posted on September 28, 2019 08:20 PM by
u/sue_me_please
52
u/Hailanathema55 pointsat 1569705568.000000
This feels beyond parody.
At this point I think conservatives should just pass a bill
designating environmentalism and Woke politics a religion so they can
preclude it from publc funding and being taught by state teachers.
It seems really unfair that universities, cities and public school
can pour millions if not billions into advocating belief systems that
are no less apocalyptic or faith based than whatever Christian
evangelical revivalism is in vogue now.
…
This would be a good objective for conservatives: just create your
own title IX or in this case Amendment 1 instruction via the department
of education that religion should be thought of as any system of moral
and metaphysical instruction. Beyond that you’d just need a subset of
the conservative legal profession to lay the case that the first
amendment precludes all moral and metaphysical instruction, not just
those we arbitrarily designate “religions” (are paganism and shinto
religions, or are those exempt since they’re just collections of things
the ancients and the Japanese believe), without prejudice favouring or
disfavouring certain organizations, fads, or groups.
Does this poster think utilitarianism is a religion? It definitely
involves “moral and metaphysical instruction”! Guess it’d be wrong for
colleges to teach Bentham, Mill, Kant, and basically any moral
philosophy.
>At this point I think conservatives should just pass a bill designating environmentalism and Woke politics a religion
Contributions to the Church of Not Ruining Our Only Planet are tax-deductible!
Yeah, I really don't understand how that law is supposed to work, let alone be a good idea. Does he think conservatives can just go "blam! you're a religion now!" and then universities couldn't ever teach Social Justice (which, of course, is a real college major real people have) again? And if you did do it, what's to stop liberals from coming back and declaring that Petroleum Engineering is a religion?
No, no. You don't understand it. Everything I believe is perfectly rational, scientific-Bayesian based analysis and most definitely a-metaphysical.
On a serious side-note: If you want to know how this would work, in Brazil, we actually had an actual proposed bill that it was approved in the state of Alagoas ([Bolsonaro himself and his Minister of Education both show support to this idea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escola_sem_Partido)).
The movement Escola Sem Partido became more popular when students started recording professors teaching really non-controversial things, like Marx or Marxism, or sometimes even just mentioning Marx. As far as I see these videos, they are not "ideological indoctrination" or propaganda, but really just professors teaching ideas that are important to understand. In history, sociology and philosophy, Marx is an important figure and in any of these disciplines he should be mentioned. So these videos were just a way to essentially harass professors for doing their job. When reading the comment section from these videos, it becomes really clear that they don't want professors to even mention Marxism at all and that the "true neutrality" would be to reduce Marxism to merely "Stalin killed 100 billions of people".
Also when reading the bill, it becomes a really problematic question of how history professors would teach, for example of the one of the most prominent disasters, Hitler and holocaust? Should they be "neutral" towards Hitler, because it might be there some Nazi students that don't want their feelings hurt? In some other parts of the bill, it seems clear that they want to biology professors to teach creationism and evolution as both competing theories, this is a common idea that many of the people who likes this Escola Sem Partido seem to subscribe.
Anyway, there are many problems, including the one of parents always having the authority of what their children can learn. The idea of this bill is to make every discipline that has moral, ideological, political elements optional. The most obvious affected disciplines are humanities like history, sociology, philosophy, portuguese (that is, linguistic, literature/literary criticism and history of literature) and even to some extend biology (because of gender, sex education classes, evolution, etc.) and maybe others. Not only these disciplines would be optional, but also even if a children shows interest in them, their parents would still have to make a formal approvement to the school, that they agree that their children can attend these classes. It's also important to note that this Bill is not restricted to merely elementary school (in which in general includes people with 6 to 14 years old) but also high school (in which in general includes people from 14 to 18 years old).
The Bill approved reads:
> “Art. 1º - It is created, within the state system of “Escola Livre” Program, taking into account the following principles:
> I - political, ideological and religious neutrality of the state;
> II - pluralism of ideas in the academic field;
> III - freedom to learn, as a specific projection, in the
field of education, freedom of conscience;
> IV - freedom of belief;
> V - recognition of the student's vulnerability
as the weakest part of the learning relationship;
> VI - student education and information regarding
rights understood in their freedom of conscience and
belief;
> VII - the right of parents to have their minor children receive
moral education free of political, religious or religious indoctrination
ideological;
> Art. 2 - Are prohibited, in the classroom, within the scope of
regular education in the State of Alagoas, the practice of indoctrination political and ideological, as well as any other conduct by the teaching staff or school administration which impose or induce students to political party, religious or philosophical opinions.
> Paragraph 1. In the case of an optional discipline in which the contents referred to in the final part of the caput of this article, student attendance will depend on prior and express permission of your parent or guardian.
> Paragraph 2. The confessional schools, whose educational practices are guided by moral conceptions, principles and values, religious or ideological, shall be expressly stated in the educational services contract, document which will be essential for the act of registration, being the signature of this express permission of the parent or responsible for the student for content delivery identified as those principles, values and conceptions.
> Paragraph 3 - For the purposes of the provisions of Arts. 1 and 2 of this article, confessional schools should present and deliver to their parents or responsible for the students, informative material that enable the knowledge of the subjects taught and the approaches adopted.
> Article 3 - In the performance of his duties, the teacher:
> I - will not abuse inexperience, lack of knowledge or immaturity of the students, with the aim of to co-opt them for any type of specific current of religion, ideology or partisan politics;
> II - will not favor or harm students because of
political, ideological, moral or religious beliefs, or
of their lack;
> III - will not make religious, ideological or party politician propaganda in the classroom nor will it encourage his students to participate in demonstrations, public acts or marches;
> IV - when dealing with political, socio-cultural and will present students fairly, with the same depth and seriousness, the major versions theories, opinions and perspectives of the various competitors respect, whether or not you agree with them;
> V - Except in confessional schools, he shall refrain from introduce, in a discipline or compulsory activity, content that may conflict with the principles of this law.
> Article 4 - Schools shall educate and inform students enrolled in elementary and high school on rights deriving from freedom of conscience and belief ensured by the Federal Constitution, especially regarding the provisions of Article 3 of this Law.
> Article 5 - The State Secretariat of Education shall promote the conducting teaching ethics courses for teachers public schools, open to the school community, in order to inform and raise awareness of educators, students and their parents or guardians, about the ethical and legal limits of the teaching activity, especially as regards the principles of referred to in Article 1 of this Law.
> Article 6 - The State Education Secretariat of Alagoas and the State Board of Education of Alagoas enforce compliance with this law.
> Article 7 - Public servants who transgress the provisions of this Law shall be subject to sanctions and the penalties Code of Functional Ethics of Public Servants and in the Single Legal Regime of Civil Servants of the State of Alagoas.”
> This feels beyond parody.
>
>
Yeah, if I'd decided to write a mean-spirited parody - "a Motteposter's take on Greta" before reading this, it genuinely wouldn't have been this incoherent and stupid.
All the anti-Greta stuff I've seen on Reddit has this bizarre undercurrent of "How DARE a child speak to her elders like that! I AM OUTRAGED!". I know that the research shows conservatives have a moral need to maintain hierarchy, but it's rare to see it so clearly displayed.
Am I the only one here old enough to remember when the evangelical right actually tried this in the 1980s and 90s? Only it was "secular humanism" they were trying to declare to be a religion.
> Does this poster think utilitarianism is a religion? It definitely involves "moral and metaphysical instruction"! Guess it'd be wrong for colleges to teach Bentham, Mill, Kant, and basically any moral philosophy.
Remember, the "meta-level" discussion (talking about how people talk about things) is philosophically deeper than the "object-level" discussion (talking about actual things).
What a clusterfuck.
If they were born in 1719 they'd actually have a decent chance, the worst was over, now if they were born in 1700 or so they had a lot of fun things to look forward to, plague and famine for 20 years or so.
Poorly? The impression I get from a lot of them is that they've convinced themselves that there's a social justice witch hunt waiting to get them at any moment. I can't imagine that's conducive to healthy relationships with other people.
> Do they not understand how fucking deranged they all sound?
They wouldn't be conservative if they were aware of anything outside of spite, cruelty, and resource hoarding.
Iirc she is mad about climate change and saying 'listen to the experts and do something about it you hacks!' in emotionally charged language. Which is basically what large parts of the environmental movement (and people who care about the environment) have been saying for decades.
But that is all I got from her, as I don't care that much, I don't think the hero worshiping is that valuable (as after she is done telling the emperors they are wearing no clothes, they will thank her for it, and then carry on being emperors), but im happy she seems to have driven a lot of people to action. I just hope stuff changes, but I doubt it.
It is the same shit as always, when people talk about it using normal channels they get ignored, but when they get mad, use kids, protest etc, people notice and go 'well, we would have listened if you were not using the bad methods, it is way better to use decorum to get your point across.' missing that this tactic has failed for decades or more.
This 'just be nice it works!' fallacy is a rationalist problem. But it also is a very common thought ender in general.
They do realise just how different the world was in 1719, yes? A
Greta living as a 16 year old in 1719… Well, she might be considered
“peculiar” for her spectrum behaviours, but she wouldn’t be on her
environmental crusade because environmentalism was barely a thing for
most people then, and she wouldn’t have had exposure to mass media
reporting on environmental damage to set her on her path. Other than
being on the spectrum, she’d be almost an entirely different
individual.
Besides, the fact that we *don't* throw a child to wolves because she doesn't meet certain arbitrary standards is a good thing. In a really roundabout way, they're just advocating for eugenics.
Trying so hard to sound smart. Like Patrick Bateman levels
of pretense, as per normal. And yet the whole comment boils down to,
“worse things have been documented, therefore your bad thing is
irrelevant.” Which is exactly the kind of schoolyard understanding I’d
expect from these fucking idiots.
Given that today’s climate science did not exist in 1719, I
doubt any iteration of Greta Thunberg would have “castigated” her family
for eating a non-vegan diet in that time. But there I go again, assuming
that things don’t exist in a vacuum.
As one example: my ex-girlfriend has an IQ of around a hundred and
thirty. But when she was a kid, her parents got her diagnosed with a
learning disability.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh my God can you imagine being this
ignorant?!
Not boasting, but as far as IQ shit goes I am basically off the charts: when I was tested to work out what the fuck was wrong with me (in similar circumstances to those here described) I was one question away from breaking the test (and only got the last puzzle wrong because I second-guessed myself). It was also clear after a battery of tests that I had a severe learning disability. What I'm laughing at here is the idea that having a high IQ and having a learning disability are mutually exclusive, when IQ actually doesn't measure anything close to that sort of thing.
Kind of funny that instead of just succinctly explaining what he meant, he went on an enormous rant about how high his IQ is. Yudkowsky would be proud.
I think if I took those tests again I'd get a significantly lower score just on the basis that I really couldn't be bothered to put the mental effort in anymore
Thunberg is far too much of a moderate, but she has good intentions
and is doing a degree of good. Of course, she deserves compassion like
anyone else.
Many of them point to specific public figures’ dramatic predictions
about ecological disaster that didn’t come true and use that to assume
that the urgency around climate change is false in general. The reality
is that those exaggerated predictions about what would happen in the
advanced economies were primarily political savvy and/or ignorance.
However, it was also because it would’ve been a lot harder to get the
majority of Westerners to sympathize with those are most immediately
affected by climate change. People living in the Global South or close
to the poles. Everything from people in Africa suffering from
unprecedented drought to Siberians suffering and dying of diseases
released from thawing permafrost.
Not to mention that non-humans have it even worse. Think of animals
who rely on relatively delicate seasonal cues as a part of their life
cycle. This includes mothers literally watching their young get eaten
alive by mosquitoes active in that part of the year because they got
pregnant and therefore gave birth during the wrong time. Horrors are
happening, just not as much to the privileged right now.
Even assuming human-caused climate change is false, there are still a
laundry list of other ecological concerns that should be dealt with as
soon as possible. Perhaps central to all these concerns is the fact that
the world, and people themselves for that matter, are being treated or
forced to be static commodities instead of living gifts. Rationalism and
what could be called the civilized mindset is venomous.
think that Virtue Ethics should not be taught in the usual manner. As
normally presented, it is the standard basis for Catholicism, so is very
difficult to justify as not-a-religion.
*laughs bitterly in having two philosophy degrees and thinking virtue
ethics is probably true*
Shut the fuck up, just shut the fuck up or I’ll fucking kill
> I think that charity should not be taught, it is a basis in Catholicism, so it is very difficult to justify as not-a-religion.
I think you can use this kind of reasoning to justify anything.
A day off? Well, that looks like the Jewish sabbath, that means arguing for workers rights is a religion.
Capital punishment? Religion.
Women should take care of kids and breed? Religion.
Math? Numerology -> Religion.
In fact, how is teaching kids things different from preachers preaching to their flock? Everything is a religion!
Etc.
This feels beyond parody.
…
Does this poster think utilitarianism is a religion? It definitely involves “moral and metaphysical instruction”! Guess it’d be wrong for colleges to teach Bentham, Mill, Kant, and basically any moral philosophy.
How do these idiots function in society?
Dear god, I am in awe of how many conservative brains have been broken by smol climate girl who not want world die
Do they not understand how fucking deranged they all sound?
[deleted]
They do realise just how different the world was in 1719, yes? A Greta living as a 16 year old in 1719… Well, she might be considered “peculiar” for her spectrum behaviours, but she wouldn’t be on her environmental crusade because environmentalism was barely a thing for most people then, and she wouldn’t have had exposure to mass media reporting on environmental damage to set her on her path. Other than being on the spectrum, she’d be almost an entirely different individual.
https://twitter.com/internethippo/status/870010013900611584
Trying so hard to sound smart. Like Patrick Bateman levels of pretense, as per normal. And yet the whole comment boils down to, “worse things have been documented, therefore your bad thing is irrelevant.” Which is exactly the kind of schoolyard understanding I’d expect from these fucking idiots.
Given that today’s climate science did not exist in 1719, I doubt any iteration of Greta Thunberg would have “castigated” her family for eating a non-vegan diet in that time. But there I go again, assuming that things don’t exist in a vacuum.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh my God can you imagine being this ignorant?!
Thunberg is far too much of a moderate, but she has good intentions and is doing a degree of good. Of course, she deserves compassion like anyone else.
Many of them point to specific public figures’ dramatic predictions about ecological disaster that didn’t come true and use that to assume that the urgency around climate change is false in general. The reality is that those exaggerated predictions about what would happen in the advanced economies were primarily political savvy and/or ignorance.
However, it was also because it would’ve been a lot harder to get the majority of Westerners to sympathize with those are most immediately affected by climate change. People living in the Global South or close to the poles. Everything from people in Africa suffering from unprecedented drought to Siberians suffering and dying of diseases released from thawing permafrost.
Not to mention that non-humans have it even worse. Think of animals who rely on relatively delicate seasonal cues as a part of their life cycle. This includes mothers literally watching their young get eaten alive by mosquitoes active in that part of the year because they got pregnant and therefore gave birth during the wrong time. Horrors are happening, just not as much to the privileged right now.
Even assuming human-caused climate change is false, there are still a laundry list of other ecological concerns that should be dealt with as soon as possible. Perhaps central to all these concerns is the fact that the world, and people themselves for that matter, are being treated or forced to be static commodities instead of living gifts. Rationalism and what could be called the civilized mindset is venomous.
*laughs bitterly in having two philosophy degrees and thinking virtue ethics is probably true*
Shut the fuck up, just shut the fuck up or I’ll fucking kill
Holy shit somebody is trying to calculate the level of privilege Greta is supposed to have. Beyond parody.
E: I don’t even totally get why, are they trying to prove she is privileged? She already admitted this, what kinda of math strawman are they building?