<div dir="auto">Meanwhile, in China, they don't have qualms about such research. And this gives them a big advantage over us. But then, they are ruled by a regime that has made millions with the murder of people, and the selling of their organs on the world market.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 7:56 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 8:36 PM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat<br>
<<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:46 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> How is government-sponsored murder otherwise similar to 'social<br>
>> justice'? It's almost like you're saying, 'I can't get my local school<br>
>> to stop teaching about the US-Americans massacring natives in places<br>
>> like Sand Creek.' (I'm using this example because a local school<br>
>> teacher was called on the carpet for teaching about it in class. Some<br>
>> parents actually didn't want their children to know about that part of<br>
>> US history.)<br>
><br>
> That is absolutely NOT what I'm saying. My point is a political agenda is being promulgated in a tax payer funded public school. It's not about preventing someone from teaching an ugly part of American history. It's about filtering what is supposed to be academics through an overtly political lens. I don't believe any political agendas should be driving public school education. BLM and SPLC are both overtly political organizations with very specific agendas that I don't happen to agree with. I'm not spending tax dollars for indoctrination in a public school setting.<br>
><br>
> The point is there is little recourse to prevent even that. Attempting to prevent government sponsered murder is an even bigger fool's errand than that.<br>
<br>
Since it's government schooling, it's already politicized as others<br>
pointed out. Anything, too, can be politicized. For me, if I had<br>
children in school, the worry wouldn't be whether there was a<br>
political agenda in place -- because I'd expect one -- but what<br>
exactly was being taught and how. To be sure, I'd probably go the<br>
route of homeschooling -- if I were inclined that way. (Don't intend<br>
to have kids, so this is kind of idle speculation for me.:)<br>
<br>
By the way, I don't know the SPLC or the BLM movement's stand on<br>
teaching about stuff like the Sand Creek massacre, but my guess is<br>
they wouldn't be against that. So they don't run the schools. In fact,<br>
in the case I mentioned -- and this is in Washington state which is<br>
not a Red State or known for whitewashing American history -- the<br>
parents complaining seemed to be conservative, no? I mean they're not<br>
the kind of parents who'd likely write checks to the SPLC or join in<br>
BLM protests by my reckoning. (Of course, this could be a case of<br>
Right wingers seeing school history courses saying anything critical<br>
about America as political propaganda from 'cultural Marxists' while<br>
Left wingers seeing the same courses as hopelessly nationalistic<br>
because they don't critique enough.)<br>
<br>
There's another issue here, though. And, yeah, I'm probably going<br>
overboard with Caplan's work, but the impact of schooling on ideology<br>
seems overstated. If schooling really shifted or defined people's<br>
ideology, don't you think the political landscape would look very<br>
different? Caplan shows schooling tends to have far less impact on<br>
people's ideology than peers and generational influences. Also,<br>
there's the decades old work of Philip Converse that most people --<br>
about two-thirds of them in his studies -- simply don't hold a<br>
coherent ideology. (I knew a guy in college who seemed to fit into the<br>
two-thirds: I could argue the libertarian take on specific issues with<br>
him and he'd agree, but he never could rise above that. For instance,<br>
he might concur on legalizing pot, but it'd be another long argument<br>
on legalizing cocaine or LSD. The same thing with free trade: he might<br>
agree on free trade with electronics, but food was another story. He<br>
just never seemed to see how any of this stuff goes together. And I<br>
don't believe he was just agreeing to avoid conflict.)<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
Sample my Kindle books via:<br>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>