ACHS - conservative leaning students - afraid to speak up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No, schools are where kids go to learn facts and how to be a good citizen.

Not to learn outdated myths.

" anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman" is not a fact, it's an opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No, schools are where kids go to learn facts and how to be a good citizen.

Not to learn outdated myths.

" anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman" is not a fact, it's an opinion.

BS. If you want to dictate a woman's reproductive choices, you are antiwoman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No. Honey, enough with the persecution complex. No one is saying conservatives “should” remain silent in schools. Again, these are choices teens are making for themselves. They absolutely can speak and are likely encouraged to by their teachers.

And this bizarre lens you see school through is just not supported by the facts. There is no “indoctrination” here unless you find messages of tolerance to be offensive (And don’t start on the whole “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance” bs). You seem to have this fantasy that school days are filled with sermons praising Joe Biden and demonizing Trump or something. That isn’t what happens. Once again, conservatives are so fearful of things they imagine are happening. My guess is this is a side effect of the tribal mindset so many of you retreat into, which also feeds that persecution complex because you sense, rightly, that you are wildly out of step with mainstream values and thinking.

The reality is discussions of any current events are rare. Students spend their days learning math, doing labs in science, reading and writing. It’s like you think there are endless assemblies designed to impart liberal ideologies and talking points into them. This isn’t actually a thing.

Yes. Of course. Some other poster didn’t just admit that ostracizing pro-life students would be a logical consequence of a student articulating a pro-life position. Schools are just institutions of free inquiry and academics; no social conditioning going on at all and all viewpoints are tolerated and respectfully challenged, never shamed.

Based on comments in this thread, I stand by my assessment that the same tools (shaming, threats of being ostracized) used by a church-going community to enforce social conformity within that group are being used by school-going communities to enforce conformity of thought within the school. Folks are openly admitting to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No, schools are where kids go to learn facts and how to be a good citizen.

Not to learn outdated myths.

" anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman" is not a fact, it's an opinion.

And it's not one that would be "taught" in schools. In fact, I cannot imagine a scenario in which there would be any school-led discussion on abortion. *Maybe* in a current events class. But more likely if it comes up at all it would be students who bring up the subject outside of class. Because some students, especially high school students, do have opinions and will express themselves (see recent walk-outs over gun violence, etc).

If the complaint is that a conservative student feels threatened/silenced by the activities of other students who do choose to express themselves, then that's hardly a case of school indoctrination, nor is it a bad thing. It's not like conservatives are a protected class or something. They may find thinking against the zeitgeist to be oppressive, but no one is actually oppressing them. Again, all of this is imagination. "Oh, if I dare object to the walk-out over gun violence and advocate for the second amendment I'll lose all my friends." Yeah, that might be the case, but there's nothing actually *wrong* with that. It's just a consequence. If people find what you belief to be abhorrent, they're naturally not going to want to spend time with you.

[Anonymous]

Is abortion even a topic in any school subject curriculum?

I think people going after school institutions are conflating actual teaching topics and normal teen conversations. I was “pro-life” in middle and high school (my views have since changed) and remember many personal conversations and debates on the topic with friends, but not any formal class discussions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No, schools are where kids go to learn facts and how to be a good citizen.

Not to learn outdated myths.

" anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman" is not a fact, it's an opinion.

Which schools are teaching that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No. Honey, enough with the persecution complex. No one is saying conservatives “should” remain silent in schools. Again, these are choices teens are making for themselves. They absolutely can speak and are likely encouraged to by their teachers.

And this bizarre lens you see school through is just not supported by the facts. There is no “indoctrination” here unless you find messages of tolerance to be offensive (And don’t start on the whole “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance” bs). You seem to have this fantasy that school days are filled with sermons praising Joe Biden and demonizing Trump or something. That isn’t what happens. Once again, conservatives are so fearful of things they imagine are happening. My guess is this is a side effect of the tribal mindset so many of you retreat into, which also feeds that persecution complex because you sense, rightly, that you are wildly out of step with mainstream values and thinking.

The reality is discussions of any current events are rare. Students spend their days learning math, doing labs in science, reading and writing. It’s like you think there are endless assemblies designed to impart liberal ideologies and talking points into them. This isn’t actually a thing.

Yes. Of course. Some other poster didn’t just admit that ostracizing pro-life students would be a logical consequence of a student articulating a pro-life position. Schools are just institutions of free inquiry and academics; no social conditioning going on at all and all viewpoints are tolerated and respectfully challenged, never shamed.

Based on comments in this thread, I stand by my assessment that the same tools (shaming, threats of being ostracized) used by a church-going community to enforce social conformity within that group are being used by school-going communities to enforce conformity of thought within the school. Folks are openly admitting to it.

You can stand by your assessment all you want, but you're still living in a paranoid alternate reality that doesn't actually reflect how schools actually work. No one said there was no social engineering going on -- of course there is. It's always been that way. If you want indoctrination, let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance, including the insertion of the words "under God." So, we're socially engineering our children from a very young age on how we want to conduct themselves in society. That takes many forms, including teaching things like empathy and tolerance and acceptance for others. Of course, conservatives are perfectly fine with the pledge and the forced expressions of patriotism -- they LOVE that indoctrination. But when schools want to teach that Heather has Two Mommies and that's OK, they lose their ever-loving minds and then pout when expressing contempt for that kind of "social engineering" -- which is necessary for the betterment of a peaceful society as a whole -- is met with pushback.

The reason your church analogy doesn't work here is churches taught (teach) hatred for people based on who they ARE -- gay, trans, immigrants, etc. (Not all churches, mind you -- many are truly dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, but rather the evangelical ones with twisted takes on the gospel that seem to bind bigots together). To the degree you sense rejection/ostracization from people in an academic setting, it's based on things YOU SAY and how you BEHAVE. And those things you say are rooted in trying to demand widespread acceptance of those things your church teaches. In other words, the social engineering in schools is based on fostering an open, tolerant society, whereas church dogma tends to prescribe a very narrow-minded vision for society. If you stopped trying to impose your morality on others, you might find people more tolerant of what you believe.

When you factor teens into this, most will be reluctant to speak out on any thing. Many have strong views, often inherited by the parents, but they don't fully understand WHY they have those views nor do they have the ability to defend them or articulate why they feel the way they do. And as I said before, it's GOOD for students with these strong, poorly developed viewpoints to experience some discomfort, because that cognitive dissonance will hopefully help open their minds -- even if they retain their conservatives biases, gaining a better understanding of world views different than yours is beneficial. And before you say the same is true for the woke crowd -- we absolutely, completely DO understand the way your think and why you think -- we just don't respect it because, again, it's rooted in the imposition of your morality on others. I will fight for your right to practice your faith however you want -- but I will also fight you if you try to tell me I have to live the way your faith demands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No. Honey, enough with the persecution complex. No one is saying conservatives “should” remain silent in schools. Again, these are choices teens are making for themselves. They absolutely can speak and are likely encouraged to by their teachers.

And this bizarre lens you see school through is just not supported by the facts. There is no “indoctrination” here unless you find messages of tolerance to be offensive (And don’t start on the whole “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance” bs). You seem to have this fantasy that school days are filled with sermons praising Joe Biden and demonizing Trump or something. That isn’t what happens. Once again, conservatives are so fearful of things they imagine are happening. My guess is this is a side effect of the tribal mindset so many of you retreat into, which also feeds that persecution complex because you sense, rightly, that you are wildly out of step with mainstream values and thinking.

The reality is discussions of any current events are rare. Students spend their days learning math, doing labs in science, reading and writing. It’s like you think there are endless assemblies designed to impart liberal ideologies and talking points into them. This isn’t actually a thing.

Yes. Of course. Some other poster didn’t just admit that ostracizing pro-life students would be a logical consequence of a student articulating a pro-life position. Schools are just institutions of free inquiry and academics; no social conditioning going on at all and all viewpoints are tolerated and respectfully challenged, never shamed.

Based on comments in this thread, I stand by my assessment that the same tools (shaming, threats of being ostracized) used by a church-going community to enforce social conformity within that group are being used by school-going communities to enforce conformity of thought within the school. Folks are openly admitting to it.

You can stand by your assessment all you want, but you're still living in a paranoid alternate reality that doesn't actually reflect how schools actually work. No one said there was no social engineering going on -- of course there is. It's always been that way. If you want indoctrination, let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance, including the insertion of the words "under God." So, we're socially engineering our children from a very young age on how we want to conduct themselves in society. That takes many forms, including teaching things like empathy and tolerance and acceptance for others. Of course, conservatives are perfectly fine with the pledge and the forced expressions of patriotism -- they LOVE that indoctrination. But when schools want to teach that Heather has Two Mommies and that's OK, they lose their ever-loving minds and then pout when expressing contempt for that kind of "social engineering" -- which is necessary for the betterment of a peaceful society as a whole -- is met with pushback.

The reason your church analogy doesn't work here is churches taught (teach) hatred for people based on who they ARE -- gay, trans, immigrants, etc. (Not all churches, mind you -- many are truly dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, but rather the evangelical ones with twisted takes on the gospel that seem to bind bigots together). To the degree you sense rejection/ostracization from people in an academic setting, it's based on things YOU SAY and how you BEHAVE. And those things you say are rooted in trying to demand widespread acceptance of those things your church teaches. In other words, the social engineering in schools is based on fostering an open, tolerant society, whereas church dogma tends to prescribe a very narrow-minded vision for society. If you stopped trying to impose your morality on others, you might find people more tolerant of what you believe.

When you factor teens into this, most will be reluctant to speak out on any thing. Many have strong views, often inherited by the parents, but they don't fully understand WHY they have those views nor do they have the ability to defend them or articulate why they feel the way they do. And as I said before, it's GOOD for students with these strong, poorly developed viewpoints to experience some discomfort, because that cognitive dissonance will hopefully help open their minds -- even if they retain their conservatives biases, gaining a better understanding of world views different than yours is beneficial. And before you say the same is true for the woke crowd -- we absolutely, completely DO understand the way your think and why you think -- we just don't respect it because, again, it's rooted in the imposition of your morality on others. I will fight for your right to practice your faith however you want -- but I will also fight you if you try to tell me I have to live the way your faith demands.

The church analogy is just that schools, like churches, are communities, and within those communities tools are used to achieve social conformity (including conformity of thought, i.e., thought-policing). I take your post as an admission that schools are being used for social-engineering. So we've established that point.

However, the social engineering within schools is not geared solely toward building a tolerant society. If it was, why are the pro-life and pro-gun "conservative" positions cause for ostracization? Neither position is "anti" any immutable characteristic. As such, I can see how conservatives may view schools as being anti-conservative, not tolerant.

[Anonymous]

It’s a little odd to view everything through the lens of a “church”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No. Honey, enough with the persecution complex. No one is saying conservatives “should” remain silent in schools. Again, these are choices teens are making for themselves. They absolutely can speak and are likely encouraged to by their teachers.

And this bizarre lens you see school through is just not supported by the facts. There is no “indoctrination” here unless you find messages of tolerance to be offensive (And don’t start on the whole “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance” bs). You seem to have this fantasy that school days are filled with sermons praising Joe Biden and demonizing Trump or something. That isn’t what happens. Once again, conservatives are so fearful of things they imagine are happening. My guess is this is a side effect of the tribal mindset so many of you retreat into, which also feeds that persecution complex because you sense, rightly, that you are wildly out of step with mainstream values and thinking.

The reality is discussions of any current events are rare. Students spend their days learning math, doing labs in science, reading and writing. It’s like you think there are endless assemblies designed to impart liberal ideologies and talking points into them. This isn’t actually a thing.

Yes. Of course. Some other poster didn’t just admit that ostracizing pro-life students would be a logical consequence of a student articulating a pro-life position. Schools are just institutions of free inquiry and academics; no social conditioning going on at all and all viewpoints are tolerated and respectfully challenged, never shamed.

Based on comments in this thread, I stand by my assessment that the same tools (shaming, threats of being ostracized) used by a church-going community to enforce social conformity within that group are being used by school-going communities to enforce conformity of thought within the school. Folks are openly admitting to it.

You can stand by your assessment all you want, but you're still living in a paranoid alternate reality that doesn't actually reflect how schools actually work. No one said there was no social engineering going on -- of course there is. It's always been that way. If you want indoctrination, let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance, including the insertion of the words "under God." So, we're socially engineering our children from a very young age on how we want to conduct themselves in society. That takes many forms, including teaching things like empathy and tolerance and acceptance for others. Of course, conservatives are perfectly fine with the pledge and the forced expressions of patriotism -- they LOVE that indoctrination. But when schools want to teach that Heather has Two Mommies and that's OK, they lose their ever-loving minds and then pout when expressing contempt for that kind of "social engineering" -- which is necessary for the betterment of a peaceful society as a whole -- is met with pushback.

The reason your church analogy doesn't work here is churches taught (teach) hatred for people based on who they ARE -- gay, trans, immigrants, etc. (Not all churches, mind you -- many are truly dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, but rather the evangelical ones with twisted takes on the gospel that seem to bind bigots together). To the degree you sense rejection/ostracization from people in an academic setting, it's based on things YOU SAY and how you BEHAVE. And those things you say are rooted in trying to demand widespread acceptance of those things your church teaches. In other words, the social engineering in schools is based on fostering an open, tolerant society, whereas church dogma tends to prescribe a very narrow-minded vision for society. If you stopped trying to impose your morality on others, you might find people more tolerant of what you believe.

When you factor teens into this, most will be reluctant to speak out on any thing. Many have strong views, often inherited by the parents, but they don't fully understand WHY they have those views nor do they have the ability to defend them or articulate why they feel the way they do. And as I said before, it's GOOD for students with these strong, poorly developed viewpoints to experience some discomfort, because that cognitive dissonance will hopefully help open their minds -- even if they retain their conservatives biases, gaining a better understanding of world views different than yours is beneficial. And before you say the same is true for the woke crowd -- we absolutely, completely DO understand the way your think and why you think -- we just don't respect it because, again, it's rooted in the imposition of your morality on others. I will fight for your right to practice your faith however you want -- but I will also fight you if you try to tell me I have to live the way your faith demands.

The church analogy is just that schools, like churches, are communities, and within those communities tools are used to achieve social conformity (including conformity of thought, i.e., thought-policing). I take your post as an admission that schools are being used for social-engineering. So we've established that point.

However, the social engineering within schools is not geared solely toward building a tolerant society. If it was, why are the pro-life and pro-gun "conservative" positions cause for ostracization? Neither position is "anti" any immutable characteristic. As such, I can see how conservatives may view schools as being anti-conservative, not tolerant.

It's not an "admission." You haven't "won a point." Of course schools include social engineering -- they always have and that is largely their purpose. I forget who said schools exist not to teach what parents want their children to know but rather what society NEEDS for them to know.

Of course, schools are institutions and communities. But the church analogy fails because the "social conformity" you detect stems from different sources. In the church, it stems from church leaders and their interpretation of religious texts. In schools, it stems from the people in the form of publicly approved and transparent curricula. Much of the "social conformity" you complain about is more organic and tends to be student-led, not dictated by authority. This is true for many things, not just ideas: Fashion, music, the social hierarchy of popularity.

You keep saying students who express "pro-life" or "pro-gun" comments have been ostracized. But you provide no evidence of it. All you seem to have is this insistence that it *would* happen. Which, again, is erecting a straw man and is based on either a paranoid persecution complex or frustration that those views aren't more popular. But I've seen ZERO evidence of any case anywhere where a kid who expresses an anti-abortion view in passing would be ostracized. Where it might happen is if they take more extreme measures like distributing photos of fetuses or slut-shaming a pregnant student or something -- again, that's back to BEHAVIOR. But, this is still all hypothetical. A giant straw man. Show me where a student has been shunned for expressing an anti-abortion or pro-gun viewpoint and we can discuss the particulars of that incident. But you won't, will you? Because it hasn't happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No. Honey, enough with the persecution complex. No one is saying conservatives “should” remain silent in schools. Again, these are choices teens are making for themselves. They absolutely can speak and are likely encouraged to by their teachers.

And this bizarre lens you see school through is just not supported by the facts. There is no “indoctrination” here unless you find messages of tolerance to be offensive (And don’t start on the whole “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance” bs). You seem to have this fantasy that school days are filled with sermons praising Joe Biden and demonizing Trump or something. That isn’t what happens. Once again, conservatives are so fearful of things they imagine are happening. My guess is this is a side effect of the tribal mindset so many of you retreat into, which also feeds that persecution complex because you sense, rightly, that you are wildly out of step with mainstream values and thinking.

The reality is discussions of any current events are rare. Students spend their days learning math, doing labs in science, reading and writing. It’s like you think there are endless assemblies designed to impart liberal ideologies and talking points into them. This isn’t actually a thing.

Yes. Of course. Some other poster didn’t just admit that ostracizing pro-life students would be a logical consequence of a student articulating a pro-life position. Schools are just institutions of free inquiry and academics; no social conditioning going on at all and all viewpoints are tolerated and respectfully challenged, never shamed.

Based on comments in this thread, I stand by my assessment that the same tools (shaming, threats of being ostracized) used by a church-going community to enforce social conformity within that group are being used by school-going communities to enforce conformity of thought within the school. Folks are openly admitting to it.

You can stand by your assessment all you want, but you're still living in a paranoid alternate reality that doesn't actually reflect how schools actually work. No one said there was no social engineering going on -- of course there is. It's always been that way. If you want indoctrination, let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance, including the insertion of the words "under God." So, we're socially engineering our children from a very young age on how we want to conduct themselves in society. That takes many forms, including teaching things like empathy and tolerance and acceptance for others. Of course, conservatives are perfectly fine with the pledge and the forced expressions of patriotism -- they LOVE that indoctrination. But when schools want to teach that Heather has Two Mommies and that's OK, they lose their ever-loving minds and then pout when expressing contempt for that kind of "social engineering" -- which is necessary for the betterment of a peaceful society as a whole -- is met with pushback.

The reason your church analogy doesn't work here is churches taught (teach) hatred for people based on who they ARE -- gay, trans, immigrants, etc. (Not all churches, mind you -- many are truly dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, but rather the evangelical ones with twisted takes on the gospel that seem to bind bigots together). To the degree you sense rejection/ostracization from people in an academic setting, it's based on things YOU SAY and how you BEHAVE. And those things you say are rooted in trying to demand widespread acceptance of those things your church teaches. In other words, the social engineering in schools is based on fostering an open, tolerant society, whereas church dogma tends to prescribe a very narrow-minded vision for society. If you stopped trying to impose your morality on others, you might find people more tolerant of what you believe.

When you factor teens into this, most will be reluctant to speak out on any thing. Many have strong views, often inherited by the parents, but they don't fully understand WHY they have those views nor do they have the ability to defend them or articulate why they feel the way they do. And as I said before, it's GOOD for students with these strong, poorly developed viewpoints to experience some discomfort, because that cognitive dissonance will hopefully help open their minds -- even if they retain their conservatives biases, gaining a better understanding of world views different than yours is beneficial. And before you say the same is true for the woke crowd -- we absolutely, completely DO understand the way your think and why you think -- we just don't respect it because, again, it's rooted in the imposition of your morality on others. I will fight for your right to practice your faith however you want -- but I will also fight you if you try to tell me I have to live the way your faith demands.

The church analogy is just that schools, like churches, are communities, and within those communities tools are used to achieve social conformity (including conformity of thought, i.e., thought-policing). I take your post as an admission that schools are being used for social-engineering. So we've established that point.

However, the social engineering within schools is not geared solely toward building a tolerant society. If it was, why are the pro-life and pro-gun "conservative" positions cause for ostracization? Neither position is "anti" any immutable characteristic. As such, I can see how conservatives may view schools as being anti-conservative, not tolerant.

If the conservative views weren’t harmful to women, minorities, LGBTQ, or even children in schools then no one would GAF.

But the conservative views *are* harmful - that’s why they are frowned upon. .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is abortion even a topic in any school subject curriculum?

I think people going after school institutions are conflating actual teaching topics and normal teen conversations. I was “pro-life” in middle and high school (my views have since changed) and remember many personal conversations and debates on the topic with friends, but not any formal class discussions.

No, it’s not.

Fake histrionics trying to play victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No. Honey, enough with the persecution complex. No one is saying conservatives “should” remain silent in schools. Again, these are choices teens are making for themselves. They absolutely can speak and are likely encouraged to by their teachers.

And this bizarre lens you see school through is just not supported by the facts. There is no “indoctrination” here unless you find messages of tolerance to be offensive (And don’t start on the whole “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance” bs). You seem to have this fantasy that school days are filled with sermons praising Joe Biden and demonizing Trump or something. That isn’t what happens. Once again, conservatives are so fearful of things they imagine are happening. My guess is this is a side effect of the tribal mindset so many of you retreat into, which also feeds that persecution complex because you sense, rightly, that you are wildly out of step with mainstream values and thinking.

The reality is discussions of any current events are rare. Students spend their days learning math, doing labs in science, reading and writing. It’s like you think there are endless assemblies designed to impart liberal ideologies and talking points into them. This isn’t actually a thing.

Yes. Of course. Some other poster didn’t just admit that ostracizing pro-life students would be a logical consequence of a student articulating a pro-life position. Schools are just institutions of free inquiry and academics; no social conditioning going on at all and all viewpoints are tolerated and respectfully challenged, never shamed.

Based on comments in this thread, I stand by my assessment that the same tools (shaming, threats of being ostracized) used by a church-going community to enforce social conformity within that group are being used by school-going communities to enforce conformity of thought within the school. Folks are openly admitting to it.

You can stand by your assessment all you want, but you're still living in a paranoid alternate reality that doesn't actually reflect how schools actually work. No one said there was no social engineering going on -- of course there is. It's always been that way. If you want indoctrination, let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance, including the insertion of the words "under God." So, we're socially engineering our children from a very young age on how we want to conduct themselves in society. That takes many forms, including teaching things like empathy and tolerance and acceptance for others. Of course, conservatives are perfectly fine with the pledge and the forced expressions of patriotism -- they LOVE that indoctrination. But when schools want to teach that Heather has Two Mommies and that's OK, they lose their ever-loving minds and then pout when expressing contempt for that kind of "social engineering" -- which is necessary for the betterment of a peaceful society as a whole -- is met with pushback.

The reason your church analogy doesn't work here is churches taught (teach) hatred for people based on who they ARE -- gay, trans, immigrants, etc. (Not all churches, mind you -- many are truly dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, but rather the evangelical ones with twisted takes on the gospel that seem to bind bigots together). To the degree you sense rejection/ostracization from people in an academic setting, it's based on things YOU SAY and how you BEHAVE. And those things you say are rooted in trying to demand widespread acceptance of those things your church teaches. In other words, the social engineering in schools is based on fostering an open, tolerant society, whereas church dogma tends to prescribe a very narrow-minded vision for society. If you stopped trying to impose your morality on others, you might find people more tolerant of what you believe.

When you factor teens into this, most will be reluctant to speak out on any thing. Many have strong views, often inherited by the parents, but they don't fully understand WHY they have those views nor do they have the ability to defend them or articulate why they feel the way they do. And as I said before, it's GOOD for students with these strong, poorly developed viewpoints to experience some discomfort, because that cognitive dissonance will hopefully help open their minds -- even if they retain their conservatives biases, gaining a better understanding of world views different than yours is beneficial. And before you say the same is true for the woke crowd -- we absolutely, completely DO understand the way your think and why you think -- we just don't respect it because, again, it's rooted in the imposition of your morality on others. I will fight for your right to practice your faith however you want -- but I will also fight you if you try to tell me I have to live the way your faith demands.

The church analogy is just that schools, like churches, are communities, and within those communities tools are used to achieve social conformity (including conformity of thought, i.e., thought-policing). I take your post as an admission that schools are being used for social-engineering. So we've established that point.

However, the social engineering within schools is not geared solely toward building a tolerant society. If it was, why are the pro-life and pro-gun "conservative" positions cause for ostracization? Neither position is "anti" any immutable characteristic. As such, I can see how conservatives may view schools as being anti-conservative, not tolerant.

It's not an "admission." You haven't "won a point." Of course schools include social engineering -- they always have and that is largely their purpose. I forget who said schools exist not to teach what parents want their children to know but rather what society NEEDS for them to know.

Of course, schools are institutions and communities. But the church analogy fails because the "social conformity" you detect stems from different sources. In the church, it stems from church leaders and their interpretation of religious texts. In schools, it stems from the people in the form of publicly approved and transparent curricula. Much of the "social conformity" you complain about is more organic and tends to be student-led, not dictated by authority. This is true for many things, not just ideas: Fashion, music, the social hierarchy of popularity.

You keep saying students who express "pro-life" or "pro-gun" comments have been ostracized. But you provide no evidence of it. All you seem to have is this insistence that it *would* happen. Which, again, is erecting a straw man and is based on either a paranoid persecution complex or frustration that those views aren't more popular. But I've seen ZERO evidence of any case anywhere where a kid who expresses an anti-abortion view in passing would be ostracized. Where it might happen is if they take more extreme measures like distributing photos of fetuses or slut-shaming a pregnant student or something -- again, that's back to BEHAVIOR. But, this is still all hypothetical. A giant straw man. Show me where a student has been shunned for expressing an anti-abortion or pro-gun viewpoint and we can discuss the particulars of that incident. But you won't, will you? Because it hasn't happened.

This thread is the evidence. In this thread a poster said that the logical consequence of expressing a pro-life position was to be ostracized. Is that not a common view? Where’s the evidence that a pro-life student is welcomed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No. Honey, enough with the persecution complex. No one is saying conservatives “should” remain silent in schools. Again, these are choices teens are making for themselves. They absolutely can speak and are likely encouraged to by their teachers.

And this bizarre lens you see school through is just not supported by the facts. There is no “indoctrination” here unless you find messages of tolerance to be offensive (And don’t start on the whole “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance” bs). You seem to have this fantasy that school days are filled with sermons praising Joe Biden and demonizing Trump or something. That isn’t what happens. Once again, conservatives are so fearful of things they imagine are happening. My guess is this is a side effect of the tribal mindset so many of you retreat into, which also feeds that persecution complex because you sense, rightly, that you are wildly out of step with mainstream values and thinking.

The reality is discussions of any current events are rare. Students spend their days learning math, doing labs in science, reading and writing. It’s like you think there are endless assemblies designed to impart liberal ideologies and talking points into them. This isn’t actually a thing.

Yes. Of course. Some other poster didn’t just admit that ostracizing pro-life students would be a logical consequence of a student articulating a pro-life position. Schools are just institutions of free inquiry and academics; no social conditioning going on at all and all viewpoints are tolerated and respectfully challenged, never shamed.

Based on comments in this thread, I stand by my assessment that the same tools (shaming, threats of being ostracized) used by a church-going community to enforce social conformity within that group are being used by school-going communities to enforce conformity of thought within the school. Folks are openly admitting to it.

You can stand by your assessment all you want, but you're still living in a paranoid alternate reality that doesn't actually reflect how schools actually work. No one said there was no social engineering going on -- of course there is. It's always been that way. If you want indoctrination, let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance, including the insertion of the words "under God." So, we're socially engineering our children from a very young age on how we want to conduct themselves in society. That takes many forms, including teaching things like empathy and tolerance and acceptance for others. Of course, conservatives are perfectly fine with the pledge and the forced expressions of patriotism -- they LOVE that indoctrination. But when schools want to teach that Heather has Two Mommies and that's OK, they lose their ever-loving minds and then pout when expressing contempt for that kind of "social engineering" -- which is necessary for the betterment of a peaceful society as a whole -- is met with pushback.

The reason your church analogy doesn't work here is churches taught (teach) hatred for people based on who they ARE -- gay, trans, immigrants, etc. (Not all churches, mind you -- many are truly dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, but rather the evangelical ones with twisted takes on the gospel that seem to bind bigots together). To the degree you sense rejection/ostracization from people in an academic setting, it's based on things YOU SAY and how you BEHAVE. And those things you say are rooted in trying to demand widespread acceptance of those things your church teaches. In other words, the social engineering in schools is based on fostering an open, tolerant society, whereas church dogma tends to prescribe a very narrow-minded vision for society. If you stopped trying to impose your morality on others, you might find people more tolerant of what you believe.

When you factor teens into this, most will be reluctant to speak out on any thing. Many have strong views, often inherited by the parents, but they don't fully understand WHY they have those views nor do they have the ability to defend them or articulate why they feel the way they do. And as I said before, it's GOOD for students with these strong, poorly developed viewpoints to experience some discomfort, because that cognitive dissonance will hopefully help open their minds -- even if they retain their conservatives biases, gaining a better understanding of world views different than yours is beneficial. And before you say the same is true for the woke crowd -- we absolutely, completely DO understand the way your think and why you think -- we just don't respect it because, again, it's rooted in the imposition of your morality on others. I will fight for your right to practice your faith however you want -- but I will also fight you if you try to tell me I have to live the way your faith demands.

The church analogy is just that schools, like churches, are communities, and within those communities tools are used to achieve social conformity (including conformity of thought, i.e., thought-policing). I take your post as an admission that schools are being used for social-engineering. So we've established that point.

However, the social engineering within schools is not geared solely toward building a tolerant society. If it was, why are the pro-life and pro-gun "conservative" positions cause for ostracization? Neither position is "anti" any immutable characteristic. As such, I can see how conservatives may view schools as being anti-conservative, not tolerant.

It's not an "admission." You haven't "won a point." Of course schools include social engineering -- they always have and that is largely their purpose. I forget who said schools exist not to teach what parents want their children to know but rather what society NEEDS for them to know.

Of course, schools are institutions and communities. But the church analogy fails because the "social conformity" you detect stems from different sources. In the church, it stems from church leaders and their interpretation of religious texts. In schools, it stems from the people in the form of publicly approved and transparent curricula. Much of the "social conformity" you complain about is more organic and tends to be student-led, not dictated by authority. This is true for many things, not just ideas: Fashion, music, the social hierarchy of popularity.

You keep saying students who express "pro-life" or "pro-gun" comments have been ostracized. But you provide no evidence of it. All you seem to have is this insistence that it *would* happen. Which, again, is erecting a straw man and is based on either a paranoid persecution complex or frustration that those views aren't more popular. But I've seen ZERO evidence of any case anywhere where a kid who expresses an anti-abortion view in passing would be ostracized. Where it might happen is if they take more extreme measures like distributing photos of fetuses or slut-shaming a pregnant student or something -- again, that's back to BEHAVIOR. But, this is still all hypothetical. A giant straw man. Show me where a student has been shunned for expressing an anti-abortion or pro-gun viewpoint and we can discuss the particulars of that incident. But you won't, will you? Because it hasn't happened.

This thread is the evidence. In this thread a poster said that the logical consequence of expressing a pro-life position was to be ostracized. Is that not a common view? Where’s the evidence that a pro-life student is welcomed?

This thread is not that evidence. Find an example of where a student has expressed anti-abortion views or pro-gun views and been shunned by a mob as a result. Otherwise what you have is just paranoid delusions and a persecution complex that is so very tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No. Honey, enough with the persecution complex. No one is saying conservatives “should” remain silent in schools. Again, these are choices teens are making for themselves. They absolutely can speak and are likely encouraged to by their teachers.

And this bizarre lens you see school through is just not supported by the facts. There is no “indoctrination” here unless you find messages of tolerance to be offensive (And don’t start on the whole “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance” bs). You seem to have this fantasy that school days are filled with sermons praising Joe Biden and demonizing Trump or something. That isn’t what happens. Once again, conservatives are so fearful of things they imagine are happening. My guess is this is a side effect of the tribal mindset so many of you retreat into, which also feeds that persecution complex because you sense, rightly, that you are wildly out of step with mainstream values and thinking.

The reality is discussions of any current events are rare. Students spend their days learning math, doing labs in science, reading and writing. It’s like you think there are endless assemblies designed to impart liberal ideologies and talking points into them. This isn’t actually a thing.

Yes. Of course. Some other poster didn’t just admit that ostracizing pro-life students would be a logical consequence of a student articulating a pro-life position. Schools are just institutions of free inquiry and academics; no social conditioning going on at all and all viewpoints are tolerated and respectfully challenged, never shamed.

Based on comments in this thread, I stand by my assessment that the same tools (shaming, threats of being ostracized) used by a church-going community to enforce social conformity within that group are being used by school-going communities to enforce conformity of thought within the school. Folks are openly admitting to it.

You can stand by your assessment all you want, but you're still living in a paranoid alternate reality that doesn't actually reflect how schools actually work. No one said there was no social engineering going on -- of course there is. It's always been that way. If you want indoctrination, let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance, including the insertion of the words "under God." So, we're socially engineering our children from a very young age on how we want to conduct themselves in society. That takes many forms, including teaching things like empathy and tolerance and acceptance for others. Of course, conservatives are perfectly fine with the pledge and the forced expressions of patriotism -- they LOVE that indoctrination. But when schools want to teach that Heather has Two Mommies and that's OK, they lose their ever-loving minds and then pout when expressing contempt for that kind of "social engineering" -- which is necessary for the betterment of a peaceful society as a whole -- is met with pushback.

The reason your church analogy doesn't work here is churches taught (teach) hatred for people based on who they ARE -- gay, trans, immigrants, etc. (Not all churches, mind you -- many are truly dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, but rather the evangelical ones with twisted takes on the gospel that seem to bind bigots together). To the degree you sense rejection/ostracization from people in an academic setting, it's based on things YOU SAY and how you BEHAVE. And those things you say are rooted in trying to demand widespread acceptance of those things your church teaches. In other words, the social engineering in schools is based on fostering an open, tolerant society, whereas church dogma tends to prescribe a very narrow-minded vision for society. If you stopped trying to impose your morality on others, you might find people more tolerant of what you believe.

When you factor teens into this, most will be reluctant to speak out on any thing. Many have strong views, often inherited by the parents, but they don't fully understand WHY they have those views nor do they have the ability to defend them or articulate why they feel the way they do. And as I said before, it's GOOD for students with these strong, poorly developed viewpoints to experience some discomfort, because that cognitive dissonance will hopefully help open their minds -- even if they retain their conservatives biases, gaining a better understanding of world views different than yours is beneficial. And before you say the same is true for the woke crowd -- we absolutely, completely DO understand the way your think and why you think -- we just don't respect it because, again, it's rooted in the imposition of your morality on others. I will fight for your right to practice your faith however you want -- but I will also fight you if you try to tell me I have to live the way your faith demands.

The church analogy is just that schools, like churches, are communities, and within those communities tools are used to achieve social conformity (including conformity of thought, i.e., thought-policing). I take your post as an admission that schools are being used for social-engineering. So we've established that point.

However, the social engineering within schools is not geared solely toward building a tolerant society. If it was, why are the pro-life and pro-gun "conservative" positions cause for ostracization? Neither position is "anti" any immutable characteristic. As such, I can see how conservatives may view schools as being anti-conservative, not tolerant.

It's not an "admission." You haven't "won a point." Of course schools include social engineering -- they always have and that is largely their purpose. I forget who said schools exist not to teach what parents want their children to know but rather what society NEEDS for them to know.

Of course, schools are institutions and communities. But the church analogy fails because the "social conformity" you detect stems from different sources. In the church, it stems from church leaders and their interpretation of religious texts. In schools, it stems from the people in the form of publicly approved and transparent curricula. Much of the "social conformity" you complain about is more organic and tends to be student-led, not dictated by authority. This is true for many things, not just ideas: Fashion, music, the social hierarchy of popularity.

You keep saying students who express "pro-life" or "pro-gun" comments have been ostracized. But you provide no evidence of it. All you seem to have is this insistence that it *would* happen. Which, again, is erecting a straw man and is based on either a paranoid persecution complex or frustration that those views aren't more popular. But I've seen ZERO evidence of any case anywhere where a kid who expresses an anti-abortion view in passing would be ostracized. Where it might happen is if they take more extreme measures like distributing photos of fetuses or slut-shaming a pregnant student or something -- again, that's back to BEHAVIOR. But, this is still all hypothetical. A giant straw man. Show me where a student has been shunned for expressing an anti-abortion or pro-gun viewpoint and we can discuss the particulars of that incident. But you won't, will you? Because it hasn't happened.

This thread is the evidence. In this thread a poster said that the logical consequence of expressing a pro-life position was to be ostracized. Is that not a common view? Where’s the evidence that a pro-life student is welcomed?

That’s evidence that it actually happened? Or evidence that people think it’d be justified if it did happen.

Come back to reality. It’s hard to discuss the twisted scenarios in your head.