Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Kernen]

I'm pretty sure teaching "tolerance" and "acceptance" toward people regardless of how they were born (which, ironically enough, Christianity preaches through the ol' "love thy neighbor" thing that I'm sure Neo Byzantia will respect and have a heel-turn toward accepting the LGBTQ+) doesn't fall under "indoctrination".

It absolutely does. It just happens to be a form you agree with.

We actually just had a discussion on this just yesterday in a different thread I think.

Perhaps to the extent that any education is indoctrination, but that generally isn't what is meant by indoctrination.

Also, I'm struggling to see why exposure to a way of thought that seeks to treat everybody well is objectionable to anybody.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I'm pretty sure teaching "tolerance" and "acceptance" toward people regardless of how they were born (which, ironically enough, Christianity preaches through the ol' "love thy neighbor" thing that I'm sure Neo Byzantia will respect and have a heel-turn toward accepting the LGBTQ+) doesn't fall under "indoctrination".

It absolutely does. It just happens to be a form you agree with.

We actually just had a discussion on this just yesterday in a different thread I think.

The question is, is instilling any value in children indoctrination?

[Washington Resistance Army]

It absolutely does. It just happens to be a form you agree with.

We actually just had a discussion on this just yesterday in a different thread I think.

Perhaps to the extent that any education is indoctrination, but that generally isn't what is meant by indoctrination.

Also, I'm struggling to see why exposure to a way of thought that seeks to treat everybody well is objectionable to anybody.

I'm not objecting to the thought, I'm objecting to the idea that it's not indoctrination.

It absolutely does. It just happens to be a form you agree with.

We actually just had a discussion on this just yesterday in a different thread I think.

The question is, is instilling any value in children indoctrination?

Yes.

[Torrocca]

I'm pretty fuckin' sure it's not about teaching uncritical acceptance of things, which is what indoctrination actually is; not that there's a need to be critical of people being born who they are, in any case.

You're indoctrinating them to be tolerant, there's nothing wrong with admitting that.

Nah though.

Well, maybe there is for you cuz you're an anarchist and whatnot,

Or I just disagree with what can be defined as "indoctrination", and I don't find being taught to be accepting and tolerant of people who were born differently than others to be indoctrination.

but most people have no problems accepting and believing that children should be brought up learning their preferred ideas. Indoctrinating the next generation to hold your beliefs has been a thing forever.

Sure. No disagreement there.

[Kernen]

Perhaps to the extent that any education is indoctrination, but that generally isn't what is meant by indoctrination.

Also, I'm struggling to see why exposure to a way of thought that seeks to treat everybody well is objectionable to anybody.

I'm not objecting to the thought, I'm objecting to the idea that it's not indoctrination.

The question is, is instilling any value in children indoctrination?

Yes.

That seems like an overbroad definition of indoctrination, which has a connotation of an inability to question the value taught. One can unquestionably question the prevailing values in most western societies.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm not objecting to the thought, I'm objecting to the idea that it's not indoctrination.



Yes.

That seems like an overbroad definition of indoctrination, which has a connotation of an inability to question the value. One can unquestionably question the prevailing values in most western societies.

The harsh backlash towards and attempts to destroy anyone who lacks tolerance brings that into question tbh.

Really it seems like the only people who object to treating it as such are very libertarian types who refuse to accept that something they support could land on the authoritarian side of the scale.

[Kernen]

That seems like an overbroad definition of indoctrination, which has a connotation of an inability to question the value. One can unquestionably question the prevailing values in most western societies.

The harsh backlash towards and attempts to destroy anyone who lacks tolerance brings that into question tbh.

But that isn't institutional. That's other people acting freely. You cannot ascribe that to the indoctrination process when the process itself does not instigate that reaction. You've associated two sources as one in the same, and I am not sure that, without both being institutional in genesis, you can argue indoctrination in any sense but a deliberately overbroad one.

[Nakena]

You're indoctrinating them to be tolerant, there's nothing wrong with admitting that.

Nah though.

Well, maybe there is for you cuz you're an anarchist and whatnot,

Or I just disagree with what can be defined as "indoctrination", and I don't find being taught to be accepting and tolerant of people who were born differently than others to be indoctrination.

but most people have no problems accepting and believing that children should be brought up learning their preferred ideas. Indoctrinating the next generation to hold your beliefs has been a thing forever.

Sure. No disagreement there.

We didn had LGBT+ education going on in my schooltime, but a lot of homosexual power games and bully in an all boy school. It was sometimes hard and nasty.

Compared to that the whole stuff with today's sensibilities comes across as rather tame and soft. ^^

[Kernen]

Nah though.



Or I just disagree with what can be defined as "indoctrination", and I don't find being taught to be accepting and tolerant of people who were born differently than others to be indoctrination.



Sure. No disagreement there.

We didn had LGBT+ education going on in my schooltime, but a lot of homosexual power games and bully in an all boy school. It was sometimes hard and nasty.

Compared to that the whole stuff with today's sensibilities comes across as rather tame and soft. ^^

Soft isn't really bad, though. Soft things are comfortable, after all. And there is value in a comfortable state of existence for people in society.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The harsh backlash towards and attempts to destroy anyone who lacks tolerance brings that into question tbh.

But that isn't institutional. That's other people acting freely. You cannot ascribe that to the indoctrination process when the process itself does not instigate that reaction. You've associated two sources as one in the same, and I am not sure that, without both being institutional in genesis, you can argue indoctrination in any sense but a deliberately overbroad one.

What if that backlash comes from the various institutions in society? Schools? Employers? Elected officials? At some level all of those push back against intolerance, combined with most places raising kids to believe in and preach tolerance I find it rather hard to claim it's anything but indoctrination. It's just indoctrination some people believe in and thus support. There's nothing wrong with admitting that unless you're an ultra meme type libertarian who thinks they can't hold even a single authoritarian style idea.

[Hanafuridake]

On the issue of indoctrination, my own opinion is best described in a quote from Donald Olding Hebb.

Education is in a bad way if a boy on reaching maturity has to sit down and argue out the question before deciding whether race prejudice is a good thing, or cruelty to animals, or fascist governments, or “Watergating” or if a girl leaving home has still to figure out whether a career in shoplifting or prostitution would be a good idea. Impose ideas? Try to limit freedom of choice? Of course we do, all of us.

Now the issue is whether that imposition of ideas is justifiable or not. LGBT inclusivity is much more justifiable than creationism, considering the latter is a pseudoscience pushed by pundits with no real interest in science, while LGBT people are real and often suffer from discrimination or bullying because of their sexual orientation.

[Kernen]

But that isn't institutional. That's other people acting freely. You cannot ascribe that to the indoctrination process when the process itself does not instigate that reaction. You've associated two sources as one in the same, and I am not sure that, without both being institutional in genesis, you can argue indoctrination in any sense but a deliberately overbroad one.

What if that backlash comes from the various institutions in society? Schools? Employers? Elected officials? At some level all of those push back against intolerance, combined with most places raising kids to believe in and preach tolerance I find it rather hard to claim it's anything but indoctrination. It's just indoctrination some people believe in and thus support. There's nothing wrong with admitting that unless you're an ultra meme type libertarian who thinks they can't hold even a single authoritarian style idea.

The ones who promulgate it are schools and their employees, its safe to look at the way the school teaches these values and evaluate those, rather than the actions of those not involved with directly promulgating those values. And I don't see much evidence of schools barring all dissent. I do see plenty of examples of schools limiting expression that isn't conducive to a functional learning environment, but that is generally a content-neutral restriction.

Again, I suspect that this definition of indoctrination is overbroad and inaccurate as a result.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

On the issue of indoctrination, my own opinion is best described in a quote from Donald Olding Hebb.

Education is in a bad way if a boy on reaching maturity has to sit down and argue out the question before deciding whether race prejudice is a good thing, or cruelty to animals, or fascist governments, or “Watergating” or if a girl leaving home has still to figure out whether a career in shoplifting or prostitution would be a good idea. Impose ideas? Try to limit freedom of choice? Of course we do, all of us.

Now the issue is whether that imposition of ideas is justifiable or not. LGBT inclusivity is much more justifiable than creationism, considering the latter is a pseudoscience pushed by pundits with no real interest in science, while LGBT people are real and often suffer from discrimination or bullying because of their sexual orientation.

You can push ideas in children without necessarily limiting their freedom of choice. At least de jure doing so.

[Salus Maior]

On the issue of indoctrination, my own opinion is best described in a quote from Donald Olding Hebb.

Education is in a bad way if a boy on reaching maturity has to sit down and argue out the question before deciding whether race prejudice is a good thing, or cruelty to animals, or fascist governments, or “Watergating” or if a girl leaving home has still to figure out whether a career in shoplifting or prostitution would be a good idea. Impose ideas? Try to limit freedom of choice? Of course we do, all of us.

Now the issue is whether that imposition of ideas is justifiable or not. LGBT inclusivity is much more justifiable than creationism, considering the latter is a pseudoscience pushed by pundits with no real interest in science, while LGBT people are real and often suffer from discrimination or bullying because of their sexual orientation.

Creationists don't do what they do because they're some kind of mustache twirling villains, they do what they do because Creationism is an important part of their identity as Evangelical Christians.

[Conserative Morality]

Creationists don't do what they do because they're some kind of mustache twirling villains, they do what they do because Creationism is an important part of their identity as Evangelical Christians.

That doesn't change the fact that they have no real interest in science except using it as a cover to spread their religious views.

[Conserative Morality]

Literacy is indoctrination; change my mind.

[Hanafuridake]

On the issue of indoctrination, my own opinion is best described in a quote from Donald Olding Hebb.



Now the issue is whether that imposition of ideas is justifiable or not. LGBT inclusivity is much more justifiable than creationism, considering the latter is a pseudoscience pushed by pundits with no real interest in science, while LGBT people are real and often suffer from discrimination or bullying because of their sexual orientation.

Creationists don't do what they do because they're some kind of mustache twirling villains, they do what they do because Creationism is an important part of their identity as Evangelical Christians.

No one in the history of the world has ever done something because they're “mustache twirling villains.” Belief doesn't magically absolve them for being dishonest and manipulative, there's lots of instances of them quote mining scientists or trying to character assassinate Darwin and other prominent evolutionary scientists by associating them with Hitler and genocide.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Mutual respect and understanding, treating others as you want to be treated, etc.

Hardly unique to Christianity.

It was fairly unique at the time.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Hardly unique to Christianity.

It was fairly unique at the time.

At the time, maybe. Not anymore.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It was fairly unique at the time.

At the time, maybe. Not anymore.

It's not fairly unique anymore because Christianity was hugely influential on all forms of Western philosophy that came after it, especially secular humanism.

[Hanafuridake]

Hardly unique to Christianity.

It was fairly unique at the time.

Not really, the same principle can be found in the Pre-Socratic, Pythagorean, and Stoic philosophies.

[Kowani]

Hardly unique to Christianity.

It was fairly unique at the time.

I believe Buddhism already hadn’t some of those ideals.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

At the time, maybe. Not anymore.

It's not fairly unique anymore because Christianity was hugely influential on all forms of Western philosophy that came after it, especially secular humanism.

And now, as a result, those concepts are no longer intertwined (if they ever were) with Christianity.

[EastKekistan]

Creationists don't do what they do because they're some kind of mustache twirling villains, they do what they do because Creationism is an important part of their identity as Evangelical Christians.

No one in the history of the world has ever done something because they're “mustache twirling villains.” Belief doesn't magically absolve them for being dishonest and manipulative, there's lots of instances of them quote mining scientists or trying to character assassinate Darwin and other prominent evolutionary scientists by associating them with Hitler and genocide.

When enough people have knowledge about Darwin it is hard not to have some form of Hitler.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

No one in the history of the world has ever done something because they're “mustache twirling villains.” Belief doesn't magically absolve them for being dishonest and manipulative, there's lots of instances of them quote mining scientists or trying to character assassinate Darwin and other prominent evolutionary scientists by associating them with Hitler and genocide.

When enough people have knowledge about Darwin it is hard not to have some form of Hitler.

Lay off the weed.