[bots]

She certainly has an interesting and refreshing stance on things

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree but I also think a large part of the current problem is socio-political theory (e.g. Critical Race Theory) not being discussed as theory, but instead taught or pushed as fact, with critics branded simply "wrong" (or worse) even when doing something as basic as playing devil's advocate to further the theory... which is of course the antithesis of an academic discussion.

If something like CRT (or the BLM movement, for that matter) isn't open to examination or criticism, or at least is often not providing logically sound philosophical defenses of the theory but instead relying on ad-hominem against the critic, then they stop being political theory and become political dogma.

CRT is not even that controversial really. If we take Badenochs point, there's some weird suggestion in there that schools could be promoting abolition of police forces and prisons, and I just find it impossible to believe this is happening without any evidence.

Then she uses an anecdote about a policeman being called the n-word as the reason she knows that BLM is a political movement.

This is pure theatre, there is nothing intellectually honest she's presenting as any kind of counter if she wanted to play devils advocate. There is no discussion here; it's "we're not this, we shouldn't teach that." It's being used for culture war purposes.

She is not encouraging or advocating any discussion on anything, and the bigger problem for those in power isn't that CRT exists, it's that the ideology that created the curriculum in the first place is being challenged.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It prohibits schools using material from anti-capitalist groups as an educational tool, that's not the same as making it 'illegal to criticise capitalism'

Are unions anti capitalist groups? Are socialists anti capitalists? As MsDonnel says, even the labour party. If capitalism could only be taught using socialist materials, then I think the issue would be more apparent.

[bots]

i'm happy that someone has highlighted that BLM is a political movement that is not above scrutiny, it's about time

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i'm happy that someone has highlighted that BLM is a political movement that is not above scrutiny, it's about time

Yeah, if only folks had been allowed to criticise BLM

[Liam-]

Have people not been criticising blm the entire time?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

CRT is not even that controversial really. If we take Badenochs point, there's some weird suggestion in there that schools could be promoting abolition of police forces and prisons, and I just find it impossible to believe this is happening without any evidence.

Then she uses an anecdote about a policeman being called the n-word as the reason she knows that BLM is a political movement.

Hmm, I think the BLM issue is a complicated one because whilst it's false to define the entire BLM sentiment as one political movement with any specific organized element, it's equally disingenuous to pretend that there AREN'T multiple political movements that could be considered (and probably consider themselves) to be "BLM movements". I see a lot of both, to be honest, and neither assessment of "what BLM definitively is or isn't" seems accurate.

This is pure theatre, there is nothing intellectually honest she's presenting as any kind of counter if she wanted to play devils advocate. There is no discussion here; it's "we're not this, we shouldn't teach that." It's being used for culture war purposes.

She is not encouraging or advocating any discussion on anything, and the bigger problem for those in power isn't that CRT exists, it's that the ideology that created the curriculum in the first place is being challenged.

I agree with all of that though, it's Commons soapboxing so it's never going to be an honest discussion of issues... there will always be a heavy element of party-political propaganda.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Are unions anti capitalist groups? Are socialists anti capitalists? As MsDonnel says, even the labour party. If capitalism could only be taught using socialist materials, then I think the issue would be more apparent.

The wording refers to those who wish to 'abolish' or 'overthrow' capitalism so I don't think that applies to unions or the Labour party but more radical groups who would support violence/illegal means to achieve that goal. I think schools should certainly cover critiques of capitalism but if they were doing so via material produced by, say, the CPGB then that's a little different

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Hmm, I think the BLM issue is a complicated one because whilst it's false to define the entire BLM sentiment as one political movement with any specific organized element, it's equally disingenuous to pretend that there AREN'T multiple political movements that could be considered (and probably consider themselves) to be "BLM movements". I see a lot of both, to be honest, and neither assessment of "what BLM definitively is or isn't" seems accurate.

Yeah, I agree here. Of course there are political elements to pretty much anything these days, even kids going hungry. Any fight of perceived injustice versus perceived justice is political by it's very nature.

There are no doubt groups within BLM that are marxist, but there are also no doubt capitalists in there too.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The wording refers to those who wish to 'abolish' or 'overthrow' capitalism so I don't think that applies to unions or the Labour party but more radical groups who would support violence/illegal means to achieve that goal. I think schools should certainly cover critiques of capitalism but if they were doing so via material produced by, say, the CPGB then that's a little different

I don't think it would be a stretch for someone to find a speech from a union or from a labour member advocating the abolition of capitalism.

Violence isn't the main issue here.

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ools-political

In guidance issued last week for school leaders and teachers in England, the Department for Education (DfE) categorised anti-capitalism as an “extreme political stance” and equated it with opposition to freedom of speech, antisemitism and endorsement of illegal activity.

This is fine?

[bots]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Yeah, if only folks had been allowed to criticise BLM

i've seen people on here called racist because they didn't agree with some of the unsavoury things BLM have been up to. That's shutting down criticism

[Kizzy]

It's not a theory if it happened, when things happen they cease to be theory and become facts.

They want to stop teaching facts. And that's dangerous.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's not a theory if it happened, when things happen they cease to be theory and become facts.

They want to stop teaching facts. And that's dangerous.

There's a difference between describing historical events, and adding subjective political context/assumed consequence of those events.

"[X] happened" is fact

"[X] happened which lead to [Y] and now today we have [Z]" is theory.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i've seen people on here called racist because they didn't agree with some of the unsavoury things BLM have been up to. That's shutting down criticism

It's actually not shutting down criticism as two things can sometimes be true. BLM may/may not have overstepped the mark, and people criticising them may/may not also be racist.

I get called an anti semite all the time on here, and not once has it ever stopped me criticising Israel if I thought it was warranted.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I don't think it would be a stretch for someone to find a speech from a union or from a labour member advocating the abolition of capitalism.

Violence isn't the main issue here.

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ools-political



This is fine?

I think it's a more limited restriction than is being made out here. It's one subject the guidelines apply to and it specifically prevents the use of groups materials - it doesn't prevent discussing their ideas.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i've seen people on here called racist because they didn't agree with some of the unsavoury things BLM have been up to. That's shutting down criticism

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

It's actually not shutting down criticism as two things can sometimes be true. BLM may/may not have overstepped the mark, and people criticising them may/may not also be racist.

I get called an anti semite all the time on here, and not once has it ever stopped me criticising Israel if I thought it was warranted.

I think that's a common mistake really, that "people being called stuff" is shutting down or stopping criticism... when that's entirely down to the critic. You can address it, counter it, or flat out ignore it and continue... it doesn't shut anything down. Really the only people who can be guilty of shutting down a debate are those in a position of literal power to do so; on here that would be mods and admin who can close threads/delete posts/implement bans.

I do think that "mob rule" has unfortunate scope for shutting down good debate as well, by simply swamping the debate to the point where it can't continue, but that doesn't apply on a platform as small as this one.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's a difference between describing historical events, and adding subjective political context/assumed consequence of those events.

"[X] happened" is fact

"[X] happened which lead to [Y] and now today we have [Z]" is theory.

Then that cancels the whole premise of sociology, and a lot of new right theory, is all that to be dropped too?
Lone parents raise delinquent children... if you are jobless you are also feckless.. if you are raised surrounded by poverty and crime it's your fault if you're poor and involved with crime and criminals...

When's the debate on this?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i've seen people on here called racist because they didn't agree with some of the unsavoury things BLM have been up to. That's shutting down criticism

If someone called me a racist, I'd argue back and say why they were talking ****. It wouldn't shut me down at all.

If a person can't think of a single reason why they aren't racist if someone calls them such then that speaks volumes about them.

I'm so tired of people acting like they're being 'shut down' when they simply lose an argument. No one is holding your mouth shut, stop playing the victim and defend yourself.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Then that cancels the whole premise of sociology, and a lot of new right theory, is all that to be dropped too?
Lone parents raise delinquent children... if you are jobless you are also feckless.. if you are raised surrounded by poverty and crime it's your fault if you're poor and involved with crime and criminals...

When's the debate on this?

Things being theory rather than fact "cancel the whole premise" of the academic discipline they belong to?

I think this might be coming from an incomplete understanding of what's (academically) meant by the word "theory". Theory is not synonymous with opinion, and academic theory is not layperson guesswork. But it's also not fact.

For example, gravity is theory. Very robustly proven theory, but theory nonetheless. I don't think we're planning to cancel physics.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think that's a common mistake really, that "people being called stuff" is shutting down or stopping criticism... when that's entirely down to the critic. You can address it, counter it, or flat out ignore it and continue... it doesn't shut anything down. Really the only people who can be guilty of shutting down a debate are those in a position of literal power to do so; on here that would be mods and admin who can close threads/delete posts/implement bans.

I do think that "mob rule" has unfortunate scope for shutting down good debate as well, by simply swamping the debate to the point where it can't continue, but that doesn't apply on a platform as small as this one.

This is exactly what she is advocating...shutting down debate. How is that healthy?
There are historical events that are catalysts for movements and as mentioned even a collective resolution borne of a shared experience. As with the Jewish and their suffering during the early 20th century as is the black communities and their shared history of enslavement.

In my opinion if you withold or negate the right to directly link attitudes to historical events you are attempting to re write the historical narrative and take away or reduce the impact the events have even generations later.

That is of course down to culpability and guilt, if you deny the theory did it ever exist?...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

This is exactly what she is advocating...shutting down debate. How is that healthy?
There are historical events that are catalysts for movements and as mentioned even a collective resolution borne of a shared experience. As with the Jewish and their suffering during the early 20th century as is the black communities and their shared history of enslavement.

In my opinion if you withold or negate the right to directly link attitudes to historical events you are attempting to re write the historical narrative and take away or reduce the impact the events have even generations later.

That is of course down to culpability and guilt, if you deny the theory did it ever exist?...

I haven't said that I agree with the person in the video nor the premise of what she's saying, I actually said that I think the vast majority of Westminster Commons speeches are party-political soapboxing.

I don't agree with shutting down the debate in schools, theory being taught in schools (as existing theory NOT fact), nor do I agree with certain types of political content being blanket-banned. I do think there should be robust restrictions on the sources of that political material or it very quickly becomes an avenue for propaganda; anti-capitalist teaching material from an anti-capitalist movement is about as useful as a paper on economic theory written by Amazon.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Things being theory rather than fact "cancel the whole premise" of the academic discipline they belong to?

I think this might be coming from an incomplete understanding of what's (academically) meant by the word "theory". Theory is not synonymous with opinion, and academic theory is not layperson guesswork. But it's also not fact.

For example, gravity is theory. Very robustly proven theory, but theory nonetheless. I don't think we're planning to cancel physics.

I never mentioned physics...gravity is a fact Newton proved it remember?

Anyhoo, sociological theory is similar to political theory in a way that scientific theory isn't. So I suggest we only compare the two. You throwing in the straw man is not helpful.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I never mentioned physics...gravity is a fact Newton proved it remember?

A proven theory is not fact, gravity is not fact, and the fact that you don't know/understand that knocks the legs out of this discussion. I can't help you with fundamentals.

Anyhoo, sociological theory is similar to political theory in a way that scientific theory isn't. So I suggest we only compare the two. You throwing in the straw man is not helpful.

The academic distinction between theory and fact is what it is, and if anything sociopolitical theory is always going to be more subjective and have less robust proof behind it than theories in the "hard sciences".

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

anti-capitalist teaching material from an anti-capitalist movement is about as useful as a paper on economic theory written by Amazon.

This I see as just wrong, and it's ok for us to disagree here. Any anti-capitalist discussion would have to include Marx (not Marxism necessarily) because his criticisms and predictions have been proved true, but he is an anti-capitalist.

The renaissance period wasn't brought about by priests criticising themselves and giving away their power, it was the introduction of the free thought movement and outside criticisms.

Self criticism from (government decided) pro capitalist groups would be automatic and co-opted capitalist propaganda.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I haven't said that I agree with the person in the video nor the premise of what she's saying, I actually said that I think the vast majority of Westminster Commons speeches are party-political soapboxing.

I don't agree with shutting down the debate in schools, theory being taught in schools (as existing theory NOT fact), nor do I agree with certain types of political content being blanket-banned. I do think there should be robust restrictions on the sources of that political material or it very quickly becomes an avenue for propaganda; anti-capitalist teaching material from an anti-capitalist movement is about as useful as a paper on economic theory written by Amazon.

Isn't that economic theory, that capitalism is failing...
Why does it have to be seen as anti or pro?
Look at the history of it, the expansion of capitalism and globalisation the exploitation that surrounds it be it labour or natural resources and critique it, how viable is it for the future?

There is nothing wrong with having those discussions, again it's just effectively imo refusing to admit that the whole conservative capitalist ethos is fatally flawed as it's unsustainable.