The term “of course” should ordinarily be reserved for statements for which there would be immediately broad agreement, rather than those statements that are patently false.
“Unalloyed good” and “no downsides” are – of course – fabrications.
You made them up.
And so when you write things that convey a different meaning or emphasis from what you previously wrote – even when this is entirely innocent and unintentional – other posters can point out the apparent tension. Sometimes this tension is direct contradiction. Sometimes it’s just simple misunderstanding.
For example, there is some small tension in the quote just below. I’m not saying this is contradiction. It’s just something to point out:
But this is the very incredulity to which I was referring in my previous post:
I did.
This, too, is incredulity:
More importantly, this is also a false dichotomy.
My friends and I were socializing as we were teaching ourselves at a faster pace than the regular class. For a time, we had no teacher telling us to shut up about football as they lectured. We talked as we learned. At least, until we were no longer allowed to do so.
As for “selfishness”: some of the most glaringly selfish personality types in this world are those people who, steeped in vast conceit, advocate the use of hierarchical power to restrict the options of their perceived mental and moral inferiors based on an illusory belief – or possibly even deliberately false sociopathic pretense, as an excuse to exercise power – that they consistently know what’s best for other people, better than those other people know for themselves.
“Equality” is very often just a fancy way to say, “Everyone, equally, should do exactly as I say.”
No.
I’ve advocated giving children some manner of choice in their education.
You advocate stripping particular choices.
You denigrate the disapproved choices of other people as “privilege”.
You would deprive equally all students of certain options you disfavor, all in the name of “equality”.
Then you call people “selfish” for wanting an educational path that might better suit their own preferences and abilities, rather than the forced path you, or others of similarly stunted belief systems, would gleefully force upon them in an exercise of hierarchical power over schoolchildren, who should all be educated in the officially sanctioned way.
I’m not certain whether most forms of the educational system are “oppression”.
At least, I wasn’t “oppressed”.
That word was (of course) yet another fabrication on your part when you falsely attributed it to me. I never said it.
But I know people who felt they were oppressed – bullied, ignored, deprived, even abused – by the educational system. And I know people who believe that most students in institutional educational settings feel some level of that darkness, even if not always its deepest levels.
People aren’t the same.
They have different wants, different needs. It is, of course, always possible that the bullying mentality will be victorious, the mentality that wants to force all of these different people along an identical path, so that each and every individual is “equally” under-served by the system in which they find themselves.
In the other direction, the more fair and reasonable direction, in which we try to accommodate the disparate preferences of different students equally, there are costs – yes, and I have never denied this – in trying to tailor the educational experience to individual idiosyncrasy. It’s not always possible.
In an ideal world, we would try to carefully balance the benefits with the costs. We would do that much more often.
But in this world, there are many selfish people, as you have so helpfully observed so many times.
And unfortunately, many of those selfish people spend much of their time trying to tell others the one right path that everyone else “equally” should follow. These people dress themselves up in different ideological labels, some of these labels very fancy. Chic, even.
But fundamentally, they’re all the same. They just like telling other people what to do.
One of the problems we face in choosing a better path is that so much of our free energy is spent in fighting this urge to dictate, this desire to lord over others, that there is simply not much initiative or political will left to improve the things that are in front of us. That is unfortunate. But it’s where a large part of the world is stuck.
This is quite clearly false.
If scientific progress of the right sort is sufficiently robust, bringing down sharply the cost of alternative energy and carbon sequestration – or some other set of technologies which we cannot yet presently imagine – then it will not matter in the slightest how the “greedy and selfish assholes” behave.
If scientific advance brings down the cost enough, a consortium of governments can do it, regardless of all those selfish assholes about whom we both grouse so much.
If scientific advance brings the cost down yet further, a single government can do it.
If scientific advance brings the cost down yet again, Bill Gates can do it.
Selfish and greedy assholes will switch to renewables if those renewables are cheaper, just like everyone else will do.
Waiting on the tech fairy is NOT a strategy I recommend.
But it’s not outside all possibility. We don’t actually know what tech remedies might be coming. We don’t know what is possible.
Claiming otherwise is simply foolish.
Why would the King Of All Education ever allow the little peons below to organize private schools?
The Great Hierarch would have everyone “equally” under the same thumb.