Is education related to politics? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14986377
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How does this prove anything? None of this could have any bearing on why the teachers work as long as they do or why they pick on students.

Well,he also sent informations to cops about his scholars so I don't know what could make you believe in me or not but don't communists send their men to find out about others?
He did it on me when I went to some teachers for meditation and he choosed some classmates to spy on me.
#14986378
Tainari88 wrote:Posts like Wolly's are made to make you appreciate my great finesse and excitement in posting. Ha ha...hee hee.

You must admit that my writing brings joy to your heart. Even if I am not a physics expert like you are? I will write a layman's post on the subject and interest you deeply in whatever...admit this now Senor Bellisimo....while you still can!! ;)

Alright, I admit it, Tainari! :D ;)
#14986379
Look,I am not a teacher and I was never a teacher but I don't understand how most of us fail at subjects like literature,science and after they use bribes on communists they are allowed to pass their exams or class and become respected members of this society.I never had money and my family had a low income but I can't explain myself how even in the navy you have to pay a bribe to enter that field after you graduate from college.How do I know that?Because my whole educational system is based on theft,bribe,manipulation,hidding evidence and more.I just don't find that right.
#14986386
And one last memory of my life is when I used to be in the 9th grade and a girl moved from our highschool to another highschool but I was not allowed to do that.How do you explain that?The girl had a police officer as her father and somehow she got accepted in another highschool.There is only one explination for this:
My Director was afraid of getting fired by that police officer so she obeyed the officer request.Doesn't that sound like a political way to act?It all means to me that this was for the image of the highschool.Besides the girl was also a smoker and she never got amend tickets while she was a school member of this highschool.
#14986388
wolly wrote:Because they were different personalities in their days and that doesn't apply to these days.I mean if there are so many young students who want to become a teacher why do they have to stand in their way?Isn't there a rule for those who are old that they should retire and let someone else take care of his class?


There are generally not any rules that require people to retire. Only a select few professions like military service (I think).

I don't see why having a teacher that can relate to young kids is important. I teacher is there to teach, inspire, encourage. They don't have to be a friend.

Tainari88 wrote:You must admit that my writing brings joy to your heart. Even if I am not a physics expert like you are? I will write a layman's post on the subject and interest you deeply in whatever...admit this now Senor Bellisimo....while you still can!!


You've inspired me to start making threads discussing deep technical electronics and software subjects that most/all people wouldn't understand. :lol:
#14986397
Rancid wrote:What is your country and what are the rules?

Romania and the rules are that if someone who was a teacher for 60 years,he is required by the law to become a pensionary and to quit his work and never work again.
#14986427
It sounds like you had a bad time at school and are looking to blame something/someone for it.

Being that you are Romanian and depending on your age will depend on whether there was political interference in your education. I suspect during the Social Republic there may well have been a drive to push Communist thinking in education because of the Cold War mentality. I doubt this was due to your teacher or his age though but what your teachers were told to teach by the government at the time. Also I suspect the freedom of changing jobs wasn't really an option for most people within a Soviet socialist state and so naturally people worked until they dropped in the same job - but I don't know this for sure. So my only advice for you is to move on. Romania is today a progressive nation that isn't going to brainwash their children and what you have (or may not) experienced was just part of the world at the time. You now know differently and should be moving on with your life.
#14986431
Education is related to politics, just like how many other subjects and topics are. The political viewpoint that the education is in explains how education is related to politics. For example, American schools (grade schools, universities, private schools, etc.) are in a liberal to a left libertarian, capitalist viewpoint. Since the end of the Second World War, education in the States was a weapon that the capitalist elites used against socialism. U.S. schools since that time purposefully taught their students to hate socialism. Social hierarchies promoted by the Zionist media, such as the "popular kids" and the "lame nerds" promoted that kids who worn expensive clothes were "winners" while kids who didn't buy clothes from over priced enterprises were "losers." That is a great example on how education is related to politics, and could be used as a weapon to defend elitist values.

Some countries such as Francoist Spain exterminated teachers and professors who were progressive, realist, or simply had leftist tendencies. In many teaching occupations, interviewers pay close attention to the recruits' general characteristics to see what political ideology they have, so that they don't hire someone who has radical, or threatening views (such as hiring a neo-Nazi).
#14986432
SSDR wrote:Education is related to politics, just like how many other subjects and topics are. The political viewpoint that the education is in explains how education is related to politics. For example, American schools (grade schools, universities, private schools, etc.) are in a liberal to a left libertarian, capitalist viewpoint. Since the end of the Second World War, education in the States was a weapon that the capitalist elites used against socialism. U.S. schools since that time purposefully taught their students to hate socialism. Social hierarchies promoted by the Zionist media, such as the "popular kids" and the "lame nerds" promoted that kids who worn expensive clothes were "winners" while kids who didn't buy clothes from over priced enterprises were "losers." That is a great example on how education is related to politics, and could be used as a weapon to defend elitist values.

Some countries such as Francoist Spain exterminated teachers and professors who were progressive, realist, or simply had leftist tendencies. In many teaching occupations, interviewers pay close attention to the recruits' general characteristics to see what political ideology they have, so that they don't hire someone who has radical, or threatening views (such as hiring a neo-Nazi).



ok......
#14986445
It depends where you live i guess. More Western educational system tend to be more apolitical. It is a bit of a different situation in universities but as for standard education it is usually apolitical. The more you move to extremes on the left and the right the more politisized the education becomes.

West values individualism while the extremes on the left and the right usually value some higher goal like nation, race, morals etc.

As for teacher being some kind of crazy old people pushing the party line. Not in my experience. Teacher usually teach long because either they love the job, don't know what else to do or just want the money.
#14986657
@JohnRawls, Yes, the West is more socially individualistic (while economically it's less family oriented and less domestic, thus having more personal freedom from family institution and marriage), the West is more liberal and feminist, but the personal and internal freedoms itself is politically progressive and socially liberal. This is the reason why many right wingers, from Christian fundamentalists to neo-Nazis in the West, tend to have their children go to private schools, where they are more strict, authoritarian, and (depending on the private school) religious.

"while the extremes on the left and the right usually value some higher goal like nation, race, morals" I disagree. The more left, the more equality. The more right, the more hierarchy. Being socially individualistic or collective has nothing to do with the positioning of where one subject is on the left and right political spectrum. However, people who are socially individualistic tend to be in the left because many rightists promote family, religion on collective scales, slavery, and fixed morality. In other words, in many rightist societies, you have to be a certain way or else you would be labeled "immoral" "shameless" or "a conformist on the international Jewish order (Zionist Occupation Government)."

There are left wing societies or agendas that are socially collective. Left wingers who are socially collective tend to be manipulative, give peer pressure, and label anything that's not liberal "lame." And there are right wing societies or agendas that are socially individualistic. Far right wingers who are socially individualistic tend to promote the "Lone Wolf mentality," rebel against Zionist Hollywood media conformity, and are introverted.

As a far leftist myself, and as a socialist myself, a pure socialist society is socially individualistic and economically collective. The Soviet Union was socially as collective as the United States. It wasn't as socially collective as parts of the Balkans, but it wasn't as socially individualistic as Sweden or Britain. The United States is more socially collective because many Americans love to party and gather in expensive weddings. The Rave subculture, hippies, midnight clubbing, and conforming to contemporary media all originated in the States, and is socially collective. The same with social media. Facebook, which is the symbol of Americana, made society far more socially collective.

A purely egalitarian and socially equal society has no relation with being socially collective or socially individualistic.

"Not in my experience. Teacher usually teach long because either they love the job, don't know what else to do or just want the money." This is because no far right wing neo-Nazi would be hired as a teacher in public schools in the West. I mean would a progressive school want to hire someone who believes that progressive values were created by Zionist Jews so that "they can mess people up, and offer solutions (such as feminism or socially individual rights) to "rule" the world?"
#14986668
SSDR wrote:@JohnRawls, Yes, the West is more socially individualistic (while economically it's less family oriented and less domestic, thus having more personal freedom from family institution and marriage), the West is more liberal and feminist, but the personal and internal freedoms itself is politically progressive and socially liberal. This is the reason why many right wingers, from Christian fundamentalists to neo-Nazis in the West, tend to have their children go to private schools, where they are more strict, authoritarian, and (depending on the private school) religious.

"while the extremes on the left and the right usually value some higher goal like nation, race, morals" I disagree. The more left, the more equality. The more right, the more hierarchy. Being socially individualistic or collective has nothing to do with the positioning of where one subject is on the left and right political spectrum. However, people who are socially individualistic tend to be in the left because many rightists promote family, religion on collective scales, slavery, and fixed morality. In other words, in many rightist societies, you have to be a certain way or else you would be labeled "immoral" "shameless" or "a conformist on the international Jewish order (Zionist Occupation Government)."

There are left wing societies or agendas that are socially collective. Left wingers who are socially collective tend to be manipulative, give peer pressure, and label anything that's not liberal "lame." And there are right wing societies or agendas that are socially individualistic. Far right wingers who are socially individualistic tend to promote the "Lone Wolf mentality," rebel against Zionist Hollywood media conformity, and are introverted.

As a far leftist myself, and as a socialist myself, a pure socialist society is socially individualistic and economically collective. The Soviet Union was socially as collective as the United States. It wasn't as socially collective as parts of the Balkans, but it wasn't as socially individualistic as Sweden or Britain. The United States is more socially collective because many Americans love to party and gather in expensive weddings. The Rave subculture, hippies, midnight clubbing, and conforming to contemporary media all originated in the States, and is socially collective. The same with social media. Facebook, which is the symbol of Americana, made society far more socially collective.

A purely egalitarian and socially equal society has no relation with being socially collective or socially individualistic.

"Not in my experience. Teacher usually teach long because either they love the job, don't know what else to do or just want the money." This is because no far right wing neo-Nazi would be hired as a teacher in public schools in the West. I mean would a progressive school want to hire someone who believes that progressive values were created by Zionist Jews so that "they can mess people up, and offer solutions (such as feminism or socially individual rights) to "rule" the world?"


I don't understand the point that you are trying to make a bit. As much as i understand, according to you it is okay to be political in schools to achieve some kind of greater goal of a "perfect" society? Or this was a post that is pondering on the issue without coming to a conclusive result on the topic?
#14986715
@JohnRawls, It is okay to be political in schools because you don't want slave supporting fuckers nor bossy/aggressive neo-Nazis running around, do you? Education can help ignorant fucks understand that child abuse is wrong. Education can help ignorant fucks understand that women are people, and that no woman should have to obey a family. Societies that are less educated tend to be more abusive, yet more religious, so they could use the religion to cope with the abuse, hence so that they don't view the abuse as abuse for example.

But in general, everything comes down to politics. If you don't get to politics, then politics gets to you.
#14986777
SSDR wrote:@JohnRawls, It is okay to be political in schools because you don't want slave supporting fuckers nor bossy/aggressive neo-Nazis running around, do you? Education can help ignorant fucks understand that child abuse is wrong. Education can help ignorant fucks understand that women are people, and that no woman should have to obey a family. Societies that are less educated tend to be more abusive, yet more religious, so they could use the religion to cope with the abuse, hence so that they don't view the abuse as abuse for example.

But in general, everything comes down to politics. If you don't get to politics, then politics gets to you.


I will disagree with you on several instances actually. Schools are not supposed to be propaganda facilities in the first place. We have outsourced social problem solving to schools in many countries but that has detrimental effect on education itself. There is a limited things a school can do. Nor should it be doing this. On top of that we are talking about children here. Giving children propaganda is a recipe for disaster because it channels them on a singular "Collective" rout of sorts. One day the government will want to teach equality then the other day master race :knife:
#14986904
@JohnRawls, So you think that making people understand that no one should be enslaved, and that ignorance is the enemy of the people - is "propaganda?"

The family institution, religion, and gender roles are propaganda that was created by elites for many years to control the masses. Teaching children that they need family love to motivate them to work is propaganda. Teaching children that money buys love is propaganda. Teaching women to be obedient to stressful families and abusive husbands is propaganda.
#14986977
SSDR wrote:@JohnRawls, So you think that making people understand that no one should be enslaved, and that ignorance is the enemy of the people - is "propaganda?"

The family institution, religion, and gender roles are propaganda that was created by elites for many years to control the masses. Teaching children that they need family love to motivate them to work is propaganda. Teaching children that money buys love is propaganda. Teaching women to be obedient to stressful families and abusive husbands is propaganda.


Teaching history is one thing in schools. Another thing is to teaching morals. For example i do not subscribe to your particular views. You shouldn't have the ability to forcefully teach my children something that his family might consider simply wrong. Many political concepts are subjective.

Family institutions, religions and gender roles have a right to exist simply because a lot of the people believe in them. Those concepts are not the same as the moral concept of "Do not kill" for example. If you try to exclude those views and try to reform them all of the sudden then you are going to have an uprising or at the least significant disconect.

Basically i do not think anybody has the right to make others choose things for him if he is an adult. When he is a child then family/parents look after him but that also doesn't mean that schools should brainwash children. That should apply to family to a degree.

As i understand, you are a feminist. I admire feminist of the 1st and 2nd waves but i have mixed opinions on 3rd and 4th waves.
#14986994
@JohnRawls, Well teaching your "morals" is PROPAGANDA! Because moral views were used to keep the poor, poor. For example, it was "immoral" for a woman to run away from her husband. It was "immoral" for a slave to run away from their owner. It was "immoral" to report domestic abuse. If a child's family is abusive, telling that child that the abuse that they're going through is wrong, is okay to tell them that because child abuse is linked to health problems in the long run, such as depression, anxiety, or high blood pressure.

People believe in family institutions, religion, and gender roles because that's how they were raised and conditioned. If your family teaches you that you need to go to weddings to motivate you to work and "be happy" then that's what you're going to think. And to think that we were created by a superpower to test to see if we believe or not MAKES NO SENSE. If you tell a four year old that, of course they're going to believe that, four year olds believe in fairy tales! But to shame them for a long time will make them believe in shit like that for their lives. And gender roles are enforced by peer pressure, economic situations, and family ideas. Women are taught by their mothers to obey men and to not complain about their periods. Women are taught by their fathers on how to "properly" love a man. If that is how one is raised, then of course they will think that family, religion, and gender roles are okay.

Basically I do not think anybody has the right to make others choose things for him/her if they are alive (an adult is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. I feel the same now as I did when I was a kid). When they are young then family/parents look after them so they could get the used assistance that they need, but that also doesn't mean that religion should brainwash children. That should apply to the workers to a degree.

You admire early feminism because nowadays everyone is either a first or a second wave feminist. You grew up in a feminist society. Women worked, dated, had free sex, and went to school. That's feminism! If you grew up in the 1800's, then you would believe that women shouldn't work, be illiterate, and stay enslaved to a family that brainwashes her via shaming.
#14987004
SSDR wrote:@JohnRawls, Well teaching your "morals" is PROPAGANDA! Because moral views were used to keep the poor, poor. For example, it was "immoral" for a woman to run away from her husband. It was "immoral" for a slave to run away from their owner. It was "immoral" to report domestic abuse. If a child's family is abusive, telling that child that the abuse that they're going through is wrong, is okay to tell them that because child abuse is linked to health problems in the long run, such as depression, anxiety, or high blood pressure.

People believe in family institutions, religion, and gender roles because that's how they were raised and conditioned. If your family teaches you that you need to go to weddings to motivate you to work and "be happy" then that's what you're going to think. And to think that we were created by a superpower to test to see if we believe or not MAKES NO SENSE. If you tell a four year old that, of course they're going to believe that, four year olds believe in fairy tales! But to shame them for a long time will make them believe in shit like that for their lives. And gender roles are enforced by peer pressure, economic situations, and family ideas. Women are taught by their mothers to obey men and to not complain about their periods. Women are taught by their fathers on how to "properly" love a man. If that is how one is raised, then of course they will think that family, religion, and gender roles are okay.

Basically I do not think anybody has the right to make others choose things for him/her if they are alive (an adult is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. I feel the same now as I did when I was a kid). When they are young then family/parents look after them so they could get the used assistance that they need, but that also doesn't mean that religion should brainwash children. That should apply to the workers to a degree.

You admire early feminism because nowadays everyone is either a first or a second wave feminist. You grew up in a feminist society. Women worked, dated, had free sex, and went to school. That's feminism! If you grew up in the 1800's, then you would believe that women shouldn't work, be illiterate, and stay enslaved to a family that brainwashes her via shaming.


You are comparing 1800s society to a modern one. I have no problem with most things that feminists have achieved and want to achieve. But 3rd and 4th way feminism are becoming more and more intrusive instead of fighting for their own rights. Fighting for equal playing field and being intrusive and trying to proactively force things are two different things.

On one side they want more representation in congress, different jobs, ceo jobs etc but on the other hand they are for policies that de facto discriminate during the highering process or promotion process for example. And if this doesn't happen then feminists call that particular situation out. In my opinion this is wrong.

This goes to the basic level of sorts and applies to many things. In general, people will be more trusting of the family to care for the children. You believe that family might brainwash the child in to being someone bad so you trust the school to do it. Most people will find it very intrusive. People do not like when the choice is done for them or their relatives on what they are going to be tought morals vise especially.

^^^ My favorite Erin Burnett li(n)e, uttered by h[…]

He marches with nazis and provides cover for them.[…]

Antifa does not even meet the definition of "[…]

Don't get me wrong in any way, if people indulged[…]