To teach, or not to teach. That is a question.

It is a question for career seekers, parents in covid era and at other times, and for us. We might turn a political hot potato into a little history lesson. The lawmaker from Illinois who is in trouble for pointing out that Adolf Hitler was right about on thing is, probably, right about that one thing. Essentially, he said that the one who controls the children gains the future. Yup. Raise up the children in the way they should go and they will return to that [in the future]. There's some more trouble. That is from the Bible. *ban sea! ban sea!*

But here is the resolution of all that dissonance. Beloved Crista Mcauliffe, a history teacher who trained for a mission and went to space, popularized this phrase. 'I touch the future. I teach.' Hitler was right, and some people like the message better when it comes from a popular teacher than from a dictator.

So. In addition to demanding apologies and resignations because of a Hitler remark, should Congress now remove all cultural and other references to McAuliffe, space, teaching, teachers, Hitler, history, children, and the future?

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2021 04:11AM by Shop-et-al.

Create an Account or Log In

Membership is free. Simply choose your username, type in your email address, and choose a password. You immediately get full access to the forum.

Already a member? Log In.

I think she should have quoted the Bible or Crista. Why didn't she? She also could have said what she said, but not reference Hitler. The choice to quote and reference Hitler was deliberate. Clearly, it was to appeal to a core base of people like the one's wearing the 6 million is not enough t-shirts and other hateful groups, many who disguise and describe themselves as patriots. Another big problem is people simply looking the other way, rationalizing and excusing it when statements like that are made and attributed to Hitler as if to say Hitler wasn't so bad. Give me a break.
Look, there is a rhetorical reason that someone would quote Hitler vs all the other ways this sentiment has been expressed. I could explain, but there's no reason to think you don't already understand fully.
Who said that Hitler wasn't so bad?

What I think is so bad is the backlash against principle. The underlying principle of the thing is the same regardless of who applies it and for what purposes it is applied. A quick scan of history shows that controlling or heavily influencing today's children creates or at least heavily influences the future.

Who, besides me and the lawmaker from Illinois, is aware that education can mean different things to different people? It is absolutely beautiful when it is a means to more means and better ends for people who start from poverty and/or other challenged situations. It is absolutely horrific when it is used to brainwash others.

How is the government planning to use education with today's children, and what will our future be like after the government has done its work with the children? There might be a good reason to throw up a caution about Hitler... just sayin'...

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
Communists have killed way more than Hitler, yet no one gets criticized or fired for quoting them or supporting their philosophy. If anything, the woke crowd praises them. The media, the woke folk and twitter crazies despise freedom of speech unless they agree with it.
Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything anytime. Freedom comes with responsibility and accountability. If you don't behave accordingly, yes, you're fired.

The lawmaker's backlash was primarily because of the reference to Hitler. It was a rhetorical reference, but not exclusively. It was also an appeal to those who have an endearment for him, an appeal to the worst in humankind. She was speaking to a crowd that perhaps hear those words as affirmation to their own biases.

What was the lawmaker's intent? I question it. Not for a minute was it solely the "underlying principle of the thing." Instead, I suggest we examine the underlying intent, a less appropriate one, camouflaged be some perhaps good principle.

I reject the premise. The lawmaker, and you to a degree you, seem to suggest that the government has a scheme involving education. When Hitler spoke those words, he had the Hitler Youth Movement in mind. Indeed, indoctrination and brainwashing was the purpose. The lawmaker, by bringing up Hitler, seems to compare U.S. education with that. Additionally, the lawmaker is speaking to a crowd inferring and interjecting that, in my opinion, false premise, as a matter of fact.

On the contrary. The United States education system is based on a word that is primarily used only in educational circles called "pedagogy." I can speak from internal and external experience. Teachers are trained to teach using five basic pedagogical (methods of teaching/learning) approaches... Constructivist, Collaborative, Integrative, Inquiry and Reflective. It is the opposite of brainwashing. Instead, the methods promote independent thinking.
@roxy1 wrote:

Communists have killed way more than Hitler, yet no one gets criticized or fired for quoting them or supporting their philosophy. If anything, the woke crowd praises them. The media, the woke folk and twitter crazies despise freedom of speech unless they agree with it.

You are using a lot of buzz words... "the" media, woke folk, twitter crazies....... It appears you have indulged yourself in "the media." Change the channel. Detox.
Hitler... Germany then... Germany now... and I can happily link to an AP article titled: Germany's Merkel: Trump's Twitter eviction 'problematic'

Timely. Otherwise perfect. Even if you don't want to click a link, it will be easy to locate the article from the key words or the title itself.

Essentially, freedom of speech/ how it is managed is being questioned. Should this happen as per legislative provisions, or should social media leaders manage and declare what speech is still free?

Very nice!

[www.yahoo.com]

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
You haven't been flagged and placed on Facebook or Twitter probation before? Neither have I, but I know someone who has. The company has rules, and apparently she violated it, which is crazy to me. It was the use of some word that caused Facebook to warn her, not allow her to post anything for 30 days. She was in Facebook jail so to speak. She could have visitors. She could see what others post, but she could not reply or post herself. Rules are rules, even if you don't understand or know what they are. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's some 101 course. As to what has happened to the Unindicted Co-conspirator individual-1 and others, I got no problem with them shutting down someone who has proven the words and lies he spits out promotes the kind of sedition and violence we saw against the country and democracy. Having an opinion is OK, but what the Unindicted Co-conspirator was doing was far more than stating an opinion. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. You can't say anything you want anytime you want. Fire!
Actually, there is unpunished precedent for what you have labeled as "sedition and violence." Nancy Peolosi and, presumably, her band of lobbyists and activists, set out to kill the democratic process when they ramrodded the ACA through without thoughtful consideration and an opportunity to refine the proposed legislation before voting on it. You may recall that Nancy Pelosi instructed the House of Representatives to vote for the ACA in order to find out what was in it. This was more than backazzwards. It was their attempt to have their way at the expense of logic, reason, and the generally thoughtful democratic process. They overpowered us! Ouch!!!!! How would you describe the overbearing tactics of those lobbyists, activist, and legislators who negated our votes, disenfranchised us, and squashed sanity?

It is time to call a spade a spade. If Pelosi wants to right any wrongs, she should start with undoing the cascade of events that stemmed from her own egregious actions. If there is any time left after that, she might have time for other matters.

tptb in social media are not above the laws of the land. If they do not understand that even unpopular speech is permitted, they might consider shutting themselves down in order to avoid future errors. After all, only a relatively small number of people responded by rushing the capitol. Most people did not get all riled up by President Trump; he did not have that much power or that much influence. Something else, and/or someone else, must have fed into the event. What? Who? Why? Why not pursue these types of questions in hopes of learning something? Who is so strongly opposed to learning something that they would cancel the free education opportunities that social media provides directly or sparks with responses or just off-screen thoughts? ????? I do not do social media, and until yesterday I thought it should be dismantled. Then, I realized that social media has potential to contribute to provide free education (for people who have the ability to learn from absolutely anything).

As a curiosity: how much does the now infamous Pelosi lectern weigh? Even when I was a stronger youngster than I am now, I might not have been able to tote that thing around under one arm.

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus


Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2021 02:48PM by Shop-et-al.
What you described happens all the time..... That is a world of difference from invading the capital, asking for the heads of specific people, killing someone who tries to stop them, beating others, and attempting to halt one of the branches of government. What you described is a lot different than someone calling people to meet at a certain place on a specific day, and then giving them marching orders.

It's amazing to me how people continue to brush off everything, no matter what. "Only a relatively small amount of people responded..." Sounds like something the unindicted co-conspirator individual-1 would say in an attempt to offer condolences to the family of Officer Brian Sicknick.
Really?

Impeachment for insurrection when only a small number of people responded, and while we have yet to discover to what they were responding? That is far-reaching and, considering that Nancy Pelosi has described herself as a strategist, might be designed to roil up so much anti-Trump hatred that she might seem heroic or at least not so objectionable as a next president in the remote eventuality that succession would be invoked.

I would fear Pelosi and some other politicians as least as much as they want me to fear Trump.

Families of the dead are entitled to more than nonsense and expedience. You mentioned one of them-- Officer Brian Sicknick. I would bet that at some point, all their survivors would be more than willing to seek and know the truth. This is what Brian Sicknick's job was about, and it should be what the investigation of his death should be based on now.

Please keep in mind that all involved had free choice at all times.

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
A few hours ago, I read a report from an eyewitness who described (among other things) the proportion of rioters to peaceful protesters. This thing started out in the spirit of peaceable protesting. Most of the 50,000 or so were tame and well behaved. A group of oldsters huddled near the building because it was windy and cold. Ya' wanna' blame these coldie oldies? Really? Seemingly out of nowhere, costumed individuals appeared and the event went wild and deteriorated. At this point in whatever version of the tale seems credible, any number of things could have happened. Military hand signals for... something. Mob mindset and mob violence. Planted rioters emerged from among peaceful protestors.

Planned actions by a few have caused some people to paint all present with the same paintbrush and color them bad. We are supposed to be able to look at people and situations objectively, if only because we are supposed to do this when we are mystery shopping and reporting on various situations. I wonder what the final, objective information will tell about all the events, starting from as far back as necessary to capture all the lead-ins and including as much detail as needed to account for everything that did and did not happen.

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
I saw what happened. I was an eyewitness. The "coldie oldies," the "tame and well behaved," and my favorite, the "seemingly out of nowhere costumed individuals," were all summoned and given marching orders, and carried them out. They were all, every last one of them, were part and parcel of the problem. Some had bigger roles than others.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2021 08:23AM by 1forum1.
You have not told us how many of them were willing because they had grievances with the government. If the government failed these people, all that really happened was legal behavior that some people did not like. I hope the investigation is fair to all parties and that the government can take a long, hard look at itself and its behaviors over time. If not, its shortcomings will have overcome its potential for reason. That is scary. It would mean that the management and operations of government are so far gone that no amount of goading, prodding, pleading, or appealing to reason will ever bring it to a condition of fairness and consideration. It would also make Donald Trump right, Dorsey's "untenable" wrong, and annoy or at least amuse 90% of people around the world.

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
The so called grievances was based on bullsh**. They refused to accept the outcome of the election. Their grievances were heard. They refuse to accept the diagnosis of the election officials and Secretary of States. They refused to accept the outcome of the audit.They refused to accept the outcome of the recount. They refused to accept the outcome of the recount again. They refused to accept the outcome of 60 courts. They refused to accept the outcome of the Supreme Court. What do you mean their grievances were not heard? How many more "investigations" do you want? The unindicted co-conspirator individual-1 has been spewing and repeating lies daily for 5 years. The master of disinformation and gaslighting, he has manipulated people to the point where only his narration and portrayal is deemed accurate. The problem is, those perceptions and narrations didn't work on judges. They deal with facts.

So, these people, blinded by lies, biases, imagined and conjured "grievances", among other things, and encouraged by the man who said, "I alone can fix it," storm the capital, kill and beat police officers, disrupt the 3rd branch of the government, searching for specific people in the government including Mike Pence and members of Congress who they were "not going to be cheering so much for." Our elected officials were hiding to save their lives.

So, it's come to this. All of that behavior is justified because as you say, they had some "grievances." "A republic if you can keep it," Ben Franklin said. Will we? No, not if people continue to believe fiction over facts.
Now, please tell us what the guy who said he was dissatisfied with how things have been going with the government was talking about so that we will know if he was dissatisfied from the moment of election issues or with earlier situations.

My own dissatisfaction with US government began long before Trump/2016. I did not choose a wild response, and those conditions have not improved. But this is a new year, and I could make it a new year's resolution to find some effective and non-violent method of correcting long-standing wrongs. Wish me luck!

Things are not to be judged good or bad merely because the public think so. - Tacitus
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login