Inputs vs. Outcomes: How left and right use words differently

Guest post by Dar

One of the problems with socio-political issues in the US is the Right and Left have fundamentally different understandings of basic words.

Regarding the "teaching CRT" issue, I think we are running into incompatibility on definitions again. 

Allow me to digress:

The Left sees "choice" as "total control over all outcomes." As in, "I didn't choose to get pregnant, therefore I should have abortion rights." or "I didn't choose to be poor."

They want power to determine outcomes and avoid bad consequences. 

The Right sees "choice" as "input" that brings about consequences. If you don't like a certain set of consequences, make different/better choices. You didn't choose to be poor, but you didn't make choices that lead to wealth, so in a way, you did choose to be poor. 

There are other words we disagree on. "Access" to the Left means "free and convenient to the user". The Right only recognizes negative "rights", the Left demands all sorts of positive "rights".

Teachers are supposed to help children learn concrete, discrete topics, NOT create carbon copies of their opinions in the next generation.

With CRT, I think the term at issue is "teaching." 

Teaching is all about an individual transferring information and understanding to students.

The ideal is that the teacher is somewhat interchangeable, although of *course* a good teacher will have students with better learning outcomes. 

But the teacher's personal opinions and values are supposed to stay out of the classroom.

That's impossible to do.

Teachers are not automatons.

But they should make an attempt to be neutral about politics, opinions, values, morals, etc.

It isn't their job. 

Somewhere along the line, teachers have gotten the idea that they were hired for their moral superiority. That they are supposed to teach kids *what* to think about complex issues. 

Teachers are supposed to teach a curriculum, as specified by the school board, the state legislature, the Department of Education, etc.

Math. Reading/literacy. Literature. Science. History. Communication. 

Teachers are supposed to help children learn concrete, discrete topics, NOT create carbon copies of their opinions in the next generation.

The strength of the US education system is that it didn't just push rote learning, the US education system produced students who can *think* 

But with things like global warming, racism, taxes, welfare, and now CRT, teachers have decided that they are charged with ensuring children think a certain way.

They are telling children *What* to think, not how to evaluate competing claims in a complex information environment. 

So conservatives want to ban teaching CRT, and Leftists retort that we won't let them teach about racism, about history, etc.

It's the word "teach" that's the problem.

They don't want to do what we want them to do. They want to put a specific opinion into kids' brains. 

Again, they want a specific outcome.

The Right wants a specific input, and wants to let the outcomes occur as they naturally do. 

The Left wants kids to finish school completely convinced that US society is inherently racist, and the only thing we can do is enact Social Justice, which is mainly preventing natural consequences of bad behavior, and giving lots of tax money to select minority leaders. 

The Right wants students to encounter all sorts of thinking and opinions on a given topic, and wants students to be taught methods of sorting opinions, and evaluating sources, and comparing to values, to come to a personal conclusion. 

In other words, the Left wants to indoctrinate, but call it teaching.

The Right wants actual teaching, i.e., giving kids tools they can apply to all sorts of problems. 

The Left's indoctrination leaves students helpless when they encounter any topic or situation not covered by indoctrination. There's no skill, other than "listen to authority to know what to think."

It infantilizes our future citizens. 

The point of this is that when people object to "CRT bans" by saying they will not be allowed to "teach", hone in on the concept of "teaching".

Make them admit that what they want is indoctrination, and that indoctrination is wrong and exactly what parents DON'T want. 

And then, of course, emphasize that putting kids in schools doesn't give teachers/schools ownership of the students. They don't have the right to decide what values kids should have.

Parents do NOT abandon rights & responsibilities to teach their values by sending kids to school. 

Call them out.

Ask them what right they have to decide values kids should have, what right they have to make kids think a certain way.

This should expose their intent, and make it easier to give instructions to School Boards and Legislatures to stop the indoctrination. 

Exit quote:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Real Reason Why Are Trucks Getting Bigger

Image
It's not "ego." It's a claim that you encounter a lot—an insult really—that people are buying bigger and bigger trucks to compensate for… something. Here's one particularly cringeworthy example, because the person making it doesn't seem to realize the go-kart he's praising doesn't meet US emissions standards.  whenever americans say that they *need* a massive pickup truck that gets 12mpg just show them the Subaru Sambar utility vs. ego pic.twitter.com/NqexDbQcok — sam (@sam_d_1995) May 11, 2022 In response, a lot of people will defend their big truck purchase by saying they need a larger vehicle for their family, their business, or just because they like it. And to an extent, market forces are partly responsible for the increase in truck sizes, particularly when it comes to features like crew cabs. But it turns out that even a lot of people who like the big trucks don't know the full story of how their trucks got so big. The rest of the story
Read more

Romney’s Pro-Life Position Not So New

Also: Say hello to the “Sev-Con” There’s a NYTimes article out over the weekend that is all the buzz today. The pull-quote du jour is by former Mitt Romney strategist Mike Murphy, who told National Review in 2005 that Romney "is a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly." The preferred pick-apart is that this proves Romney will say and do anything to get elected. And, I admit, it certainly sounds damning. If nothing less, it was a poor choice of words. But this is old news. At the time Murphy issued a statement saying he had been misquoted. I’d say the facts support Murphy’s side of the story. The Times article tries to make more ado about Romney’s pro-life journey than there is. In 1994, when he ran against Ted Kennedy, he did not shy away from his personal opposition to abortion but positioned himself by saying “my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.” He lost that race. In 2001, Romney e
Read more

The Gaffe that Almost Wasn’t

Image
The smear campaign against Cain continues   By now the internet, radio, television, and wagging tongues everywhere are all abuzz over the latest campaign blunder by Herman Cain. But is it really the gaffe everyone says it is? Or was it a selective editing job a la Ed Shultz ? Well, call me cynical, but I’ve seen enough media shenanigans to be suspicious of anything taken out of context and this definitely tripped my radar. In the clip that has gone viral (below), Cain does appear to be caught off-guard by a question on Libya, a topic he ought to have been ready for. My first reaction was to wonder how many clips like this land on editing room floors instead of online. In a world used to hyper-slick video and equally slick candidates, a moment of thought gathering can seem disastrous. Still, this isn’t about a some candidate’s “senior moment.” Rather, it is about a hatchet job gone awry. This clip was released by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel along with the entire half-hour interview
Read more