about what had and hadn't worked.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI don't think it was indoctrination because I disagree that the definition you just provided conveys the entirety of the meaning of the word. "Indoctrination" means that the doctrine or position being advocated is presented in a dogmatic way, and without much critical investigation. I think that this accords with a perfectly ordinary way of using the word.

Ah, but they were being dogmatic.  They didn't present both sides and focused on particular perspectives that they wanted to encourage.  And if you look at most of their discussions and exercises, they focused on feelings rather than rational arguments.  They were jerking the children around emotionally with a one-sided lesson.

Quote from: PseudoephedrinePlease don't pretend in future that dictionary.com is an authoritative and exhaustive source on what words mean and how words are used.

And please stop pretending that you are the "authoritative and exhaustive source on what words mean and how words are used".  You aren't, either, just because you are obsessed with spinning words to mean what you want them to mean.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think that the teachers did not teach the children in a dogmatic way, and they tried to operate within the critical capacity of the children. They say that they had extensive discussions in class about how the children felt, and some of the children are recorded as disagreeing with the teachers. Because of this, it does not seem like it was "indoctrination".

They didn't simply discuss how the children felt.  They made sure that the children felt certain ways about things by framing issues in certain ways.  In other words, the article records that several children felt that at least some of the inequality in Legotown was justified but the teachers didn't accept those feelings as valid.  And the trading game was designed to capture all the negatives they perceived capitalism as having but none of the positives.  If you can't see a political and social agenda or indoctrination in what the teachers were doing, you either are incredibly dense, incredibly irrational, or you agree with the political and social agenda of the teachers and are both dishonestly trying to distance yourself from their views and methods and are unhappy with how it's being described because you do agree with it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineActually, they sound very different. One describes how a social group acts - by building consensuses and by sharing resources amongst its members. The other describes a system or set of principles that is very abstract. Reducing one to the other is sloppy at best.

So it's "sloppy"?  Is it inaccurate in this case and, if so, why is it an inaccurate description?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI don't recall advocating "resource sharing", and merely saying that I like consensus-building in communities is hardly contrary to favouring freedom and dignity.

What do you mean by "consensus-building"?

Quote from: PseudoephedrinePlease save this kind of self-righteous bloviating for your personal blog. I am uninterested in it.

Perhaps because you don't have an answer for it.  I find it quite convenient that whenever anyone gets to the gist of the problem, you fall back on spin and personal attacks.  

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou seem dedicated to demonstrating that I am sort of secret socialist. I fail to see how this is relevant. I am not, but even if I were, it would not make my arguments any less valid or sound.

And you seem quite adamant about denying that you share the political views of the teachers yet seem to agree with them and defend them at every turn.  As for the validity and soundness of your arguments, it would help if you started making some real arguments instead of simply disagreements over definitions, casual dismissals and personal attacks, and unsupported assertions.  You may think you are making whiz-bang arguments but as far as I can tell, you are simply spinning and framing but aren't actually saying much of anything.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSo does the idea that you have children.

Which explains why you are so casual about wanting to take control of people's children away from them.  And it's why I'd prefer that you, and people like you, get nowhere near any real political power.

Quote from: malleus arianorumMeanwhile, just a few (non Lego) blocks away, look what else is happening in the neighborhood of Queen Anne. Even though there is an unequal distribution of hats, this school presses on without imposing a hat ban for "...five months of naming and investigating the issues of power, rules, ownership, and authority..."



Hopefuly they'll be able to survive without learning gems like "Collectivism is good."

Did you notice the only two without hats were a female and an Asian child?

I think this is a good teaching opportunity regarding White Male Oppression, personally.

Won't somebody think of the children?

If you guys would like a Lego game to teach children about the joys of capitalism, I think I found one for you...

http://www.io.com/~sj/PirateGame.html

:yarr:

Quote from: James J SkachNo...actually...what we do is read Pseudo and respond with actual definitions of words of the English language.  In response, we get "that doesn't fully cover what is meant when the word is used..." Bullshit.

It may surprise you to learn that dictionary.com - where you got your definition from - is not an exhaustive source of meaning for words in the English language. I wouldn't surprise me, but then, I'm not an idiot.

QuoteLook, words mean things. If you want to assume that I meant indoctrination as pejorative - good, I did!  That doesn't mean the word isn't accurate; it doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Likewise collectivism, etc.

"Collectivism" is a useless term used by people on the internet who want to pretend to know what they're talking about. And yes, your terms being pejorative is a problem - because you are using terms that do not accurately describe anything in reality. Instead, you appear to be playing some variation of "libertarian boggle", trying to pack as many loaded and inaccurate terms into a single statement as you can.

QuoteSo, Pseduo, you can go play your semantic games with someone else. Words do have meanings.  In this particular case, they've been used correctly.  You've successfully derailed the point of the conversation by tangents about the meanings of words even though they've been used properly because the use seems to offend your delicate sensibilities - they're so...judgemental!

See, James, this is why you're just not paying attention. I'm very judgmental, and I see nothing wrong with being so in these kinds of debates. But I demand correct judgments, not bullshit ones. You are spouting bullshit ones.

QuoteFace it - these teachers had an agenda; to teach that capitalism (a word you don't seem to have a problem using as a simple label as opposed to a long-winded set of terms to better describe a complex situation) is unjust.

That's because we know what I'm talking about when I say "capitalism" in regards to the article, because the teachers identify the aspects of capitalism they consider important. The word "collectivism" does not appear in the article, and was introduced by Spike. I have no idea what he means by it, since this discussion started when I pointed out that he was being inconsistent in his evaluation of what constituted collectivism.

QuoteThey weren't trying to explore "power" or any other bullshit.  They just wanted the kids to come away with the same political view as they have (which is perfectly valid if that's what the parents wanted - but we have no idea as they don't talk about that) but in such as way as to hide the fact that they used their power to do so.

Actually, they didn't hide that fact at all. That kind of basic inaccuracy undermines your arguments.

QuoteThey wanted everyone - including the reader of the article, to come away with the belief that the kids just naturally came to the conclusions that the teachers wanted (Capitalism=Bad, Collectivism=Good). It's a dishonest sham.

No they didn't. Once again, a simple reading of the article will show that the teachers openly decided to do so. There is no dishonesty here.

QuoteThey wrote this article as if it's some proof of something - as if this example is to be followed.  Look - we can teach collectivism! Look - we can teach kids Social Justice! Look - we can teach kids that Capitalism is BadWrong! And they come to the conclusion naturally!

The last part is a lie. It's not even consistent with the doctrine of human development that Marxism claims is true, let alone being based on anything in the article. Marxism holds that the development of individuals is dominated by their environment rather than their nature. Educating people in philosophical matters with an explicitly partisan viewpoint is how one comes to correct conclusions under Marxism. There is no need for a Marxist to pretend that people come to some conclusion "naturally" (a term no Marxist would use).

Now, the teachers might be some other kind of socialist than Marxist, but most socialists hold relatively similar viewpoints. Political education in the socialist tradition has no need for people to realise it "naturally" nor any desire to hide what it is doing - inculcating a specific political viewpoint.

This is why the accusation that the teachers dishonestly hid what they were doing is so bizarre. It's hard to know much about socialism - either in practice or theory - and seriously claim that they would do that.

QuoteIf you want to dodge that discussion with a word dance, find another partner.

Actually, you started responding to me, not vice versa.

Quote from: SpikePsuedo: I am going to have to stop arguing with you here. You do nothing but attack me, rather than respond to what I say.  In fact, I keep waiting for a response from you that isn't just a lot of

'Nyah Nyah, you wrong... and a poopy-head'. So far the closest you've come is an appeal to authority (Jesus Christ) like I give two fucks about what some dead guy has to say in support of your ideology... oops, you refuse to admit to it being an ideology. Well, me caveman grasp of words not good enough to use other word. So: Ideology.

Just as you have misread the article, you've pretty obviously misread everything I've written. Heck, my first reply to you dealt pretty clearly with a specific problem in your assumptions that you've yet to clarify.

QuoteI could go on about the hierarchal nature of civilizations and the human animal, and the proper use of authority and power, particularly when engaged in a training or educational system.  But you have a closed mind on the subject and seem to think that I am in some weird way contradicting myself.  So, I won't waste my time with you.

Actually, I have a very open mind on the subject. That's precisely why I am defending the teachers, while you seem to wish that they had simply done the conventional thing - bossed the students into doing what the teachers wanted.

Quote from: Thanatos02This is pretty much why I didn't bother, you know? Spike, man, I don't have anything against you, but it's like you're not reading what Psuedo is saying. And, Psuedo, I respect what you had to say here, but you're not going to get anything for your effort in this thread.

Still mate, you've got to charge out and tilt every once in a while, or else the bastards will think they're the only ones who know what a lance is.