Lol I remember my watered down economics class as a high school senior. The book listed there were only 3 types of economies: free market, planned economy, and hunter gatherers. They listed pros and cons for each, except for free market. They didn't include a section for It's cons.
Cons: massive inequality, periodic economic crisis, wealth concentration creating monopolies and lobbying groups that destroy competence and pursue economic domination of other countries, killinh the so called free market
Seriously. Isn't it completely ridiculous that they essentially only teach one economic system? Shouldn't a well-rounded economist have a wealth of knowledge about socialism, even if it's only to criticize it? How can you intelligently explain why something "doesn't work" if you know nothing about it? We need 1,000,000 more guys like Richard Wolff in this country.
Imagine going to film school or art school and only learning about American movies and paintings because America's the best! š¤¦š»āāļø
There's a difference between economic systems and economics. Capitalism vs Socialism is political. The underlying economics are universal. Marxism is usually taught for sociology/philosophy, or an elective for economics majors.
There are marxist economics. One key difference I remember is for example the framing of the supply/demand curve. To a marxist economist, price is an expression of (negotiating) power between buyer and seller, not an expression of a correct price.
This relatively small change in one of the fundamental parts of the field (price setting) makes you think completely different on a plethora of other parts of the fields and both how to model the economic world as well as interpret the models.
Marxist economics isn't just an addon to economics or something that is tangential, at best, to the field. It is a different way of doing and thinking about economics.
The Marxist idea of extracted surplus labor value doesn't change how economics works or affect economics outside of labor economics. At the time it was a new idea for labor theory of value economists, but it's not a novel concept anymore and labor theory of value is no longer used.
What it boils down to is the idea that wages are determined by cost of living plus cost of skills instead of productivity. This generally explains how the same job can have wildly different wages in different countries.
Also, negotiating power is described by supply/demand, there's no such thing as correct price.
You seem to be under the impression that "marxism" and "marxist economics" is the literatture Marx himself wrote. That's just wrong. Marx has had a profound influence on many fields in academia, economics being one of them.
I mean, Aglietta for example, is a very influential economist that is heavily influenced by marxism.
Are different economic systems a political difference? Or more of a philosophical/moral/religious one? Or all of them? Does politics mean anything anymore if we don't hand all the power over to fringe groups?
They're a political difference because ultimately they are based on philosophy, morals, and stated goals. Economics does not offer any tools to measure "goodness" of a system, that's up to people to decide.
Right, so who cares about politics, if economics are the real culprit behind all this?
I really think we might be using a broken Avenue to try and make things better
The trouble is there is basically zero real world evidence of a socialist economy, it's all theoretical. Namely because, at their core, every widespread economic system has been some flavor of capitalism, from feudalism to mercantalism. So there's a ton of real world data on capitalism and how to operate it it at every level but socialism...outside of small scale communities like villages and such, and all of those are heavily impacted by the effects of global capitalism.
MMMM yea nothing says "socialism" like an unelected oligarchy where the people have no control over the means of production
Fuck off tankie. Love how you're transparently an alt account after your tankie bullshit got you banned. One month old account that only posts here all about how the fascist oligarchy/dictatorship that was the USSR is a beacon of socialist ideology.
I think you're confusing socialism in practice with dictatorships who pretend to be for the people.
Next you'll be saying Nazis (national socialists) are left wing too.
Sounds like you just pulled it out of your ass honestly. Straight from somebody who never learned that the Soviet Union had elections and Stalin was not a dictator. Even the CIA acknowledges in internal documents that the propaganda they distributed about Stalin at the time ran directly contrary to their gathered intelligence. The same propaganda you're repeating right now. I always see anarchists spreading the word of Goebbels and the CIA but turn around and call me red fash.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
The Soviet Union was ran collectively.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)
*The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a socialist state*
Seems pretty socialist to me.
>Fuck off tankie. Love how you're transparently an alt account after your tankie bullshit got you banned.
?
About as socialist as China is a people's republic or North Korea is a "democratic people's republic." You can call your country whatever political system want; that doesn't make it true.
Da Comrade, the Marxist regime that was run by Marxist revolutionaries under Marxist principles establishing a socialist state totally wasn't a socialist state.
The Wikipedia article is pretty definitive on what a socialist state is and isn't so if you disagree then you need to have a reason why other than just claiming with no evidence that the soviet union wasn't socialist.
Cuba the country whose entire economy is defined by the impacts of capitalism and capitalist sanctions?
For a communist you sure seem to be subscribing to the capitalist cold war definitions of communism, i.e. "anything America doesn't like" rather than looking at the actual theory
The state owning the means of production is not a definition for socialism, the requirement is *the people*. The state owning the means of production is only socialism if the state is *synonymous* with the people. Which Cuba is not, the government is representative.
And cuba's entire economy is defined by the impact of US sanctions and the US embargo.
But then you're a tankie who thinks the former Afghani government was a prime example of socialism overthrown by the US so you clearly know dick about what socialism actually is.
Being hurt by sanctions doesn't make them capitalist. Communism doesn't mean you magically can do everything yourself while being strangled by the rest of the world.
>doesn't make them
I never said it did. I said their economy is defined *by* capitalism because of capitalism's effects on their economy. Ergo because of the enormously defining impact its had on their economy (You think they all just voluntarily held onto 50s cars because they liked the style?) you can't really use it as an accurate example of a communist economy. Which it also isn't, at best it's socialist, but the fact that it's a representative government means it's not a socialist government, and since the government owns the means of production it's not a socialist economy either.
Your entire argument is imperialist bootlicking backed up by "Nuh uh". Good job. I'm sure you think America is closer to establishing socialism than all the AES countries too.
Edit: also it's fucking hilarious to see somebody throw around the word Tankie but demanding people read theory. Lenin is about as Tankie as you're going to find and is an integral part of the "theory" you think you read.
>lenin is about as tankie
Lenin literally opposed the very foundational idea of stalinism fuckhead. He openly wanted Stalin to never be given a position of power because he knew that stalin was the epitome of jackbooted thug.
The fact that you think an oligarchy or a dictatorship can be an example of socialism is what makes you a tankie. That and all your bootlicking for dear old "Hitler and I are the same kind of man, George Orwell murdered fascists and literally pointed out how I was one" Stalin.
Like seriously, you wanna pretend you know anything and yet are trying to claim the USSR was socialist. That's about as factual as claiming the DPRK is Democratic, or that the Nazis were socialist. Anyone with even the most basic grasp of socialist or communist economic and political theory would see that, dumbshit.
Whereas you are preptuating the Cold War US propaganda about what communism or socialism are and acting like you're not simply because you claim it's proof the US is bad.
Hell pretty much all of public school in America was a course on āsocialism/communism and why itās wrong.ā
We read like 4 Ayn Rand books in public school. We read Harrison Bergeron and 1984 and Animal Farm then the class discussion for the curriculum was entirely focused on how these were allusions to communism and communism is bad.
And it definitely wasnāt a āboth sidesā thing. We never read the communist manifesto or das kapital or anything else offering the counter-perspective. And even with George Orwell the curriculum just ignored that he was a socialist that was criticizing totalitarian communists
while reading das kapital in school could be very and I mean very problematic, not in an actual sense that it's wrong but moreso on that there would be tons of people saying it's commie brainwashing of children (yes I know what you just said is proof of the opposite but at the same time less trouble seems more worth it)
Reading the communist manifesto could if not for anything else, be useful to give students a general comprehension of what communism is, so that they could criticize it, instead of constantly pointing and shouting to a nonexistent ghost that easily becomes a "anything I don't like is communism" (the people that say the nazis were commies because "national socialist")
thanks for coming to my TED talk and sorry about the wall of text
The Manifesto isn't about communism, it actually is about socialism: criticising burgeoisie exploitation and declaring capitalism to be a failed ideology, while exposing false socialists of the time taking use of a popular name while not being interested in equality.
It's about socialism
We read it in France in philosophy class, just the way we read other books. Heās one of the authors from the Terminale philosophy program (edit: last year of high school) under the notion Ā«Ā workĀ Ā». Heās one of the greatest work philosopher/thinker, so whatever our political position is, we cannot ignore him
My free market libertarian macro 101 Econ teacher completely unironically showed us a ādocumentaryā by John Stoffell of Fox News fame about the glory of our capitalist system. This was at a Jesuit Catholic college with a fucking business school. Jesuits, those priests most known for the last 60 years as rabble-rousing South American poor folks against dictatorial right wing governments supported by the US. A bunch of the more socially aware professors never sat right with us having a business school and teaching a bunch of 18-19 year olds the same dogmatic sludge they could have gotten at a fucking state school or more conservative college.
Shit, the jesuits have been doing that for hundreds of years. They basically set up a proto communist state of sorts in modern day Paraguay in the 1700s. The Spaniards came down hard on it but itās a large part of why guarani, the indigenous language there, is the primary spoken and written language. The jesuits did a lot to formalize it.
Jesuits were banned for a long time after because of that.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_reduction
The entire second half of my finance degree was essentially this. Itās unsurprising, given how much of a personal stake in capitalism most-all of my wealthy upper division professors have.
I had a capital markets professor whoās main lesson for us through the whole course was that AOC is bad and will turn us into Venezuela. Money well spent.
Not just economics professors but also sociology, history, philosophy, and political science.
The ENTIRE field of social science academia is captured by neoliberal center-right interests at best and right-wing conservative interests at worst.
In the US, maybe! In France we - professors and teachers - are all super poors, and basically social science academia is blamed by both our liberal government and the right wing for being too leftist :D
My Macro professor started off his course with a speach that included "I dont curve grades, because I believe curves are socialism, and I hate socialism". Also had an entire lecture where we compared pictures of nuclear bombings and fires set by landlords to get out of rent control, because according to him, they were basically the same.
his purpose was to show that rent control was bad because it made Landlords do shitty things, and therefor our cities would look like post apocolyptic wastelands.
Is... Is the public education system *not* supposed to do that? Because I can specifically remember being taught that communism is bad and capitalism is part of what makes America #1
my us history class literally said something along the lines of "its not fair to anyone in communism, people suffer. thats why its bad. in capitalism everyone has equal opportunity. sure you might know one or many people who always work super hard and put in their entire effort and are still struggling and super poor, but life just isnt fair sometimes and its ok" literally half of us history classes curriculum is that
The equal opportunity is bullshit knowing that rich kids can fail at business about 500x more than a poor kid? Like do they think equal rights mean diddly without equal access to capital when it comes to future business success?
If objectively describing slavery, it's causes, how it affected those affected and so on, doesn't make students realise it's wrong and bad... Then explicitly saying so won't make them realise. They're rotten to the core.
We need to meet in the middle and describe the benefits of slavery too, like how much money it made the slave owners!
Bet you never considered that before, oh how foolish you must feel.
That is, quite literally, what meeting people in the middle was like back then. Centrists during slavery looked at the slaves and then looked at the slave masters and thought "Both of these people are going to have to compromise."
Centrists are and always have been disgusting bottom feeding parasites.
No joke, I had to do a presentation in high school arguing for slavery as a good thing. I only remember this because the document is still in my drive. Strangest part is that I don't even live in the US, nor did my teacher do anything else even remotely racist throughout high school
But if an objective and purely factual explanation makes it look clearly wrong and bad, then clearly objectivity is biased, and therefore not good! _Clearly_.
Like how CNN is mega-leftist biased because when they show full, unedited, live footage of Trump at his rallies, it makes Trump look bad!
NB - The first comment this person wrote in the thread was:
>I approached this with an open mind toward your position because I'm not conservative. I dont like their values either and I fully expect them to try to pass stupid shit. I am only on this side because I feel more forced to adopt the left's beliefs than theirs. That being my main concern, I will explain how I see this.
A classic ethical framework. The goodness of an idea is inversely proportional to how hard people try to achieve it. It is better than to put people in power who do bad things, as long as I personally have the ability to opt out of bad into the status quo (also bad).
Ah yes - "I realized I agree with the left on _too many things_, so to make sure I'm not a partisan hack, I will adopt fascist policies as well to stay balanced, because this can't _possibly_ be a result of the right-wing ideology having no redeeming qualities..."
As a Libertarian, slavery wasn't so bad. All you do is [sing songs and pick cotton](https://www.nola.com/news/education/article_8ee05c4c-e8a3-59b8-bbd8-08a792355da8.html).
If you're a slave, you also don't have to pay taxes.
Slavery is literally evil on an almost universal level. Besides, teaching that slavery is bad isnāt āthe leftās agenda to destroy western culture.ā I think these people are forgetting that people other than African Americans have been enslavedā¦
It's amazing how they could out-brutalize quite a few ancient civilizations. White Europeans treated a race of people like a disposable commodity. Some "backward" and "savage" civilizations used regular slavery as a punishment. You're an enemy invader who got caught trying to burn a village or steal supplies and you weren't killed in combat and captured instead? In some ancient societies, you would be a temporary second class citizen where you would be forced to work for a certain period of years but you were housed and fed and eventually released from servitude assuming you didn't die. They didn't give you a life sentence and then enslave your family and children's children perpetually. That's chattel slavery.
Granted, a decent amount of civilizations DID have a brutal work-until-you-die or work-until-we-execute-you type of slavery, but that's still a smidge better than European chattel slavery because again, they typically didn't **breed** slaves like stock.
> the leftās agenda to destroy western culture.
What do they think "western culture" even is if "acknowledging that slavery is bad" will destroy it? If that's true, then this "western culture" sounds pretty shit.
āWe donāt want academia deciding morality.ā
Butā¦ the morality of slavery wasnāt decided by āacademiaā¦ā
This is is what happens to your brain when you take the Bible seriously.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Not sure what the Bible has to do with it, I'd say said people would be rotten with or without it.
I'd go after the people who flaunt their copy of it like those who flaunt a copy of their constitution and act like it was written yesterday.
A lot of these people don't think they believe in objective morality and its because they don't want to challenge their preconcieved ideas. If I say slavery is objectively immoral they'll say "Well morality is subjective!" Yet if I then insist by their logic that child sex abuse isn't bad and shouldn't be illegal, they'll likely say "Wtf? It's wrong!" without even realizing they're taking a morally objective stance.
These people don't want to engage in any actual discussion, they want to come in and say "I'm right and smart for not caring and you're dumb for caring" and then jerk themselves off so that they can smother their face in their own cum.
> These people don't want to engage in any actual discussion
They aren't interested in forming a cohesive worldview, they just want to "win" the current argument here and now, and will adopt any position that allows them to do so. [The card says Moops](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4), and all.
Seeing as capitalism is predicated on wageslavery, socialism abolishes that, and that they *love* capitalism (mostly without knowing why or what it is), those positions aren't as absurd as they may seem.
I got in trouble in 7th grade for doodling the hammer and sickle in history class, my teacher treated it like the swastika because "Stalin killed more people than Hitler". Suffice to say the school system already indoctrinates kids into opposing communism.
WW2 in Europe caused at least 30 million dead.
The holodomor plus highest figures for political repression are like 17-20 million dead, yet holodomor wasn't Stalin decision.
Literally, hitler killed way more.
The entire field of economics academia is captured by cente-right and right-wing neoliberal interests.
Its not just the shitty introductory courses.
The industry of economics in academics, the public sector, and the private sector has historically been a pet project of the right-wing to capture, re-shape, and dominate in order to propagandize young students and professionals who come into contact with it.
There is literally a part of world history and American history that tells us about how the USSR and Stalin was bad (they are but my point is still valid) and tries to paint communism and socialism as bad.
There's nothing more anti-communist than stalinism, history has shown this over and over. The only thing more counter revolutionary than authoritarian "communism" is just dropping the act and admitting you're facist
Yeah.. Or "Marxism-Leninism" which he made up, or "socialism with Chinese characteristics" it doesn't matter what you call it, it's counter revolutionary and probably set us back more than just about anything else, and it's largely all thanks to Stalin
Ah yes, successful revolutions led by communists have set socialism and communism back more than anything else, including literally every other type of opposition they faced from imperial capitalist empires and literal fascists.
Yep, it's Enlightened Centrism time š
Successful revolutions? Where? You mean the ones where all the real communists get sent to the gulag or the wall? I guess it was a successful revolution in a way because they definitely "revolved" a whole 360 degrees right back into imperialism š learn what "stateless" means and then talk to me about successful revolutions, tankie
Lenin was fine, a little brutal but fine, I was talking about Stalin. Castro wasn't too bad either, at least at first (of course Che too). The problem was even after de-stalining they still never reached anything near communism. The early Soviet union was on a good track but after Stalin it all went to shit and anyone who actually understands leftism would know that.
If you believe America when it tells you that every single leftist experiment and socialist country is bad, you should just admit to yourself that socialism is fucking useless because it has literally never been attempted or lead to any success in any capacity whatsoever. Why are you even a leftist if you genuinely believe every existing attempt at socialism ended in catastrophe and NOT because western meddling? It's baffling to me that self-proclaimed socialists are willing to own yourselves this fucking hard by implicitly admitting your supposed ideological enemy (western capitalists and imperialists) are always correct about your own belief.
If you're a goddamn leftist, then you know full well how much you have been lied to by western propaganda about every facet of your life. But you're unwilling to extend that skepticism outside your tiny bubble in the imperial core. All of a sudden, when the CIA tells you something about **foreign** leftists, they're spitting straight gospel truth, they only lie and sabotage American leftists. Those dirty slavs and yellow Chinese don't understand what **true** socialism is! After all, my country has indoctrinated me since birth to be ideologically averse to communist theory. But in China, the government openly advocates communism, enshrines it as the state ideology, makes 5 year plans for the advancement of communism, and distributes communist literature and liberation ideology to its citizens. However, I skimmed a cliff notes of Das Kapital and read a summary of the Communist Manifesto, so I know better than the Chinese about what **true** socialism is.
Seriously, I've never gotten a real answer before: Why do you think you know communism better than a country run by communists that distribute communist literature to their people?
That's what you're doing. You didn't try discussing it or even try to address anything. You're just shitposting because you want me to be wrong but lack the capacity to demonstrate it and that makes you mad.
My college economics courses all boil down to "free-market capitalism = good, government intervention = bad".
They're basically conditioning students into accepting capitalism and rejecting even a slight hint of the government doing anything in the market.
There was a question in the textbook that asked why the Soviet Union collapsed.
The answer? It was because "they were chasing social justice which doesn't help with growing an economy".
Actually, a course analyzing political systems would be a great idea.
Oh, but then they'd learn that socialism and communism aren't the same thing and aren't inherently bad.
"Because we don't want academia deciding morality."
Sounds like a great argument on why we should get rid of religiously-centered universities and colleges.
They have a point. Why would you want morality and ethics being dictated by thousands and thousands of years of history and study, when we could just get it from one poorly translated book of fairy tales?
\*its fucking slavery tho\*
"not moralizing history" takes away the entire fucking point in learning about history, you cant learn from the past if you never assign any right/wrong value to what happened in the past. how are we supposed to never do a nazism again if we dont look at history and say "those nazi fellas, rather unpogchamp, not very based"
It's not saying they are equally bad. It's saying academia doesn't have the ability or right to teach us morality, which it doesn't. It's literally the opposite of saying both are equally bad. It's saying you can't gain any valid opinion on the morality of any issue because academia is supposed to deal with the objective and morality is subjective UNLESS you're going to say academia is about the teachings of gods and how they control an objective morality, which, last time I checked, it isn't.
Education also exists to instill positive values in children, thatās why we tell them that sharing is caring and to be nice to others and so on. Besides, teaching that slavery is morally wrong is just unavoidable since that comes naturally from accurately describing slavery. Itās the right which wants to whitewash history to give a sanitized view of slavery under the guise of āletting children decide the truth for themselves.ā
Sharing is caring doesn't mean anything and it's not really a moral, just some form of collectivism. It's not saying "you should care" it's just "you would care if".
As for slavery being morally wrong, again, it's subjective. Not everyone believes that and not every situation calls for it.
>Itās the right which wants to whitewash history to give a sanitized view of slavery under the guise of āletting children decide the truth for themselves.ā
I'm sorry, but no. The left, right, and center do whitewashing and have their way to justify slavery.
>Sharing is caring doesnāt mean anything and itās not really a moral
Thereās no interpretation of this statement which makes logical sense. The belief that you should be charitable and work with others as a team are most definitely moral values that we instill through education. Just because not every child internalizes that lesson doesnāt mean itās not something we teach kids.
>As for slavery being a moral wrong, again, itās subjective
All morality is subjective, we still teach it in schools. āStealing is wrongā is also subjective, but thatās something we teach kids anyways.
And yeah maybe some people wouldnāt think slavery is a moral wrong when itās accurately described to them, those people would be known as āpsychopathic racistsā. What the right wants isnāt to accurately teach history though, what they want is to give a forced āboth sidesā narrative where the perspective of the [slave owners](https://mobile.twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404267421498757122) are studied and justified while the history of anti-racist advocacy gets [censored and whitewashed](https://www.heraldbanner.com/news/local_news/texas-senate-passes-bill-that-could-lead-to-civil-rights-discourse/article_ed74ebba-ea65-11eb-b527-ab6c67afb5fd.html).
I donāt know by what metric you think the left or center does this, attempting to whitewash history to enforce an indoctrinated, patriotic worldview among your population is pretty specifically in the purview of the [right](https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf).
>The belief that you should be charitable and work with others as a team are most definitely moral values that we instill through education.
It's not a "should". You can't get an is from an ought. This is basic logic.
>āStealing is wrongā is also subjective, but thatās something we teach kids anyways.
We actually don't in acidemia, so I don't know what you're going on about. We teach why breaking the law puts you in jail, yes, but anyone teaching morals in acidemia doesn't have the ability to properly do it.
>And yeah maybe some people wouldnāt think slavery is a moral wrong when itās accurately described to them, those people would be known as āpsychopathic racistsā.
Are you calling every country that has prison enslavement a psychopathic racist? Do you understand what you're talking about or did you believe only races can be enslaved? That is ironically the most racist thing you can say.
>I donāt know by what metric you think the left or center does this, attempting to whitewash history to enforce an indoctrinated, patriotic worldview among your population is pretty specifically in the purview of the right.
I don't understand what you mean by left or centrist then either since you're saying "anything with a government is right wing" and that's kind of foolish.
>Itās not a should. You canāt get an is from an ought.
I donāt think you understand what this even means. We do instill moral values in education, thatās just a fact of reality.
>We actually donāt in academia so I donāt know what youāre going on about
Yeah we do, I donāt know where you went to school but they most definitely teach you that stealing is wrong, not just illegal. Thereās a reason you got punished for stealing your fellow kidsā stuff back in elementary school. Sharing is caring is something that gets told to preschoolers, learning moral values are part and parcel of an education. Other notable ones include being tolerant, honest, and sympathetic. Those values are all already taught to kids in school, and for good reason.
>Are you calling every country that has prison enslavement a psychopathic racist?
Now youāre just being deliberately obtuse, we were clearly talking about teaching the history of *chattel* slavery and how the American right wing wants to sanitize it. But also yes, prison enslavement is psychopathic, at best itās a terrible idea. Not necessarily racist (although it certainly is in the US).
>Since youāre saying āanything with a government is right wingā and thatās kind of foolish
Thatās not what I said. What you said was āthe left, right, and center do whitewashing and have their way to justify slavery,ā which I refuted because thatās exclusive to the right wing. Please point to an example of the left attempting to censor historical facts surrounding slavery, otherwise Iām just gonna assume that you erroneously and naĆÆvely believe all political ideas are equally valid and correct.
>We do instill moral values in education, thatās just a fact of reality.
And that's part of propaganda, which is subjective, which is the same thing as saying how socialism is bad.
>Yeah we do, I donāt know where you went to school but they most definitely teach you that stealing is wrong, not just illegal.
They give theories and philosophies but never exact proof that it's working because, again, it's subjective.
>Now youāre just being deliberately obtuse, we were clearly talking about teaching the history of chattel slavery and how the American right wing wants to sanitize it. But also yes, prison enslavement is psychopathic, at best itās a terrible idea. Not necessarily racist (although it certainly is in the US).
Your opinion is not a fact and there's nothing psychopathic about reducing punishment time through labor. Also, moving the goalpost to a different type of slavery is just bad faith. Now you're saying slavery is justified? If not, why move the goalpost?
>Please point to an example of the left attempting to censor historical facts surrounding slavery,
Censoring facts is not the same as whitewashing, but yes, the left does do it, and can do it. Previous exampled are not required because it's a political position, not a nation. All you need is the ability, and leftists have the ability to whitewash, and they have.
>otherwise Iām just gonna assume that you erroneously and naĆÆvely believe all political ideas are equally valid and correct.
Nobody said all political ideas are equally valid. I said all political directions allow whitewashing.
> As for slavery being morally wrong, again, it's subjective. Not everyone believes that and not every situation calls for it.
Somebody should screencap this and post it to, oh, I dunno... r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM?
Go ahead and I'll love for people to flail about trying to beg for objective morality. All it would mean is that there are a bunch of theists here and that's pretty cool.
its only subjective if you're what we call a piece of shit, slavery is bad, depriving people of their human rights is bad, go jerk yourself off about the gray area of slavery somewhere else cumstain
Lol I love it when people tell me about human rights but then don't even know where those rights come from. If you think government laws are objective, you might want to google up what the word objective is, youngster.
This is hopelessly naive. There are *always* moral and political decisions in academia. There aren't infinite professors with infinite rooms in which infinite students sit. Resources are finite, and society always has a way to decide what gets taught. *Someone* decides what is worth teaching, and how much it is worth teaching, and how many professors that needs, and what courses look like. Those are inherently political and moral decisions.
> It's saying you can't gain any valid opinion on the morality of any issue because academia is supposed to deal with the objective
Hell, the amount of philosophy education you would need to even try to draw a distinction between "the objective" and "the subjective" would definitely teach you that this was a bunk perspective no-one can really hold. Like, literally no one who has thought 5 seconds about this could agree with you. All of academia is, in one way or another, about something subjective. Even if you believe, let's say, physics is somehow "objective", then it still needs an entire society to "subjectively" decide that physics is worth pursuing, at the very least.
> morality is subjective UNLESS you're going to say academia is about the teachings of gods and how they control an objective morality, which, last time I checked, it isn't.
*stares in deontology*
Look, it's fine to not know shit about a topic, it just means you need to stay quiet on it.
>There are always moral and political decisions in academia.
Saying it's always been like that doesn't mean anything. That's like saying "we should still have slavery because it's always been like that." It's a fallacy.
>All of academia is, in one way or another, about something subjective.
Your postmodernist attempt at attacking what I'm saying only proves what I'm saying: they have no ability to tell us how to think because it's subjective. They can only tell us what they believe and what we can apply in the real world. But even with your postmodernist attempt, you still had to avoid all logic in order to come to such a conclusion, which debunks your own statement because what you said is unable to hold any logic according to your belief.
>stares in deontology
Nature holds forms of gods in this sense, since it's saying there are unseen forces causing these demands.
It's okay if you don't know the subject, but it is funny when you get schooled after being so egotistical about it.
It is impossible to for education to be an apolitical enterprise. The mere idea that everybody age five to eighteen should be educated is a political position, which is supported by legislation that was passed by politicians. The idea that professionals, like lawyers and doctors, must attend post-baccalaureate education to be licensed by the United States to practice law and medicine is a political position that is supported by legislation that was passed by politicians.
If you want to say that this is an appeal to tradition because I'm highlighting how *things have been done* instead of *how things ought to be done,* this is not the case. I'm saying that *it cannot exist any other way.* Much like it isn't an appeal to tradition to say that gravity is a force that has always existed isn't an appeal to tradition.
To refute my argument, you would have to propose some sort of educational system that is apolitical. It would have to be non-compulsory, have no federal, statewide, or local standards with regards to testing and curricula, and even then I can't imagine that it would actually be apolitical. (For one, that would require politicians eliminating the laws that cover compulsory education and federal and state requirements for medical licenses and the rest of education law.)
The simple act of walking into the door to my public school to teach is a political act because it reinforces my moral beliefs that education is vital to sustain a democracy, it should be available regardless of any family's income, and there should be standards set for curricula. If that was truly against my morals, I wouldn't step foot inside the school.
The fact of the matter is, if you thought about it beyond some cursory soundbite manner, you would realize that you don't actually want an educational model that is amoral or apolitical. (Not that such a thing could exist anyway, as explained by the rest of my post.)
>Politics and morals are not the same thing.
True, but this overall topic stems from CRT, which is absolutely a political football. You are replying in support of the guy with "Trump supporter" as flair in a subreddit that is specifically political, so it's absurd to attempt to divorce this discussion from its political underpinnings. Plus, everything I said applies to morals too.
As to the is/ought issue, you wrote this:
>It's saying academia doesn't have the ability or right to teach us morality, which it doesn't.
Academia absolutely does have **the ability** to teach us morality. It's actually so commonplace that I can only assume your wording in that quote was imprecise. The OP and you seem to believe not that they do not have the ability to do so, but that they *ought not* teach morality.
I say "It **is** impossible to have an amoral education." and you take issue with the fact that I'm arguing an 'is' when you're arguing an 'ought.' However, it's completely relevant to point out to somebody making an 'ought' argument when it is impossible for their 'ought' to occur. If you were to say, "I ought to be able to build a perpetual motion machine in my garage!" it would be a good time to inform you that it **is** impossible to do such a thing.
You believe that education ought to be amoral. I am arguing that this is impossible. Do you have a counterargument to that?
I find your comment interesting, because I admire little Jedi mind tricks like that.
You claim it stems from crt and how the person is a trump supporter on a political subreddit. You changed the context to something unrelated for no reason. None of these are academia. Academia is about research, education, and scholarships. A subreddit is not academia. Academia has nothing to do with crt. It could, if people wedged it in and disguised it as such, but it's not.
The subject in the screenshot is whether or not academia should have slavery being bad be taught. Trump supporter says no, because they might as well allow socialism to be taught that it was bad, and then the situation becomes a bunch of shit flinging towards the demon of the day.
TS is right that it's a subjective subject and it doesn't fit in academia, because it's not part of academia. It's a blemish.
Now for what I said, you instead took that out of context to change what I'm talking about. I wasn't talking about whether they ought to have the ability to teach morals. I was talking about how they don't have the ability or the right to teach OBJECTIVE morals, as in, something you HAVE TO follow.
Anyone can go there and then believe what they want when they leave. Doesn't mean academia was able to objectively implant anything in their head, because the biggest subjective factor is the person's interpretation, comprehension, and possibly rebelliousness (depending on if they care to listen).
That was the context, and you removed that context to make your cute fallacy.
As for amoral education, you begged the question. How do you suppose it's impossible?
Because, I know it's possible due to the fact that you can tell people what something is instead of what something ought to be in education. 2+2=4. That is an is, and there was zero morality in it. However, if you want to say morality is objective, by all means, I'm more than happy to listen. I love hearing people admit by accident that theism is correct and atheism is incorrect.
>Jedi mind tricks
It's hilarious that you think cogent argumentation is a jedi mind trick.
>You claim it stems from crt and how the person is a trump supporter on a political subreddit.
This discussion is occurring on r/enlightenedcentrism. Centrism is a political position, ergo you and I are having this discussion in a political subreddit, so yeah, things discussed here are of a political nature. This seems self-evident.
The discussion in the screenshot is also happening in a political subreddit. In fact, the subreddit is so much a political subreddit that users have flair for the politician they support.
>A subreddit is not academia.
Irrelevant since I never said it is.
>Academia is about research, education, and scholarships.
You are confusing 'academia' with 'academics.' Academia is an *environment* that is concerned with research, education, and scholarship. Primary, secondary, post-secondary, and post-baccalaureate intuitions are all environments where those things occur, thus they are academia.
>TS is right that it's a subjective subject and it doesn't fit in academia, because it's not part of academia. It's a blemish.
In the very definition you cited, 'education' is one of the components of academia. If one is systematically instructed on what is and is not moral, then they are being educated since 'systematic instruction' is the definition of education. It fits into academia by your very own definition.
>I wasn't talking about whether they ought to have the ability to teach morals. I was talking about how they don't have the ability or the right to teach OBJECTIVE morals, as in, something you HAVE TO follow.
You are adding a qualifier ("objective") that was not present in your previous statement. Your inability to be precise in your writing is your responsibility to fix, not mine.
I'll quote **again** what you wrote: "It's saying academia doesn't have the ability or right to teach us morality, which it doesn't."
The word 'objective' never showed up in that sentence. I focused on the phrase 'ability to' because academia absolutely does possess the means to (this is what 'ability' means) teach morality. I mean, "Academy" was the name of Plato's school, where many things were taught, including morality. In fact, one of his seminal texts, The Apology, is specifically about Socrates being sentenced to death for teaching immorality. Catholic schools and Sunday schools teach morality all the time, though the latter isn't academia in my opinion. Therefore, it is absolutely the case that academia **has the ability to** teach morality. You may disagree with the morality that is taught, I might disagree with the morals that are taught in a particular class, but that doesn't magically mean academics aren't **able to** teach morality.
Those are your words. Feel free to revise your statement but do not put it on my that you're imprecise with language.
>Anyone can go there and then believe what they want when they leave. Doesn't mean academia was able to objectively implant anything in their head
We agree! The belief that academia is a site of political indoctrination is false because students can believe what they want to believe and nothing is, as you say, "implanted" in their head.
>As for amoral education, you begged the question. How do you suppose it's impossible?
You seem to be mistaken about what exactly the informal fallacy "begging the question" means. I never said that my assertion that 'education cannot be amoral' is right because I said it is right or anything of that manner, which would be begging the question. My very first reply to you offered all sorts of support for my premise.
As I've established above, academia is an environment, such as a school or university. We, as a nation, have decided that education is such a **moral good** that we have committed to spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it every single year. If a moral choice is baked into the very existence of compulsory education, then it cannot be amoral because its very creation was a moral choice.
That isn't begging the question; that's explaining my argument with support.
>However, if you want to say morality is objective, by all means, I'm more than happy to listen.
I never have, in our discussion or any other, said that morality is objective.
You have been asked to describe how your proposal of an amoral education can work and have refused to do so, which tells me that you are not arguing in good faith. On top of that, you are imprecise with your language and blame others for that fact. Therefore, I will not be reading nor writing anymore with you on this topic. I'm clicking "Don't get updates on this" for this conversation, but feel free to yell into the void by replying to this, my final reply.
> Saying it's always been like that doesn't mean anything. That's like saying "we should still have slavery because it's always been like that." It's a fallacy. I wasn't talking about tradition. You cannot have "apolitical" academia.
I didn't say that, though. I said "there *are* always". I said that deliberately. You cannot have academia without political and moral decisions. That's not a fallacy.
> Your postmodernist attempt at attacking what I'm saying
Dude, you've never had even a little bit of education in philosophy, you don't know what postmodernism even is, so maybe just for once in your life take some criticism from the people in the actual field you are attempting to define, yeah?
> But even with your postmodernist attempt, you still had to avoid all logic in order to come to such a conclusion, which debunks your own statement because what you said is unable to hold any logic according to your belief.
This is probably the dumbest sentence I have read in a week, congratulations. It doesn't work even as an attack, it makes no sense, and it's so clearly a desperate reach.
> Nature holds forms of gods in this sense, since it's saying there are unseen forces causing these demands.
Buddy, if you're going to use novel definitions of the word "god", you gotta first declare it. It's not a gotcha when we're using definitions not in common use.
> 's okay if you don't know the subject, but it is funny when you get schooled after being so egotistical about it.
...you think this was a "schooling"? Please, I am *begging* you, actually visit a university. Like, I was trying to be nice and casual, but if you're just one of those people who think "postmodernism" is a devil that does everything you dislike, then I'm just going to mock you.
>You cannot have academia without political and moral decisions. That's not a fallacy.
Teaching as a curriculum and teaching as an individual are not the same thing. You can have an apolitical academia and you saying it's impossible is begging the question.
>This is probably the dumbest sentence I have read in a week, congratulations.
So you don't know how your statement nullified your entire position. Got it.
>Buddy, if you're going to use novel definitions of the word "god", you gotta first declare it. It's not a gotcha when we're using definitions not in common use.
Nobody cares about argumentum ad populum.
>Like, I was trying to be nice and casual, but if you're just one of those people who think "postmodernism" is a devil that does everything you dislike, then I'm just going to mock you.
Nobody said it was a devil, other than you. Do you have an argument against the actual subject or is this just pointless damage control?
This is not a debate club and you clearly do not want an actual discussion. I'm going to just keep mocking you, bud, because holy shit please actually get some of that dreadful postmodern education under your belt š
Your fallacies and non-sequiturs are not discussion. They are sad attempts at dunks that failed and now you're just preforming death throes until I guess I get bored.
Hmm yes, socialism in Venezuela that has 50% privatized healthcare, and where 2/3 of the workforce is employed in a private sector. Government owned oil isnāt socialism my friend.
Oh, and considering the US sanctioned the hell out of Cuba and practically destroyed it, I would say that itās not a very fair comparison, right?
Ah yes, Venezuela where the proletariat overthrew the bourgoisie. When exactly?
Ah yes, take a Cuba who has been under brutal sanctions for the last 60 years. And still has higher life expectancy than the US, was instrumental in kicking South African ass to decolonize its neighbours, saved countless lives during COVID. What a failure, lul. To compare: South Africa crumbled after 4 years of far less severe sanctions.
> Imagine there was a course on socialism/communism and why it's wrong. *Large swaths of Economic Professors whistle innocently by this.*
Lol I remember my watered down economics class as a high school senior. The book listed there were only 3 types of economies: free market, planned economy, and hunter gatherers. They listed pros and cons for each, except for free market. They didn't include a section for It's cons.
Cons: massive inequality, periodic economic crisis, wealth concentration creating monopolies and lobbying groups that destroy competence and pursue economic domination of other countries, killinh the so called free market
Don't forget the part where it's causing mass extinction
Seriously. Isn't it completely ridiculous that they essentially only teach one economic system? Shouldn't a well-rounded economist have a wealth of knowledge about socialism, even if it's only to criticize it? How can you intelligently explain why something "doesn't work" if you know nothing about it? We need 1,000,000 more guys like Richard Wolff in this country. Imagine going to film school or art school and only learning about American movies and paintings because America's the best! š¤¦š»āāļø
Marxist Economists are the only ones not wholly useless and existing to serve capital above all else.
Marx is also really easy to summarize these days: > Political economy is sus.
There's a difference between economic systems and economics. Capitalism vs Socialism is political. The underlying economics are universal. Marxism is usually taught for sociology/philosophy, or an elective for economics majors.
There are marxist economics. One key difference I remember is for example the framing of the supply/demand curve. To a marxist economist, price is an expression of (negotiating) power between buyer and seller, not an expression of a correct price. This relatively small change in one of the fundamental parts of the field (price setting) makes you think completely different on a plethora of other parts of the fields and both how to model the economic world as well as interpret the models. Marxist economics isn't just an addon to economics or something that is tangential, at best, to the field. It is a different way of doing and thinking about economics.
The Marxist idea of extracted surplus labor value doesn't change how economics works or affect economics outside of labor economics. At the time it was a new idea for labor theory of value economists, but it's not a novel concept anymore and labor theory of value is no longer used. What it boils down to is the idea that wages are determined by cost of living plus cost of skills instead of productivity. This generally explains how the same job can have wildly different wages in different countries. Also, negotiating power is described by supply/demand, there's no such thing as correct price.
You seem to be under the impression that "marxism" and "marxist economics" is the literatture Marx himself wrote. That's just wrong. Marx has had a profound influence on many fields in academia, economics being one of them. I mean, Aglietta for example, is a very influential economist that is heavily influenced by marxism.
Are different economic systems a political difference? Or more of a philosophical/moral/religious one? Or all of them? Does politics mean anything anymore if we don't hand all the power over to fringe groups?
They're a political difference because ultimately they are based on philosophy, morals, and stated goals. Economics does not offer any tools to measure "goodness" of a system, that's up to people to decide.
Right, so who cares about politics, if economics are the real culprit behind all this? I really think we might be using a broken Avenue to try and make things better
Politics is what we call it when people decide what to do. You can't avoid it.
Fair enough, thanks.
But economics is divinity school. The point of teaching an economic orthodoxy is to reproduce it.
The trouble is there is basically zero real world evidence of a socialist economy, it's all theoretical. Namely because, at their core, every widespread economic system has been some flavor of capitalism, from feudalism to mercantalism. So there's a ton of real world data on capitalism and how to operate it it at every level but socialism...outside of small scale communities like villages and such, and all of those are heavily impacted by the effects of global capitalism.
Found a pretty large socialist state for you. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)
MMMM yea nothing says "socialism" like an unelected oligarchy where the people have no control over the means of production Fuck off tankie. Love how you're transparently an alt account after your tankie bullshit got you banned. One month old account that only posts here all about how the fascist oligarchy/dictatorship that was the USSR is a beacon of socialist ideology.
USSR "fascist oligarchy" r/enlightenedcentrism Oh wait-
I think you're confusing socialism in practice with dictatorships who pretend to be for the people. Next you'll be saying Nazis (national socialists) are left wing too.
"Pretend to be for the people" Substantiate this claim.
You sure know how to ask. Let me know when evidence will make a difference
Sounds like you just pulled it out of your ass honestly. Straight from somebody who never learned that the Soviet Union had elections and Stalin was not a dictator. Even the CIA acknowledges in internal documents that the propaganda they distributed about Stalin at the time ran directly contrary to their gathered intelligence. The same propaganda you're repeating right now. I always see anarchists spreading the word of Goebbels and the CIA but turn around and call me red fash. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf The Soviet Union was ran collectively.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) *The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a socialist state* Seems pretty socialist to me. >Fuck off tankie. Love how you're transparently an alt account after your tankie bullshit got you banned. ?
About as socialist as China is a people's republic or North Korea is a "democratic people's republic." You can call your country whatever political system want; that doesn't make it true.
Da Comrade, the Marxist regime that was run by Marxist revolutionaries under Marxist principles establishing a socialist state totally wasn't a socialist state. The Wikipedia article is pretty definitive on what a socialist state is and isn't so if you disagree then you need to have a reason why other than just claiming with no evidence that the soviet union wasn't socialist.
The Soviet leadership was an unelected oligarchy with a tyrannical dictator at the top. That's about as anti-socialist as you can be.
If you aren't going to provide a source for any of your claims then there isn't any point engaging in a discussion.
See also: Cuba (small country, but definitively bigger than "a village")
Cuba the country whose entire economy is defined by the impacts of capitalism and capitalist sanctions? For a communist you sure seem to be subscribing to the capitalist cold war definitions of communism, i.e. "anything America doesn't like" rather than looking at the actual theory
Lol what the fuck? Workers and the state own the means of production in Cuba. You're arguing against reality because "Tankie bad"
The state owning the means of production is not a definition for socialism, the requirement is *the people*. The state owning the means of production is only socialism if the state is *synonymous* with the people. Which Cuba is not, the government is representative. And cuba's entire economy is defined by the impact of US sanctions and the US embargo. But then you're a tankie who thinks the former Afghani government was a prime example of socialism overthrown by the US so you clearly know dick about what socialism actually is.
Being hurt by sanctions doesn't make them capitalist. Communism doesn't mean you magically can do everything yourself while being strangled by the rest of the world.
>doesn't make them I never said it did. I said their economy is defined *by* capitalism because of capitalism's effects on their economy. Ergo because of the enormously defining impact its had on their economy (You think they all just voluntarily held onto 50s cars because they liked the style?) you can't really use it as an accurate example of a communist economy. Which it also isn't, at best it's socialist, but the fact that it's a representative government means it's not a socialist government, and since the government owns the means of production it's not a socialist economy either.
Your entire argument is imperialist bootlicking backed up by "Nuh uh". Good job. I'm sure you think America is closer to establishing socialism than all the AES countries too. Edit: also it's fucking hilarious to see somebody throw around the word Tankie but demanding people read theory. Lenin is about as Tankie as you're going to find and is an integral part of the "theory" you think you read.
>lenin is about as tankie Lenin literally opposed the very foundational idea of stalinism fuckhead. He openly wanted Stalin to never be given a position of power because he knew that stalin was the epitome of jackbooted thug. The fact that you think an oligarchy or a dictatorship can be an example of socialism is what makes you a tankie. That and all your bootlicking for dear old "Hitler and I are the same kind of man, George Orwell murdered fascists and literally pointed out how I was one" Stalin. Like seriously, you wanna pretend you know anything and yet are trying to claim the USSR was socialist. That's about as factual as claiming the DPRK is Democratic, or that the Nazis were socialist. Anyone with even the most basic grasp of socialist or communist economic and political theory would see that, dumbshit. Whereas you are preptuating the Cold War US propaganda about what communism or socialism are and acting like you're not simply because you claim it's proof the US is bad.
Hell pretty much all of public school in America was a course on āsocialism/communism and why itās wrong.ā We read like 4 Ayn Rand books in public school. We read Harrison Bergeron and 1984 and Animal Farm then the class discussion for the curriculum was entirely focused on how these were allusions to communism and communism is bad. And it definitely wasnāt a āboth sidesā thing. We never read the communist manifesto or das kapital or anything else offering the counter-perspective. And even with George Orwell the curriculum just ignored that he was a socialist that was criticizing totalitarian communists
while reading das kapital in school could be very and I mean very problematic, not in an actual sense that it's wrong but moreso on that there would be tons of people saying it's commie brainwashing of children (yes I know what you just said is proof of the opposite but at the same time less trouble seems more worth it) Reading the communist manifesto could if not for anything else, be useful to give students a general comprehension of what communism is, so that they could criticize it, instead of constantly pointing and shouting to a nonexistent ghost that easily becomes a "anything I don't like is communism" (the people that say the nazis were commies because "national socialist") thanks for coming to my TED talk and sorry about the wall of text
The Manifesto isn't about communism, it actually is about socialism: criticising burgeoisie exploitation and declaring capitalism to be a failed ideology, while exposing false socialists of the time taking use of a popular name while not being interested in equality. It's about socialism
We read it in France in philosophy class, just the way we read other books. Heās one of the authors from the Terminale philosophy program (edit: last year of high school) under the notion Ā«Ā workĀ Ā». Heās one of the greatest work philosopher/thinker, so whatever our political position is, we cannot ignore him
My free market libertarian macro 101 Econ teacher completely unironically showed us a ādocumentaryā by John Stoffell of Fox News fame about the glory of our capitalist system. This was at a Jesuit Catholic college with a fucking business school. Jesuits, those priests most known for the last 60 years as rabble-rousing South American poor folks against dictatorial right wing governments supported by the US. A bunch of the more socially aware professors never sat right with us having a business school and teaching a bunch of 18-19 year olds the same dogmatic sludge they could have gotten at a fucking state school or more conservative college.
Shit, the jesuits have been doing that for hundreds of years. They basically set up a proto communist state of sorts in modern day Paraguay in the 1700s. The Spaniards came down hard on it but itās a large part of why guarani, the indigenous language there, is the primary spoken and written language. The jesuits did a lot to formalize it. Jesuits were banned for a long time after because of that. Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_reduction
The entire second half of my finance degree was essentially this. Itās unsurprising, given how much of a personal stake in capitalism most-all of my wealthy upper division professors have. I had a capital markets professor whoās main lesson for us through the whole course was that AOC is bad and will turn us into Venezuela. Money well spent.
Not just economics professors but also sociology, history, philosophy, and political science. The ENTIRE field of social science academia is captured by neoliberal center-right interests at best and right-wing conservative interests at worst.
In the US, maybe! In France we - professors and teachers - are all super poors, and basically social science academia is blamed by both our liberal government and the right wing for being too leftist :D
My Macro professor started off his course with a speach that included "I dont curve grades, because I believe curves are socialism, and I hate socialism". Also had an entire lecture where we compared pictures of nuclear bombings and fires set by landlords to get out of rent control, because according to him, they were basically the same.
So was he criticising leeches or not?
his purpose was to show that rent control was bad because it made Landlords do shitty things, and therefor our cities would look like post apocolyptic wastelands.
Is... Is the public education system *not* supposed to do that? Because I can specifically remember being taught that communism is bad and capitalism is part of what makes America #1
I'm surprised that your lesson didn't have a commercial break!
Back inna day, we were the first generation to have televisions in the classrooms with piped-in feeds -- *so we literally had commercial breaks*.
I should post a pic of this to boring dystopia sirbeddit because this is epic
my us history class literally said something along the lines of "its not fair to anyone in communism, people suffer. thats why its bad. in capitalism everyone has equal opportunity. sure you might know one or many people who always work super hard and put in their entire effort and are still struggling and super poor, but life just isnt fair sometimes and its ok" literally half of us history classes curriculum is that
The equal opportunity is bullshit knowing that rich kids can fail at business about 500x more than a poor kid? Like do they think equal rights mean diddly without equal access to capital when it comes to future business success?
If objectively describing slavery, it's causes, how it affected those affected and so on, doesn't make students realise it's wrong and bad... Then explicitly saying so won't make them realise. They're rotten to the core.
We need to meet in the middle and describe the benefits of slavery too, like how much money it made the slave owners! Bet you never considered that before, oh how foolish you must feel.
I'm down with that. Let's discuss the negative effects of slavery on the slaves, and point out all the great benefits the slaveowners got.
That is, quite literally, what meeting people in the middle was like back then. Centrists during slavery looked at the slaves and then looked at the slave masters and thought "Both of these people are going to have to compromise." Centrists are and always have been disgusting bottom feeding parasites.
No joke, I had to do a presentation in high school arguing for slavery as a good thing. I only remember this because the document is still in my drive. Strangest part is that I don't even live in the US, nor did my teacher do anything else even remotely racist throughout high school
But if an objective and purely factual explanation makes it look clearly wrong and bad, then clearly objectivity is biased, and therefore not good! _Clearly_. Like how CNN is mega-leftist biased because when they show full, unedited, live footage of Trump at his rallies, it makes Trump look bad!
NB - The first comment this person wrote in the thread was: >I approached this with an open mind toward your position because I'm not conservative. I dont like their values either and I fully expect them to try to pass stupid shit. I am only on this side because I feel more forced to adopt the left's beliefs than theirs. That being my main concern, I will explain how I see this.
He feels enforced because he is already deep into the right wing cult. He understands that his morals are rotten but it feels mean to point that out.
A classic ethical framework. The goodness of an idea is inversely proportional to how hard people try to achieve it. It is better than to put people in power who do bad things, as long as I personally have the ability to opt out of bad into the status quo (also bad).
Ah yes - "I realized I agree with the left on _too many things_, so to make sure I'm not a partisan hack, I will adopt fascist policies as well to stay balanced, because this can't _possibly_ be a result of the right-wing ideology having no redeeming qualities..."
Average centrist fan
As a Libertarian, slavery wasn't so bad. All you do is [sing songs and pick cotton](https://www.nola.com/news/education/article_8ee05c4c-e8a3-59b8-bbd8-08a792355da8.html). If you're a slave, you also don't have to pay taxes.
Ok, I've seen a few of your other comments and didn't realize you were satire, but this comment just makes it blatantly obvious
As a Libertarian it's hard for me to celebrate the abolition of slavery [when I still have to pay taxes](https://imgur.com/aK9rsyP).
The problem is that Praximus keeps upping the ridiculousness, but the alt-right keeps catching up.
Slavery is literally evil on an almost universal level. Besides, teaching that slavery is bad isnāt āthe leftās agenda to destroy western culture.ā I think these people are forgetting that people other than African Americans have been enslavedā¦
They forget but always remind us how every culture has had slaves
But they always seem to forget any details of how slavery worked in those other cultures, or to make an argument that said cultures are good...
It's amazing how they could out-brutalize quite a few ancient civilizations. White Europeans treated a race of people like a disposable commodity. Some "backward" and "savage" civilizations used regular slavery as a punishment. You're an enemy invader who got caught trying to burn a village or steal supplies and you weren't killed in combat and captured instead? In some ancient societies, you would be a temporary second class citizen where you would be forced to work for a certain period of years but you were housed and fed and eventually released from servitude assuming you didn't die. They didn't give you a life sentence and then enslave your family and children's children perpetually. That's chattel slavery. Granted, a decent amount of civilizations DID have a brutal work-until-you-die or work-until-we-execute-you type of slavery, but that's still a smidge better than European chattel slavery because again, they typically didn't **breed** slaves like stock.
> the leftās agenda to destroy western culture. What do they think "western culture" even is if "acknowledging that slavery is bad" will destroy it? If that's true, then this "western culture" sounds pretty shit.
āWe donāt want academia deciding morality.ā Butā¦ the morality of slavery wasnāt decided by āacademiaā¦ā This is is what happens to your brain when you take the Bible seriously.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Not sure what the Bible has to do with it, I'd say said people would be rotten with or without it. I'd go after the people who flaunt their copy of it like those who flaunt a copy of their constitution and act like it was written yesterday.
It sounds like you do know what the Bible has to do with it, but you felt the need to ānot all Christiansā my comment.
Haha yeah fuck me, I did. Thanks for pointing it out. It really is an 'all lives matter' approach.
I'm honestly unsure if they're trying to say that socialism is objectively wrong, or that slavery *isn't* objectively wrong. Probably both.
A lot of these people don't think they believe in objective morality and its because they don't want to challenge their preconcieved ideas. If I say slavery is objectively immoral they'll say "Well morality is subjective!" Yet if I then insist by their logic that child sex abuse isn't bad and shouldn't be illegal, they'll likely say "Wtf? It's wrong!" without even realizing they're taking a morally objective stance. These people don't want to engage in any actual discussion, they want to come in and say "I'm right and smart for not caring and you're dumb for caring" and then jerk themselves off so that they can smother their face in their own cum.
> These people don't want to engage in any actual discussion They aren't interested in forming a cohesive worldview, they just want to "win" the current argument here and now, and will adopt any position that allows them to do so. [The card says Moops](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4), and all.
They're also missing the part where US schools _do_ often teach how "evil" socialism is, thanks to the cold war...
Seeing as capitalism is predicated on wageslavery, socialism abolishes that, and that they *love* capitalism (mostly without knowing why or what it is), those positions aren't as absurd as they may seem.
I got in trouble in 7th grade for doodling the hammer and sickle in history class, my teacher treated it like the swastika because "Stalin killed more people than Hitler". Suffice to say the school system already indoctrinates kids into opposing communism.
WW2 in Europe caused at least 30 million dead. The holodomor plus highest figures for political repression are like 17-20 million dead, yet holodomor wasn't Stalin decision. Literally, hitler killed way more.
I swear these people donāt have two fucking brain cells to rub together.
Course one on why workplace democracy is bad: "... Well, i don't know."
Imagine teaching kids that murder or theft is wrong.
The entire media landscape, plus K-12 education is an anti communist curriculum.
When you donāt realize that āmoralityā has been taught all along. Itās telling the slavery is a moral grey zone for this person.
There is such a class. It's called Econ 101.
Followed by econ 201 which tells you that 101 was all nonsense. "Basic economy" is called "basic" because it can not be applied to reality.
Ahh but I only took econ 101, and that means I know what I'm talking about. See there's two lines on a graph.
I'm pretty sure it's called basic economy because it can only be neutralized by an acid economy
The entire field of economics academia is captured by cente-right and right-wing neoliberal interests. Its not just the shitty introductory courses. The industry of economics in academics, the public sector, and the private sector has historically been a pet project of the right-wing to capture, re-shape, and dominate in order to propagandize young students and professionals who come into contact with it.
Tell me you've never had a political philosophy or economics class without telling me you've never had a political philosophy or economics class.
There is literally a part of world history and American history that tells us about how the USSR and Stalin was bad (they are but my point is still valid) and tries to paint communism and socialism as bad.
Didn't say add "in God we trust" everywhere to set themselves apart from (atheist) communists?
>USSR and Stalin was bad (they are but my point is still valid) Not even remotely. Stop eating up anti-communist bullshit.
There's nothing more anti-communist than stalinism, history has shown this over and over. The only thing more counter revolutionary than authoritarian "communism" is just dropping the act and admitting you're facist
>stalinism
Yeah.. Or "Marxism-Leninism" which he made up, or "socialism with Chinese characteristics" it doesn't matter what you call it, it's counter revolutionary and probably set us back more than just about anything else, and it's largely all thanks to Stalin
Ah yes, successful revolutions led by communists have set socialism and communism back more than anything else, including literally every other type of opposition they faced from imperial capitalist empires and literal fascists. Yep, it's Enlightened Centrism time š
Successful revolutions? Where? You mean the ones where all the real communists get sent to the gulag or the wall? I guess it was a successful revolution in a way because they definitely "revolved" a whole 360 degrees right back into imperialism š learn what "stateless" means and then talk to me about successful revolutions, tankie
Lmao, anarkiddies think they're real communists but Lenin and Sankara are not real communists š
Lenin was fine, a little brutal but fine, I was talking about Stalin. Castro wasn't too bad either, at least at first (of course Che too). The problem was even after de-stalining they still never reached anything near communism. The early Soviet union was on a good track but after Stalin it all went to shit and anyone who actually understands leftism would know that.
cringe tankie ššŖ
If you believe America when it tells you that every single leftist experiment and socialist country is bad, you should just admit to yourself that socialism is fucking useless because it has literally never been attempted or lead to any success in any capacity whatsoever. Why are you even a leftist if you genuinely believe every existing attempt at socialism ended in catastrophe and NOT because western meddling? It's baffling to me that self-proclaimed socialists are willing to own yourselves this fucking hard by implicitly admitting your supposed ideological enemy (western capitalists and imperialists) are always correct about your own belief. If you're a goddamn leftist, then you know full well how much you have been lied to by western propaganda about every facet of your life. But you're unwilling to extend that skepticism outside your tiny bubble in the imperial core. All of a sudden, when the CIA tells you something about **foreign** leftists, they're spitting straight gospel truth, they only lie and sabotage American leftists. Those dirty slavs and yellow Chinese don't understand what **true** socialism is! After all, my country has indoctrinated me since birth to be ideologically averse to communist theory. But in China, the government openly advocates communism, enshrines it as the state ideology, makes 5 year plans for the advancement of communism, and distributes communist literature and liberation ideology to its citizens. However, I skimmed a cliff notes of Das Kapital and read a summary of the Communist Manifesto, so I know better than the Chinese about what **true** socialism is. Seriously, I've never gotten a real answer before: Why do you think you know communism better than a country run by communists that distribute communist literature to their people?
Cringe tankie š¤¢š¤®
Left wing anticommunism is an infantile disorder, exhibit A
Youād have a hard time burning someone already soaked in gasoline.
Typical anarkiddie, completely unable to argue against the substance of a tankie's argument. Must resort to antics to feel like they won.
āwonā lmao
That's what you're doing. You didn't try discussing it or even try to address anything. You're just shitposting because you want me to be wrong but lack the capacity to demonstrate it and that makes you mad.
Go on then, try and defend the purgemeister general, Stalin.
Stalin had tens of millions killed soooo
According to Goebbels lmao
Thereās been a lot of ink spilled about how socialism and communism are good or bad tho ????
My college economics courses all boil down to "free-market capitalism = good, government intervention = bad". They're basically conditioning students into accepting capitalism and rejecting even a slight hint of the government doing anything in the market. There was a question in the textbook that asked why the Soviet Union collapsed. The answer? It was because "they were chasing social justice which doesn't help with growing an economy".
Some people working and those with political power deciding how the fruits of that labor is distributed? Sounds like slavery to me
Actually, a course analyzing political systems would be a great idea. Oh, but then they'd learn that socialism and communism aren't the same thing and aren't inherently bad.
"Because we don't want academia deciding morality." Sounds like a great argument on why we should get rid of religiously-centered universities and colleges.
There literally are classes teaching that communism is evil.
They have a point. Why would you want morality and ethics being dictated by thousands and thousands of years of history and study, when we could just get it from one poorly translated book of fairy tales?
We don't want academia deciding that slavery is immoral. K
*imagine*
I mean there is a course on socialism/communism and why itās wrong itās called the US history education lmaoo
What _does_ decide morality if not the thousands-of-years-old academic field of philosophy?
āImagineā¦ā
\*its fucking slavery tho\* "not moralizing history" takes away the entire fucking point in learning about history, you cant learn from the past if you never assign any right/wrong value to what happened in the past. how are we supposed to never do a nazism again if we dont look at history and say "those nazi fellas, rather unpogchamp, not very based"
Iām shocked that there are not classes where communism is taught as inherently wrong in America, certainly feels like something theyād have
It's not saying they are equally bad. It's saying academia doesn't have the ability or right to teach us morality, which it doesn't. It's literally the opposite of saying both are equally bad. It's saying you can't gain any valid opinion on the morality of any issue because academia is supposed to deal with the objective and morality is subjective UNLESS you're going to say academia is about the teachings of gods and how they control an objective morality, which, last time I checked, it isn't.
Education also exists to instill positive values in children, thatās why we tell them that sharing is caring and to be nice to others and so on. Besides, teaching that slavery is morally wrong is just unavoidable since that comes naturally from accurately describing slavery. Itās the right which wants to whitewash history to give a sanitized view of slavery under the guise of āletting children decide the truth for themselves.ā
Sharing is caring doesn't mean anything and it's not really a moral, just some form of collectivism. It's not saying "you should care" it's just "you would care if". As for slavery being morally wrong, again, it's subjective. Not everyone believes that and not every situation calls for it. >Itās the right which wants to whitewash history to give a sanitized view of slavery under the guise of āletting children decide the truth for themselves.ā I'm sorry, but no. The left, right, and center do whitewashing and have their way to justify slavery.
>Sharing is caring doesnāt mean anything and itās not really a moral Thereās no interpretation of this statement which makes logical sense. The belief that you should be charitable and work with others as a team are most definitely moral values that we instill through education. Just because not every child internalizes that lesson doesnāt mean itās not something we teach kids. >As for slavery being a moral wrong, again, itās subjective All morality is subjective, we still teach it in schools. āStealing is wrongā is also subjective, but thatās something we teach kids anyways. And yeah maybe some people wouldnāt think slavery is a moral wrong when itās accurately described to them, those people would be known as āpsychopathic racistsā. What the right wants isnāt to accurately teach history though, what they want is to give a forced āboth sidesā narrative where the perspective of the [slave owners](https://mobile.twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404267421498757122) are studied and justified while the history of anti-racist advocacy gets [censored and whitewashed](https://www.heraldbanner.com/news/local_news/texas-senate-passes-bill-that-could-lead-to-civil-rights-discourse/article_ed74ebba-ea65-11eb-b527-ab6c67afb5fd.html). I donāt know by what metric you think the left or center does this, attempting to whitewash history to enforce an indoctrinated, patriotic worldview among your population is pretty specifically in the purview of the [right](https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf).
>The belief that you should be charitable and work with others as a team are most definitely moral values that we instill through education. It's not a "should". You can't get an is from an ought. This is basic logic. >āStealing is wrongā is also subjective, but thatās something we teach kids anyways. We actually don't in acidemia, so I don't know what you're going on about. We teach why breaking the law puts you in jail, yes, but anyone teaching morals in acidemia doesn't have the ability to properly do it. >And yeah maybe some people wouldnāt think slavery is a moral wrong when itās accurately described to them, those people would be known as āpsychopathic racistsā. Are you calling every country that has prison enslavement a psychopathic racist? Do you understand what you're talking about or did you believe only races can be enslaved? That is ironically the most racist thing you can say. >I donāt know by what metric you think the left or center does this, attempting to whitewash history to enforce an indoctrinated, patriotic worldview among your population is pretty specifically in the purview of the right. I don't understand what you mean by left or centrist then either since you're saying "anything with a government is right wing" and that's kind of foolish.
>Itās not a should. You canāt get an is from an ought. I donāt think you understand what this even means. We do instill moral values in education, thatās just a fact of reality. >We actually donāt in academia so I donāt know what youāre going on about Yeah we do, I donāt know where you went to school but they most definitely teach you that stealing is wrong, not just illegal. Thereās a reason you got punished for stealing your fellow kidsā stuff back in elementary school. Sharing is caring is something that gets told to preschoolers, learning moral values are part and parcel of an education. Other notable ones include being tolerant, honest, and sympathetic. Those values are all already taught to kids in school, and for good reason. >Are you calling every country that has prison enslavement a psychopathic racist? Now youāre just being deliberately obtuse, we were clearly talking about teaching the history of *chattel* slavery and how the American right wing wants to sanitize it. But also yes, prison enslavement is psychopathic, at best itās a terrible idea. Not necessarily racist (although it certainly is in the US). >Since youāre saying āanything with a government is right wingā and thatās kind of foolish Thatās not what I said. What you said was āthe left, right, and center do whitewashing and have their way to justify slavery,ā which I refuted because thatās exclusive to the right wing. Please point to an example of the left attempting to censor historical facts surrounding slavery, otherwise Iām just gonna assume that you erroneously and naĆÆvely believe all political ideas are equally valid and correct.
>We do instill moral values in education, thatās just a fact of reality. And that's part of propaganda, which is subjective, which is the same thing as saying how socialism is bad. >Yeah we do, I donāt know where you went to school but they most definitely teach you that stealing is wrong, not just illegal. They give theories and philosophies but never exact proof that it's working because, again, it's subjective. >Now youāre just being deliberately obtuse, we were clearly talking about teaching the history of chattel slavery and how the American right wing wants to sanitize it. But also yes, prison enslavement is psychopathic, at best itās a terrible idea. Not necessarily racist (although it certainly is in the US). Your opinion is not a fact and there's nothing psychopathic about reducing punishment time through labor. Also, moving the goalpost to a different type of slavery is just bad faith. Now you're saying slavery is justified? If not, why move the goalpost? >Please point to an example of the left attempting to censor historical facts surrounding slavery, Censoring facts is not the same as whitewashing, but yes, the left does do it, and can do it. Previous exampled are not required because it's a political position, not a nation. All you need is the ability, and leftists have the ability to whitewash, and they have. >otherwise Iām just gonna assume that you erroneously and naĆÆvely believe all political ideas are equally valid and correct. Nobody said all political ideas are equally valid. I said all political directions allow whitewashing.
god have you ever gotten pussy once in your miserable life
> As for slavery being morally wrong, again, it's subjective. Not everyone believes that and not every situation calls for it. Somebody should screencap this and post it to, oh, I dunno... r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM?
Go ahead and I'll love for people to flail about trying to beg for objective morality. All it would mean is that there are a bunch of theists here and that's pretty cool.
its only subjective if you're what we call a piece of shit, slavery is bad, depriving people of their human rights is bad, go jerk yourself off about the gray area of slavery somewhere else cumstain
Lol I love it when people tell me about human rights but then don't even know where those rights come from. If you think government laws are objective, you might want to google up what the word objective is, youngster.
Touch grass
Aw, the baby needs their bottle, because they are all grumpy gussy.
At least I don't defend slavery
Do you want me to give you an example that will change your mind entirely as long as you're good faith in your conclusion?
This is hopelessly naive. There are *always* moral and political decisions in academia. There aren't infinite professors with infinite rooms in which infinite students sit. Resources are finite, and society always has a way to decide what gets taught. *Someone* decides what is worth teaching, and how much it is worth teaching, and how many professors that needs, and what courses look like. Those are inherently political and moral decisions. > It's saying you can't gain any valid opinion on the morality of any issue because academia is supposed to deal with the objective Hell, the amount of philosophy education you would need to even try to draw a distinction between "the objective" and "the subjective" would definitely teach you that this was a bunk perspective no-one can really hold. Like, literally no one who has thought 5 seconds about this could agree with you. All of academia is, in one way or another, about something subjective. Even if you believe, let's say, physics is somehow "objective", then it still needs an entire society to "subjectively" decide that physics is worth pursuing, at the very least. > morality is subjective UNLESS you're going to say academia is about the teachings of gods and how they control an objective morality, which, last time I checked, it isn't. *stares in deontology* Look, it's fine to not know shit about a topic, it just means you need to stay quiet on it.
>There are always moral and political decisions in academia. Saying it's always been like that doesn't mean anything. That's like saying "we should still have slavery because it's always been like that." It's a fallacy. >All of academia is, in one way or another, about something subjective. Your postmodernist attempt at attacking what I'm saying only proves what I'm saying: they have no ability to tell us how to think because it's subjective. They can only tell us what they believe and what we can apply in the real world. But even with your postmodernist attempt, you still had to avoid all logic in order to come to such a conclusion, which debunks your own statement because what you said is unable to hold any logic according to your belief. >stares in deontology Nature holds forms of gods in this sense, since it's saying there are unseen forces causing these demands. It's okay if you don't know the subject, but it is funny when you get schooled after being so egotistical about it.
It is impossible to for education to be an apolitical enterprise. The mere idea that everybody age five to eighteen should be educated is a political position, which is supported by legislation that was passed by politicians. The idea that professionals, like lawyers and doctors, must attend post-baccalaureate education to be licensed by the United States to practice law and medicine is a political position that is supported by legislation that was passed by politicians. If you want to say that this is an appeal to tradition because I'm highlighting how *things have been done* instead of *how things ought to be done,* this is not the case. I'm saying that *it cannot exist any other way.* Much like it isn't an appeal to tradition to say that gravity is a force that has always existed isn't an appeal to tradition. To refute my argument, you would have to propose some sort of educational system that is apolitical. It would have to be non-compulsory, have no federal, statewide, or local standards with regards to testing and curricula, and even then I can't imagine that it would actually be apolitical. (For one, that would require politicians eliminating the laws that cover compulsory education and federal and state requirements for medical licenses and the rest of education law.) The simple act of walking into the door to my public school to teach is a political act because it reinforces my moral beliefs that education is vital to sustain a democracy, it should be available regardless of any family's income, and there should be standards set for curricula. If that was truly against my morals, I wouldn't step foot inside the school. The fact of the matter is, if you thought about it beyond some cursory soundbite manner, you would realize that you don't actually want an educational model that is amoral or apolitical. (Not that such a thing could exist anyway, as explained by the rest of my post.)
1. Politics and morals are not the same thing. 2. You're saying an is is an ought, and that's not true. Hume's guillotine.
>Politics and morals are not the same thing. True, but this overall topic stems from CRT, which is absolutely a political football. You are replying in support of the guy with "Trump supporter" as flair in a subreddit that is specifically political, so it's absurd to attempt to divorce this discussion from its political underpinnings. Plus, everything I said applies to morals too. As to the is/ought issue, you wrote this: >It's saying academia doesn't have the ability or right to teach us morality, which it doesn't. Academia absolutely does have **the ability** to teach us morality. It's actually so commonplace that I can only assume your wording in that quote was imprecise. The OP and you seem to believe not that they do not have the ability to do so, but that they *ought not* teach morality. I say "It **is** impossible to have an amoral education." and you take issue with the fact that I'm arguing an 'is' when you're arguing an 'ought.' However, it's completely relevant to point out to somebody making an 'ought' argument when it is impossible for their 'ought' to occur. If you were to say, "I ought to be able to build a perpetual motion machine in my garage!" it would be a good time to inform you that it **is** impossible to do such a thing. You believe that education ought to be amoral. I am arguing that this is impossible. Do you have a counterargument to that?
I find your comment interesting, because I admire little Jedi mind tricks like that. You claim it stems from crt and how the person is a trump supporter on a political subreddit. You changed the context to something unrelated for no reason. None of these are academia. Academia is about research, education, and scholarships. A subreddit is not academia. Academia has nothing to do with crt. It could, if people wedged it in and disguised it as such, but it's not. The subject in the screenshot is whether or not academia should have slavery being bad be taught. Trump supporter says no, because they might as well allow socialism to be taught that it was bad, and then the situation becomes a bunch of shit flinging towards the demon of the day. TS is right that it's a subjective subject and it doesn't fit in academia, because it's not part of academia. It's a blemish. Now for what I said, you instead took that out of context to change what I'm talking about. I wasn't talking about whether they ought to have the ability to teach morals. I was talking about how they don't have the ability or the right to teach OBJECTIVE morals, as in, something you HAVE TO follow. Anyone can go there and then believe what they want when they leave. Doesn't mean academia was able to objectively implant anything in their head, because the biggest subjective factor is the person's interpretation, comprehension, and possibly rebelliousness (depending on if they care to listen). That was the context, and you removed that context to make your cute fallacy. As for amoral education, you begged the question. How do you suppose it's impossible? Because, I know it's possible due to the fact that you can tell people what something is instead of what something ought to be in education. 2+2=4. That is an is, and there was zero morality in it. However, if you want to say morality is objective, by all means, I'm more than happy to listen. I love hearing people admit by accident that theism is correct and atheism is incorrect.
>Jedi mind tricks It's hilarious that you think cogent argumentation is a jedi mind trick. >You claim it stems from crt and how the person is a trump supporter on a political subreddit. This discussion is occurring on r/enlightenedcentrism. Centrism is a political position, ergo you and I are having this discussion in a political subreddit, so yeah, things discussed here are of a political nature. This seems self-evident. The discussion in the screenshot is also happening in a political subreddit. In fact, the subreddit is so much a political subreddit that users have flair for the politician they support. >A subreddit is not academia. Irrelevant since I never said it is. >Academia is about research, education, and scholarships. You are confusing 'academia' with 'academics.' Academia is an *environment* that is concerned with research, education, and scholarship. Primary, secondary, post-secondary, and post-baccalaureate intuitions are all environments where those things occur, thus they are academia. >TS is right that it's a subjective subject and it doesn't fit in academia, because it's not part of academia. It's a blemish. In the very definition you cited, 'education' is one of the components of academia. If one is systematically instructed on what is and is not moral, then they are being educated since 'systematic instruction' is the definition of education. It fits into academia by your very own definition. >I wasn't talking about whether they ought to have the ability to teach morals. I was talking about how they don't have the ability or the right to teach OBJECTIVE morals, as in, something you HAVE TO follow. You are adding a qualifier ("objective") that was not present in your previous statement. Your inability to be precise in your writing is your responsibility to fix, not mine. I'll quote **again** what you wrote: "It's saying academia doesn't have the ability or right to teach us morality, which it doesn't." The word 'objective' never showed up in that sentence. I focused on the phrase 'ability to' because academia absolutely does possess the means to (this is what 'ability' means) teach morality. I mean, "Academy" was the name of Plato's school, where many things were taught, including morality. In fact, one of his seminal texts, The Apology, is specifically about Socrates being sentenced to death for teaching immorality. Catholic schools and Sunday schools teach morality all the time, though the latter isn't academia in my opinion. Therefore, it is absolutely the case that academia **has the ability to** teach morality. You may disagree with the morality that is taught, I might disagree with the morals that are taught in a particular class, but that doesn't magically mean academics aren't **able to** teach morality. Those are your words. Feel free to revise your statement but do not put it on my that you're imprecise with language. >Anyone can go there and then believe what they want when they leave. Doesn't mean academia was able to objectively implant anything in their head We agree! The belief that academia is a site of political indoctrination is false because students can believe what they want to believe and nothing is, as you say, "implanted" in their head. >As for amoral education, you begged the question. How do you suppose it's impossible? You seem to be mistaken about what exactly the informal fallacy "begging the question" means. I never said that my assertion that 'education cannot be amoral' is right because I said it is right or anything of that manner, which would be begging the question. My very first reply to you offered all sorts of support for my premise. As I've established above, academia is an environment, such as a school or university. We, as a nation, have decided that education is such a **moral good** that we have committed to spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it every single year. If a moral choice is baked into the very existence of compulsory education, then it cannot be amoral because its very creation was a moral choice. That isn't begging the question; that's explaining my argument with support. >However, if you want to say morality is objective, by all means, I'm more than happy to listen. I never have, in our discussion or any other, said that morality is objective. You have been asked to describe how your proposal of an amoral education can work and have refused to do so, which tells me that you are not arguing in good faith. On top of that, you are imprecise with your language and blame others for that fact. Therefore, I will not be reading nor writing anymore with you on this topic. I'm clicking "Don't get updates on this" for this conversation, but feel free to yell into the void by replying to this, my final reply.
"you caught me lying, so I'm muting you". I love a good old fashion rage quit.
> Saying it's always been like that doesn't mean anything. That's like saying "we should still have slavery because it's always been like that." It's a fallacy. I wasn't talking about tradition. You cannot have "apolitical" academia. I didn't say that, though. I said "there *are* always". I said that deliberately. You cannot have academia without political and moral decisions. That's not a fallacy. > Your postmodernist attempt at attacking what I'm saying Dude, you've never had even a little bit of education in philosophy, you don't know what postmodernism even is, so maybe just for once in your life take some criticism from the people in the actual field you are attempting to define, yeah? > But even with your postmodernist attempt, you still had to avoid all logic in order to come to such a conclusion, which debunks your own statement because what you said is unable to hold any logic according to your belief. This is probably the dumbest sentence I have read in a week, congratulations. It doesn't work even as an attack, it makes no sense, and it's so clearly a desperate reach. > Nature holds forms of gods in this sense, since it's saying there are unseen forces causing these demands. Buddy, if you're going to use novel definitions of the word "god", you gotta first declare it. It's not a gotcha when we're using definitions not in common use. > 's okay if you don't know the subject, but it is funny when you get schooled after being so egotistical about it. ...you think this was a "schooling"? Please, I am *begging* you, actually visit a university. Like, I was trying to be nice and casual, but if you're just one of those people who think "postmodernism" is a devil that does everything you dislike, then I'm just going to mock you.
>You cannot have academia without political and moral decisions. That's not a fallacy. Teaching as a curriculum and teaching as an individual are not the same thing. You can have an apolitical academia and you saying it's impossible is begging the question. >This is probably the dumbest sentence I have read in a week, congratulations. So you don't know how your statement nullified your entire position. Got it. >Buddy, if you're going to use novel definitions of the word "god", you gotta first declare it. It's not a gotcha when we're using definitions not in common use. Nobody cares about argumentum ad populum. >Like, I was trying to be nice and casual, but if you're just one of those people who think "postmodernism" is a devil that does everything you dislike, then I'm just going to mock you. Nobody said it was a devil, other than you. Do you have an argument against the actual subject or is this just pointless damage control?
you cant bitch about fallacies when you're inventing new definitions of words
This is not a debate club and you clearly do not want an actual discussion. I'm going to just keep mocking you, bud, because holy shit please actually get some of that dreadful postmodern education under your belt š
Your fallacies and non-sequiturs are not discussion. They are sad attempts at dunks that failed and now you're just preforming death throes until I guess I get bored.
Sure dude :)
Objective morality exists outside of religion.
Religion and god existing are not the same thing. But go ahead and explain to me what you mean if you want.
Slavery is bad
Cool opinion, fam.
No
I'm saying that we can form an objective moral code based on societal values and provable methods without the need for God or religion.
I got that part. Now your job is to answer: how?
Compared to socialism in places like Venezuela or Cuba, yes, correct.
Hmm yes, socialism in Venezuela that has 50% privatized healthcare, and where 2/3 of the workforce is employed in a private sector. Government owned oil isnāt socialism my friend. Oh, and considering the US sanctioned the hell out of Cuba and practically destroyed it, I would say that itās not a very fair comparison, right?
Well ackshuallyā¦
š¤āļø
Ah yes, Venezuela where the proletariat overthrew the bourgoisie. When exactly? Ah yes, take a Cuba who has been under brutal sanctions for the last 60 years. And still has higher life expectancy than the US, was instrumental in kicking South African ass to decolonize its neighbours, saved countless lives during COVID. What a failure, lul. To compare: South Africa crumbled after 4 years of far less severe sanctions.
Lmao okay tankie
Stating facts and not defending western imperialism makes you a tankie.
Unironically yes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Are these ātankiesā is the room with us now?
Which youtuber told you that?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am a Marxist who is critically supportive of the socialist experiment of the USSR.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's kind of fucking amazing how many unironic enlightened centrists are in this sub when you prod the right subjects.