Brain washing of kids in school

Lizzy Warren announced that she wouldn't approve a secretary of education unless the person was approved by a 9 y/o boy who mistakenly thinks he is a girl.


PROOF.

 

Smug liberal youth should consider:

1. Your generation will be the ones "holding the bag" with respect to government debt, and;

2. You will never be able to retire.

 

I think most of us understood what you meant. Some people can't "read the room" so to speak, (or they look for irrelevant errors to reinforce weak arguments) .

 

China is building coal fired power plants like they are going out of style.

 

I’ve never heard this quote from John Stuart Mills. Yet it is a quote that I can whole heartedly agree to. After all it was liberalism that brought us modernity.

 

We didn't send our children to public schools. If you give your children over to the government to be educated, don't complain if their first loyalty is to that government.

 

What a ridiculous assumption. Wasn’t Thomas Edison a conservative?

 

Lot's of brainwashing evident here. Like Mark Twain once said, "It's easy to fool people but harder to convince them they've been fooled."

 

I’ve had a career working in R&D labs developing cutting edge high tech products. It involves a lot of new ways of doing old things, the discovery of things no one has thought about before. It is an environment that is full of intellectual curiosity and creativity. It has often appeared to me that being conservative is an impediment to such work. That everyone I worked with in such a setting, who expressed conservative ideology, were typically not the best performers.

Likewise in college. It was the students who where always going on about their conservative Christian values, who seemed to struggle the most.

That conservative groups like PragerU are so factually incorrect, yet expresses what is often believed as fact on the right, I would be suspect of any professor who expressed conservative leanings.

 

Edison and his friends Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone had a club, of sorts. They were all liberal and non-religious and millionaires. There was a fourth, his name Boroughs, or something like that. They were freethinkers in the liberal sense of the term, and can be compared to their modern day versions, people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and the folks at Google.

 

And presenting two sides of a one-sided issue is a wonderful brainwashing tool, especially when children are the subjects.

No, it's a result of one side being insane and the other being gullible enough to debate what cannot reasonably be debated.

Swell, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with "SSM", which is at best a glaring imbecility irrespective of state involvement.

 

I know what you mean. I can lay it all out for them, show them the process by which they are being deceived, who is deceiving them and present the evidence that clearly proves the error of what they believe. And it has no effect.

 

Posts that begin with such smug arrogance can rarely be taken seriously.

Surely you jest! Or perhaps you have confused the word "never" with "constantly".

Well, Your post is certainly a good example of why Democrats are well known as the party of conceited condescension and hypocrisy!

So, "Conservatives think alike because they're all ignorant, stupid and"walk in Lock Step"
But liberals/Democrats/progressives/the Left think alike because they are enlightened geniuses?

Uh-huh.

 

I believe one of the links I’ve supplied in this thread addresses the media role in this.

In the realm of academia today I think most are just teaching what they were taught. They don’t know any better because they have never been exposed to certain information themselves. They have never approached subjects from a neutral perspective with all the information. Group think will (and is growing) grow exponentially because of this.

 

Doesn’t matter. Only the narrative matters.

 

I’m not aware of any one sided issues. If all information is provided to children and they aren’t coached on conclusions I don’t see any brainwashing.

I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one. If all information is provided, there isn’t brainwashing. If information is withheld, corrupted, or weighted differently intentionally then there is brainwashing. Maybe we are just looking at it from different angles.

 

Henry Ford was an interesting man. A lot more then meets the eye.

 

Obviously you don't know them when you see them, as I've already mentioned two.

When two sides of a one-sided issue are presented to children, it serves no other purpose than to make them increasingly susceptible to brainwashing.

 

At a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event with Ta-Nahesi Coates, newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) issued a chilling warning about climate change.

"Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?" Ocasio-Cortez told Coates. "This is the war — this is our World War II."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._years_if_we_dont_address_climate_change.html

 

How can there be two sides to a one sided issue? You are contradicting yourself again.

Give me an example of what you see as a legitimate two sided issue.

 

When the purported second side is self-evidently insane, hence unworthy of consideration.

What the hell for? Have I come within lightyears of insinuating that they don't exist?

 

I wasn't aware that universities inquire about someone's politics when hiring, and it seems they don't. That fact occurs to reasonably bright people. Just sayin' ...

The professor is also quoted in the same Duke Chronicle story as saying, “I don’t know the political affiliation of all of my colleagues in philosophy, nor do I care. Our last hire was in the history of modern philosophy. We hired an expert in Kant and Newton. Politics never came up in the interview.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/phi-...of-emeritus-butchers-quote-robert-verbruggen/


BTW, if you've passed sociology, psychology, and anthropology courses you'd know better, or you can just read "The Bell Curve." It dispels that silly myth.

 

Since my background is in biology and since @ImNotOliver broached the subject of geological evolution, I’ll start there. Most of my professors taught biology from the standpoint that Darwinian theory and the geological evidence (fossil record) are in agreement. It’s how they were taught.

The facts are different. I’m not getting into the creation/evolution debate here. I’m simply pointing out that the geological evidence points to punctuated equilibrium, not gradualism. Gradualism is how my professors were taught. They continued to teach the same, even when preponderance of evidence favored the punctuated equilibrium model. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt here. It’s possible they learned and understood the failings of gradualism, but chose not to include it in education they provided. I don’t think my professors intentionally misled students however, they just didn’t know any better.