Historically, people have become more conservative, not as they age, but as they become more financially secure, own their own home, and want to keep more of the fruits of their labour.
That’s increasingly not happening, and we’re not happy about it.
Exactly. If you went to school for 16 years to become a neurosurgeon, I have no problem with your $500k salary. But a $1mil+ salary because you started a fast food chain where the employees make minimum wage? That’s slavery.
because you are looking for a platform that will be more open to conservative users. I keep hearing conservatives complain they have nowhere to go, but there is a platform specifically for them, and I don’t know why they won’t use it
There’s nothing to debate with conservatives. If you were a reasonable person looking for good faith discussion you wouldn’t be a conservative. So no one will engage with you because its a waste of time at best.
You have the entirety of human history at your fingertips and you’re too lazy to seek out information. No one wants to babysit you through Wikipedia.
It is also my experience dealing with conservatives that any time you people get DESTROYED you people get really angry, like threateningly angry.
I’ll give you a concrete example: the other poster whinging about immigration. Do you know the history of immigration laws? Do you know the causes of immigration? What are the effects of immigration? What are the impacts to communities? Do you understand current and historical colonialism? Or did newscorp tell you immigrants are scary (especially the brown ones)?
“You are a waste of time at best” “You’re too lazy to seek out information”
Read the comment you replied to. It’s a single sentence. I cannot state it any simpler.
No I do not know the entire history of immigration legislation, even pertaining to the US. Yes I know causes of immigration, but likely not all of them. Yes I know what I don’t know, which is why I don’t debate about immigration. I know it is entirely too difficult for people seeking to immigrate OR seek asylum in the US to become citizens, and I’d go as far to say it’s impossible for most. Yes we need to fix our southern border, because we are actively treating immigrants like trash and not humans seeking a better life. Open borders, for the most part, are good borders. And no I did not read the other poster’s comments.
I didn’t use you correctly in my previous comment. I meant in order to have a conversation about a particular topic, we have to go through all the prior assumptions to even begin a conversation. I did not mean to ask you in particular about immigration (and the other poster is not from the US), I was pointing out how much education and discussion must be had. The reason I brought up those points is if you were to look up the immigration laws passed in the early 1900s they were explicitly racist. If you look up the repercussions of immigrants on communities, they are mostly very positive. If you find out about western international policies and the displacement of people due to those policies, you’ll find most immigration is driven from instability caused by those policies. All of which is to say that immigration is a non-issue. Yet its a conservative talking point you all want to discuss, incessantly, because it plays well with xenophobic racists.
I have yet to see a conservative policy that is defensible in any way. The only thing they’re right about is yes, if you give power and money to corporations the stock market goes up.
Its because for us in America there is nothing to argue for on conservatism that is appealing. Our democrats are center-right. What do we have to discuss between extremists and centrists of the same side? What companies should be bailed out first? Which lobbyist donate the fattest cheques? Its abysmal. So no, you won’t find any citizens who want to discuss with conservatives same as you won’t find many willing to discuss with the Taliban.
But can we start with an agreed on definition of the term ‘extremist’?
My point is that, if you think 300 million other people in your country are extremists, and there are any 350-ish million people in your country - mayyyyybe the 300 aren’t the extremists and maybe you are.
That doesn’t make sense. Looking at the US, there appears to be around 18% on the extreme right, 60 percent on the moderate right, 20% on the moderate left to center, and 2% on the extreme left.
But the media reporting on them appear to be weighted extreme right and left.
Populist politics and media have resulted in many countries around the world becoming less tolerant of opposing views, which has driven many discussions (and more people) to ideological extremes.
But you can have 50% extreme left and 50% extreme right in a country easily. Just means nobody’s willing to compromise on anything.
I’d like to see what the definition of ‘extreme left’ and ‘extreme right’ is to pair with those numbers. Is it something the ADL or NAACP came up with?
"I just wish there was a place I could talk about maintaining the structures that oppress billions but keep me feeling comfortable and superior without those who are negatively impacted telling me I'm a piece of shit"
Why not actually respond to what they said? Conservatism is inherently about conserving power in the elite. It seems a bit immature to respond to an (admittedly snide and sarcastic) challenge to your beliefs with a personal insult. All they did was accurately break down what your comment represents.
I’m having a dozen conversations and 80% of the time when I click on the response in my inbox to go back to the context it takes me to another post all together.
I don’t even know what our conversation has been up to this point.
What did they say? And then how did I respond? I wish you could see my inbox with all of the personal attacks I’ve received not only today, but over the last two months over different accounts lol
So if someone is being an idiot to me, I don’t have a problem being an idiot back. If you’re respectful, I’ll have a respectful conversation with you.
That entire comment was just a dodge. Do your due diligence and click “show context” (it is the bare minimum effort), and stop avoiding the subject. Or just don’t respond if you don’t want to discuss.
If you want to know what they were talking about - I already summed it up in the comment you’re responding to. Precisely so you couldn’t excuse dodging the point a second time. And yet, here you are, doing exactly that.
Do you deny that conservatism is about conserving the power in the established elite? And if so - how?
Lol this is the kind of thing that shows up in my inbox over and over and over again
I just told you, I click on the reply and it takes me to some random part of the thread. When replies start getting nested and there’s a lot of comments I can’t find the posts. And I don’t really care that much to spend the time searching, when my inbox keeps filling up with messages like the one I linked.
Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.
Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.
This is “state’s rights” level of beating around the bush.
What traditions? What values? What institutions? I’ll tell you which ones.
The “tradition” of hierarchy and dominance, of the supremacy of capitalism and the Protestant work ethic, which have inevitably created an elite class.
The “values” of hyper individualism, competition and deference to authority, which have led to oligopolies forming and exerting control over society, to be defended by the state at all costs.
The institutions of the state and capital. Need I say more?
What you’re describing is really just western civilization, just in a really cynical way.
I get it, you and people like you hate western civilization. That’s why those of us who love it stamp out any communist bullshit when we see it. Because we know, we know what the point of the ‘revolution’ is, it’s to destroy the western countries.
It’s not something you’re likely to come out and admit, but when you say something like the ‘tradition of hierarchy’ well ya. What exactly is wrong with that? Dominance isn’t a well defined term, supremacy is a loaded word, I don’t know what a Protestant work ethic is in comparison to any other type of work ethic, but of course I value some kind of work ethic.
Yes there should be hierarchy. Of course.
‘Deference to authority’, is this some anarchy argument? That’s what it sounds like.
So if I break down all of what you’re saying, remove hierarchy, remove capitalism, remove competition and authority.
Okay, I take all that in and I think “hm. He wants to destroy everything that western civilization has built”.
This is why I’ll always oppose this kind of bullshit, because it’s disgusting. What you mean, if you got your way, would cause so much more death and suffering and you’re cowering behind this visage of saintly goodness. It’s gross, honestly.
And most people who argue for this I usually just assuming are misinformed dreamers hoping for a utopia that’ll never come. But then there are others, the ones who know what they’re asking for and willing to go the distance to achieve it.
Those ones are, I think, ones like you. Probably in here spreading anarchocommunist propaganda for your cause online to impressionable and well meaning kids.
People like that, know they’re trying to destroy the country and rebuild it in their own anarcho-communist image.
What you’re describing is really just western civilization, just in a really cynical way.
Do you think I’m unaware of this? Yes, that’s the prevailing ideology of neoliberalism; what modern conservatives are fighting to conserve.
I get it, you and people like you hate western civilization.
Incorrect and reductive to boot. There’s a great deal to love about western civilisation. I just don’t like neoliberal capitalism.
That’s why those of us who love it stamp out any communist bullshit when we see it. Because we know, we know what the point of the ‘revolution’ is, it’s to destroy the western countries.
That’s just paranoid red-scare propaganda. This isn’t a game of Civilization 5, and the goal of communism is not to “destroy” anything.
It’s not something you’re likely to come out and admit, but when you say something like the ‘tradition of hierarchy’ well ya. What exactly is wrong with that?
You seem to have gotten confused midway through this sentence. What do you want me to “admit”? As for what is wrong with hierarchy - I challenge you to explain what’s right about it. What is the value in placing people above and below each other?
Dominance isn’t a well defined term
Just an excuse to avoid discussing it. It’s quite well defined, studied and documented. Many forms of dominance have existed throughout history, and historians, sociologists and political scientists have long analysed its various appearances. At the very basic level, dominance is just having power over a person or group of people. It’s not hard to pin down.
supremacy is a loaded word
So what?
I don’t know what a Protestant work ethic is in comparison to any other type of work ethic, but of course I value some kind of work ethic.
Google is your friend:
“Protestant ethic, in sociological theory, the value attached to hard work, thrift, and efficiency in one’s worldly calling, which, especially in the Calvinist view, were deemed signs of an individual’s election, or eternal salvation.” Max Weber
“A view of life that promotes hard work and self-discipline as a means to material prosperity. It is called Protestant because some Protestant groups believe that such prosperity is a sign of God’s grace.” Dictionary.com
Put simply, if you’re rich, it means God loves you, and the money is a reward from God, because you must have worked really hard for it.
Yes there should be hierarchy. Of course.
Why? You can’t just say “of course”.
‘Deference to authority’, is this some anarchy argument? That’s what it sounds like.
It could be, or it could be a communist argument, or a socialist argument, or a Georgist argument, a mutualist argument, or any number of ideologies opposed to an automatic respect of people arbitrarily placed above them.
What of it?
So if I break down all of what you’re saying, remove hierarchy, remove capitalism, remove competition and authority. Okay, I take all that in and I think “hm. He wants to destroy everything that western civilization has built”.
That’s all you think western civilisation is? What do you think we were doing before capitalism came around? What do you think people do with their lives when they’re not at work? Have you never heard of culture, art, philosophy? Have you never experienced community?
This is why I’ll always oppose this kind of bullshit, because it’s disgusting.
Explain how. And please avoid using such emotional language, it reeks of blatant manipulation.
What you mean, if you got your way
This isn’t “my way”. It’s not about me or what I want.
would cause so much more death and suffering
How?
and you’re cowering behind this visage of saintly goodness.
Here you go using emotional rhetoric again. I’m not projecting any visage. I haven’t pronounced my beliefs as saintly (I in fact haven’t stated my beliefs at all) and haven’t made any moral statements. This is just rhetoric at work.
It’s gross, honestly.
Once again, personal attacks and emotional appeals.
And most people who argue for this I usually just assuming are misinformed dreamers hoping for a utopia that’ll never come.
Why do you assume that? Do you have any idea what any of these people actually believe?
But then there are others, the ones who know what they’re asking for and willing to go the distance to achieve it.
And what are they asking for? You have no idea. You haven’t even bothered to ask. You just accept what Fox News tells you.
Those ones are, I think, ones like you. Probably in here spreading anarchocommunist propaganda for your cause online to impressionable and well meaning kids.
This is blatant emotional pandering. Stop the faux sympathy train and come back to reality.
People like that, know they’re trying to destroy the country and rebuild it in their own anarcho-communist image.
What, exactly, do you think anarcho-communism is? And what makes you think building it entails “destroying the country”? And why assume this is a personal crusade motivated by individual beliefs, and not a social movement built out of collective efforts?
What Lemmy client are you using? All the ones I’ve tried allow you to jump right to the comment thread to read the comment in context. Reading via inbox sounds really disjointed and painful.
Weird; I wonder if it’s a Memmy/instance interaction; I’m writing this via Memmy and am (mostly) getting threads to work. They were broken for a few versions though.
It’s super frustrating, I would like to know why someone said “good luck with your wish then” before I respond to them, but I can’t find the post in the thread lol
I’d feel bad just responding randomly, and sometimes I get it wrong and respond out of context to people, which must be super frustrating for them.
It doesn’t help that most things I comment get a ton of replies, I understand why they do (a lot of people here disagree with me and want to tell me how horrible and stupid I am)
Same issue here. I went back to using voyager (wefwef, since I never deleted and resaved the link to my iphone desktop to catch the rebrand) because clicking on response notifications in Memmy sends me to the correct post but not the correct comments. Also I can log into the desktop lemmy.world site on my laptop, but my home desktop absolutely refuses to log in (even after saying that I’m logged in).
OMG! I’m so relieved that I’m not the only one. Some of the replies I’ve received in other conversations when I respond out of context have been so demeaning as if I’m making up excuses.
Replying from the inbox is terrible.
Thank you for validating my experience, although it also sucks for you. I appreciate you commenting
All of the political tests I’ve ever taken have named me a ‘classic liberal’. There are so many subdivision of political leanings that it gets pretty confusing.
I call myself a conservative because I believe in the family unit being the backbone of our society. The most important thing in the world. I believe in small government, I believe in free market capitalism, I think taxes should be minimal and government should be responsible with balancing the budget.
Im not overly religious, but I think religion has a lot of good lessons to teach. I think the Bible creates fences around issues and asks us to do our best not to cross them, but those fences are far enough away from the real issue that we need to avoid to mean it’s not a huge deal if we step over the odd one here or there. I don’t take the Bible 100% literally.
As for social topics, I’m much more liberal than where I am with governing. This is why I voted for Justin Trudeau back in like, 2015.
I believe drugs should be legal, sex work should be legal, I think we should have less laws in general. I respect the idea of the police, but I realize a lot of them are just losers from highschool who got picked on and now they have a gun and a badge.
I had a long soul searching introspective moment on abortion when my wife became pregnant with our first child and we were talking to the doctor about testing for Down’s syndrome.
I realized that for me, I am against it. But I’m not so quick to say it should be banned. I do think there should be common sense restrictions though.
Yeah that makes sense. I think as an inevitable result of writing a brief online comment, you’ve expressed a quite vague and shallow perspective here, so if you don’t mind I’d like to dig into it a little bit. In particular, I’m curious about what you mean when you say you “believe in small government” and “free market capitalism”.
What sort of things do you think government should not be doing? Should people not be entitled to live a healthy life without being bankrupted? (I.e., should government not fund healthcare?) Are workers not entitled to fair treatment for their labour? (industrial relations laws and workplace health & safety.) Is public safety and order not important? (Fire departments, police, maybe the defence forces.) How do you feel when governments give subsidies to some businesses, like agriculture, mining, “bailing out the banks”, or private education?
You’ll note that some of these are things that conservative governments are associated with doing more of, while others are things conservative governments do less of. It’s why I’ve always found the conservative parties’ claims to be “small government” rather misleading. More of a marketing approach they use that doesn’t actually represent what they stand for, and thus not particularly useful in good faith political discourse.
Conservatism as an ideology believes in the existence of a “natural hierarchy”, where society is ordered into people with power and people without power, and the ones with power deserve that power because that’s the natural hierarchy. Conservatives have the primary objective to enforce that imaginary hierarchy. Basically they’re the remains of Pro-Feudalists from the early days of Capitalism.
This coincides well with modern day capitalism, which also wants to enforce a “natural hierarchy” - just in its case it’s capital vs. labor instead of powerful vs. powerless people.
If you want my opinion, I’d put you in the “right wing liberal” drawer. Which, in american dimensions (because the US does not have a political left wing), would be the democratic party. If you were an actual conservative, you would use abortion as an opportunity to enforce the “women < men” power dynamic for example, because that’s one of the imaginary “natural hierarchies” conservatives believe in.
families and free market capitalism are exclusive of each other.
Free market capitalism wants both parents and any children working as young as possible and as old as possible, as much as possible.
Free market capitalism does not - practically - support childcare (and childcare - bringing in someone else to care for your children - is the opposite of being a family), it does not support time off, it does not support vacations, it doesn’t support education, it doesn’t support public transportation (important when you have small kids), it doesn’t support free Healthcare for childbirth, pre- and post-natal care, it doesn’t support retirement so grandparents can help.
It also supports strict immigration and very much looks down on people immigrating with their families or brining their families over — leading to such terms as “anchor baby”
I’m a millennial immigrant to the USA. We can’t have kids because my wife’s job is location based and tied to student loan forgiveness and retirement divestment, so her family are thousands of miles in one direction, my family are thousands of miles in another direction. If we have a baby she loses her job, as theres no maternity or paternity leave, can’t get her student loans forgiven, can’t ever retire, I get 2 weeks off a year + public holidays and I often work 8am to 6 or 7pm - I would literally never see my child.
Captialism is directly responsible for the destruction of (this, but in my opinion all) families.
You have a reasonable take. I’m sorry you’re going to get assaulted with messages. Lemmy’s a bit of a hive mind so just know you’re not unreasonable for wanting a space where discussion can be had without bad faith. Also a conservative by the way. I’m really much more moderate, but no one here would classify me as that since the scope is shifted
Right - the US overton window is dramatically shifted to the right, and the discourse on here does not accept that as a given but rather as a subject of critical analysis.
The issue is that you rely on fear to gain support. You can’t just say, “I’m opposed to illegal immigration, we need to police our borders better.” Many people are interested in regulated borders. But then many on your side make it clear hate is their motivator, playing the xenophobic line and saying shit like “because these sand n*$&ers are murderers, terrorists and rapists.” And those who aren’t saying shit like that are silent.
I’m not interested in importing deeply conservative religious people to this country that are going to threaten the societal shift toward a secular society, especially at the specific time the SCOTUS is giving religions special privileges. But by no means do I need to cultivate hate in my heart or others, unless I’m a fuck.
Where the fuck are you hearing that? Every conversation I have with my conservative friends revolves around how much immigration is reasonably doable and what number is too much strain on the system.
There’s never a racist undertone to the conversation. Immigrants can come from Africa, or Mexico, or Poland. No one I know gives a shit about who they are, just what the policy around it is
What’s the proposal? Building a wall is a joke. It doesn’t work; ignores the need for migrant workers for things like farming that don’t have viable alternatives; And ultimately is a big grift by Republican donors to get bloated contacts to build it but never really complete it in anything meaningful way.
What methodology is use in determining numbers surrounding how much immigration is doable? Is there economic metrics involved in doing this? Which ones do you use?
It does. I shortened it a bit. The conservatives usually use many words, and they might try not to sound racist, but when pressed, they more or less admit they want certain groups of persons not to exist, women to have fewer rights, and so on. Back to barbarian times and war crimes basically.
Not knocking your worthy efforts, but the vast majority of people don’t turn conservative because of ideological reasons, they do it because they want to keep what they acquired over their lives.
The people don’t become conservative any more because everyone younger than 40 pretty has pretty much gotten the economic middle finger across the board, so people turn radical instead. If I have nothing to lose I don’t feel protective of the status quo.
But the greedy fucks in charge around the world are so removed from the reality of life they cannot see past their bank account, and would rather concede to fascism to keep things going for a bit longer, than making the needed changes. For the lost generations and the planet itself.
Well it’s worth noting that teenage boys have started leaning a bit more to the right, likely in large part because of Andrew Tate and others in the manosphere, plus right-wing think-tanks like PragerU targeting schools and kids.
Though it’s not like the gap between conservative and liberal boys is that big, plus it’s not uncommon to hear from men on the left say that they had a phase of watching Ben Shapiro debate compilations only to grow out of it, so it’s not like this is the end of the world.
I guess we can only hope that the latter is a stronger motivating factor than reactionary propaganda and efforts to curtail education that are coming from the right.
PragerU is like barely removed from Nazi propaganda. It’s so fucking insidiously and evilly incorrect I can’t believe YouTube allows it at all. Fucking YouTube
Being protective of your good fortune at the expense of others is itself part of an ideology, so I don’t see why you felt the need to contradict and condescend. A person who’s not a piece of shit would have no business being a conservative, no matter how privileged they are.
Now go argue with someone else because I’m getting big reddit energy from you, and it’s making me anxious.
How about I express myself as I see fit, and you compose yourself for the next time someone writes in a way that makes you feel “anxious” yet at the same time unable to control the urge to lecture them.
Who are you to tell me how I should express myself?
Let’s please keep this civil. I respectfully disagree, but I have no problem with you voicing your opinion. The issue is your assumption that the person who disagrees with you is a horrible individual, simply because they have a different opinion. I don’t even care who’s right at this point - we can debate an issue without insulting each other. And even if you’re enraged by it, hiding that fact and calmly countering their opinion with logic is far more effective at winning over an audience…
Edit: Before any accusation of unfair treatment is made, I’d like to clarify that I disapprove of the original comment’s rhetoric as well - there was no good reason to insult conservatives (“greedy [expletive]”) like they did.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Conservatives should be systemically and socially deplatformed and disenfranchised.
My issue with the person I was speaking to was the haughty arrogance they led with, presuming to argue with me about… what? Nothing they said contradicted what I was saying; yet, they come at me like a debatelord?
And now you have the arrogance to lecture me on the correct take ™? Literally cis white male energy. stfu
I’m genuinely sorry for misgendering you and for bringing race into it. It’s not that people aren’t reacting positively to my critique. I don’t care about that. It’s the other person talking down to me like I’m a fool or a child and he’s in some formal debate that he has to “win.” The last thing I need are other people inserting their opinions into the mix about how I should speak politely to that person when he was being such a cock.
And what I meant by “cis white male energy” is people feel the need to tell you their opinion, to the point that multiple people are dogpiling you telling you the same thing, none of which ever addresses the real issue.
There wasn’t any “haughty arrogance,” they were just adding on to what you said with their view, and (from my understanding) were attempting to be polite by clarifying how your point still stands. Not everything is an argument…
What the fuck? The irony of you pointing this out to me when the other guy leads with things like ““Not to knock your worthy efforts, but…” like a pretentious debatelord who’s full of himself. I agree that not everything is an argument, which is exactly why I was calling him out.
That’s EXACTLY MY POINT. If someone agrees with you, then why lead with something as pretentious and haughty as “Not to knock your worthy efforst, but…”
Why talk down to someone like that and adopt the tone of a pretentious debatelord when you ultimately agree with the other person?
I encountered people like that all over reddit, so I recognize them – the type of people who think any conversation is a debate that you must “win.” It’s precisely because he does agree with me that I’m so miffed.
They weren’t being pretentious or haughty. They amended one of your statements because it was a little inaccurate, then agreed that your wider point is correct. Because, yes, “wanting to hold on to what you have earned” is indeed an ideologically driven position
It wasn’t, though. There was nothing I said that needed amending, nor nothing they said that effectively amended. And they weren’t called upon to do so. They could have said the same exact thing without coming off like a prick.
It’s okay. In retrospect, I wasn’t called on to be so aggressive in my response to him. I should have just immediately blocked and moved on, but I let it get under my skin.
The only big reddit energy was this comment and the subsequent doubling down. The comment above was an even handed rebuttal, this response is tone policing and name calling.
You may disagree with his rebuttal but this is not how you respond to adversity.
I don’t understand why they even went so off the rails. I just gave an addition to their statement which I prefaced with positive affirmation, to make sure the following text isn’t misinterpreted as ridiculing them in their effort.
Granted I l maybe shouldn’t have cursed as much, but I didn’t even insult anyone specifically, not even republicans as some other people suggest. Just the political leadership that is complicit in suppressing the needed change to save our ecosystem and remedy the ridiculous inequality mankind has to endure.
Apparently that’s enough to make them block me and then continue to rant about me in random comments.
Guess im done with this conversation, it turned weirdly toxic for no fault of mine.
What exactly are older people afraid of losing? It’s not like even the farthest left politicians are in favor of doing anything more radical than raising taxes on people who are wealthier than the vast majority of boomers.
I don’t think they are afraid of losing anything specific. It’s ingrained at this point.
“If you made straight A’s and someone else made straight F’s, how would you feel if you both ended up with C’s? That’s fair right? No? Welcome to the Republican Party. Isn’t everyone who doesn’t agree with this an idiot? I’m glad we aren’t idiots.”
I grew up homeschooled and the Christian curriculum my parents used had similar feeling brainwashing tactics. “Scientists searched their whole lives to disprove the Bible, then ended up Christians instead!” Making you feel smart for not wasting your life like the other guy, you are already in the “good” group.
I’ve grown up in the same educational situation, and this is exactly what I’ve experienced. Their attempted indoctrination turned me into a liberal, antichristian agnostic. But with mental health issues, because emotional abuse is better than “letting your kid go to hell”…
When one person uses a word with an unusual meaning, they’re just wrong. When a whole country does it it’s a difference of dialect. Are you gonna try to argue that American English is wrong?
Ditto for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK; aka North Korea). People often intentionally misuse words to obfuscate their true intentions, particularly those with an authoritarian or fascist slant.
Well Jesus was a peace loving socialist hippy, who would have been seen as a woke liberal by any US Christian conservative. They would have crucified him and not seen the irony.
To what extent do you think education has played a role in allowing kids to critically analyse these types of people. Because in my history classes, we learned about ways people influenced others in nefarious ways and I’m wondering if kids see the same common pattern and know when to avoid.
Oh, I definitely think it’s played an important role. There’s a reason the right wing regularly attacks education. Seems to be a global thing, too – not just the US.
Good question, anyone that has an education will tell you it’s changed their life and I believe that too. Even though sometimes it’s boring, the advantage is just too good for future children. Just suspicious that right wing wants to reverse progress.
It’s become unfortunately popular in some circles to view education as strictly a state’s propaganda tool, but in spite of its flaws, I’ve been pretty impressed by how effective it can be in the hands of skilled and passionate groups of individual educators.
That’s not to say there aren’t bad teachers (and don’t even get me started on administrators and legislators), but I do attribute a lot to what it has accomplished, for example, in my remote state, and that’s in spite of being regularly attacked by christofascists. When I think about it, I’m not sure I’d have much of a healthy perspective on things if not for some influential teachers. I’m a huge fan of public education, and I think we need to speak up for it whenever we can. It’s tragic what’s happened to it these past few years in my state and others.
