Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

Ideological Reeducation


Recommended Posts

The University of Delaware’s residence life education program

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

also, and of course

“[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

This one has been stopped, but there are always others.

When does education became creepy, Orwellian "reeducation?"

Link to comment

for the record, even I think the program is dangerous, invasive, and a horrible idea

although I agree with the definition of "racist", and approve of having that kind of dorm on an entirely voluntary basis. A lot of the colleges my friends are going to have "sustainable" halls you can request to live on, which tend to be the ones hosting "diversity events"; that's pretty normal. So I guess if you're a university professor in Delaware and all the students are liberal anyway, it doesn't seem like such a huge leap to make everyone have to be sustainable and have the "reeducation".

I think the reason a lot of people on the far left make such a big deal about racism is because the far left has been very racist and classist for a long time. i think this is simply because it takes a lot of effort and investment to project the kind of image and obtain the kind of materials they have (organic produce....actually produce at all, etc). Also because it's been overwhelmingly white for its entire existence. There is a point somewhere over there where their politics stops being politics and starts being a culture, and cultures are selective. It's so easy especially if you're young and pissed off to look at McDonalds and say the people eating there have no morals, don't they realize they're supporting an evil empire, etc. When really they just do not have the resources the environmentalists have (time to cook at home, a kitchen to cook in, knowledge of cooking, money to buy food, energy to learn about cooking, easy access to a library, free time to hang around getting pissed off at other people in your country, energy to be pissed off in your free time.) If we are talking about socialism along with environmental movements in the US, a lot of the early labor movements were blatantly racist and did not support equal rights for black workers. So I am really glad that the far left has begun to address the issue of racism in its community. Not that it isn't a very important issue in all communities in the US. But yeah the program to force everyone to be over there on the far left is horrible and unamerican.

Link to comment

The anti racist community basically changed the definition of the word, which is confusing and does put a lot of people off, but I'm running with it because I support their cause.

I think the idea is anyone can have a racial prejudice against anyone, but in the US, only white people can be racists, because they were educated under and enjoyed the privileges of the white supremacist system existing in the US today, and without their knowledge, are perpetuating it.

there is an article with a list of some of the privileges white people enjoy that people of other races in the US don't and evidence for "the system":

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc59...king.html#daily

(im in ur thred distributin ma leaflets)

Link to comment

The anti racist community basically changed the definition of the word, which is confusing and does put a lot of people off, but I'm running with it because I support their cause.

I think the idea is anyone can have a racial prejudice against anyone, but in the US, only white people can be racists, because they were educated under and enjoyed the privileges of the white supremacist system existing in the US today, and without their knowledge, are perpetuating it.

there is an article with a list of some of the privileges white people enjoy that people of other races in the US don't and evidence for "the system":

<a href="http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc59...king.html#daily" target="_blank">http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc59...king.html#daily</a>

(im in ur thred distributin ma leaflets)

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard

Link to comment

After reading the article; it's bullshit. That quote you picked doesn't really convey the articles purpose

using a definition of racism that isn't popular enough to make it into dictionaries that rather specifically separates people into too classes in just the way that they say white people separate people into two classes is unhelpful. If I said I wanted to shake your hand and then punched you in the face, would I be justified in saying what? I only changed the meanings of "hand" and "face." What's your problem?

It's not bullshit, it's just using a different definition of racist than you're used to.

hand. face.

No, it's a definition that takes actual race issues into account instead of being an absolute term that exists in a vacuum.

it's a definition that says we're living in an apartheid, which you will note, we are not. I went though the 70s and racism has been in a visible decline my entire life. This isn't part of the healing process, it's rather the opposite.

the germane part of my post was not about racism, but about telling people how to think. Instilling values, and dare I say it, political ideologies.

For instance. "When did you discover your sexual identity?" I still haven't. I'm highly straight, reasonably masculine, but I'm sure if we wanted to delve deeper my love of cooking is probably connected to my secret desire to be my mother. What does it matter? Why do you care. Fuck off.

Have you looked over the articles attached to the articles? Some of that stuff is right gooey to the point of sending cold shudders down my back. In the bad sort of way.

The definitions that dictionaries have are derived statistically though surveys, Here is Merium-Webster's, note the surprising lack of the University of Delaware definition. It exists for two reasons that I can determine- a leftist need to sympathize with the oppressed which is powerful enough to create oppressions when there aren't any, and I need to justify one's own prejudice. I call bullshit.

Link to comment

using a definition of racism that isn't popular enough to make it into dictionaries that rather specifically separates people into too classes in just the way that they say white people separate people into two classes is unhelpful. If I said I wanted to shake your hand and then punched you in the face, would I be justified in saying what? I only changed the meanings of "hand" and "face." What's your problem?

hand. face.

it's a definition that says we're living in an apartheid, which you will note, we are not. I went though the 70s and racism has been in a visible decline my entire life. This isn't part of the healing process, it's rather the opposite.

the germane part of my post was not about racism, but about telling people how to think. Instilling values, and dare I say it, political ideologies.

For instance. "When did you discover your sexual identity?" I still haven't. I'm highly straight, reasonably masculine, but I'm sure if we wanted to delve deeper my love of cooking is probably connected to my secret desire to be my mother. What does it matter? Why do you care. Fuck off.

Have you looked over the articles attached to the articles? Some of that stuff is right gooey to the point of sending cold shudders down my back. In the bad sort of way.

The definitions that dictionaries have are derived statistically though surveys, Here is Merium-Webster's, note the surprising lack of the University of Delaware definition. It exists for two reasons that I can determine- a leftist need to sympathize with the oppressed which is powerful enough to create oppressions when there aren't any, and I need to justify one's own prejudice. I call bullshit.

Ok, I just have to say that:

"Alright, now I want you to bow your heads once again and pray. Pray for the Revolution to bring you ice cream and cake."

was pretty hilarious to me.

Link to comment

The anti racist community basically changed the definition of the word, which is confusing and does put a lot of people off, but I'm running with it because I support their cause.

The anti racist community people who believe that white people are both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system basically changed the definition of the highly weighted word, which is confusing and does put a lot of people off, but I'm running with it because I support their cause.

Personally, I think that entire line of thinking is non-productive, and leads to more racially prejudice or discriminatory people, not less.

Link to comment

I agree that it's pretty stupid of them to change the meaning of the word and needlessly confuse people.

However, I also think it's pretty stupid to go off on a crazy tangent about how anti-racists are ruining the world. What you're saying makes sense to me, however, I'm not sure it really matters. Yes, their definition of the word is biased and stupid and yes, I wish they wouldn't do it. That doesn't mean you can write off the whole movement as bad.

As for the subject at hand, it's not like leftists are the only people who've been known to do this sort of indoctrination. I agree that it's fucked up, though. Especially that example in Cuba you provided. However, keep in mind that it was, in fact, the Revolution that brought them ice cream and cake. I'm not saying that it's on the same level, but should we freak out every time a second grade teacher leads their class in a chorus of "America, the Beautiful"? No, though its direct purpose is to inspire the same sort of nationalistic sentiment.

Link to comment

I agree that it's pretty stupid of them to change the meaning of the word and needlessly confuse people.

However, I also think it's pretty stupid to go off on a crazy tangent about how anti-racists are ruining the world. What you're saying makes sense to me, however, I'm not sure it really matters. Yes, their definition of the word is biased and stupid and yes, I wish they wouldn't do it. That doesn't mean you can write off the whole movement as bad.

As for the subject at hand, it's not like leftists are the only people who've been known to do this sort of indoctrination. I agree that it's fucked up, though. Especially that example in Cuba you provided. However, keep in mind that it was, in fact, the Revolution that brought them ice cream and cake. I'm not saying that it's on the same level, but should we freak out every time a second grade teacher leads their class in a chorus of "America, the Beautiful"? No, though its direct purpose is to inspire the same sort of nationalistic sentiment.

I think bribing a room of elementary school kids to believe that there is no God is pretty bad, you know, personally

Link to comment

Uh... I agreed that it was fucked up. I was just providing a counterpoint so this thread doesn't turn into anti-leftist masturbation.

Also, without the socialist revolution, their life would be completely different. In that way, it was in fact the revolution that brought them all those sugared products. They might've been better off without it, but that

In any case, they still prayed to God and got their sweets. This isn't a clear cut case of zomg socialists evil. I can remember clearly how ridiculous my entire elementary school years were; my history teacher told us that no wars had been fought on U.S. soil except for the Revolutionary War and the Civil War (blatantly ignoring both the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War); that America had never lost a war (we're about 50:50). We would regularly go to the auditorium and sing patriotic songs instead of studying.

Now, the difference between myself and a lot of people from my relatively rural elementary school was that I broke out and studied things on my own. People in Cuba don't have that option, and that's a real problem.

If you want to get into semantics, they didn't convince the children that there was no God. Just that God didn't care about them. :awesome:

Link to comment

In any case, they still prayed to God and got their sweets. This isn't a clear cut case of zomg socialists evil. I can remember clearly how ridiculous my entire elementary school years were; my history teacher told us that no wars had been fought on U.S. soil except for the Revolutionary War and the Civil War (blatantly ignoring both the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War); that America had never lost a war (we're about 50:50). We would regularly go to the auditorium and sing patriotic songs instead of studying.

By my count: 7 wins, 1 lose, 1 draw

Oh! 10 wins! I stopped counting after Vietnam! I don't know how you go 50:50, that's just crazy, you should probably stop reading those socialist propaganda US history books.

Wins:

Revolutionary War

Civil War

War of 1912

Mexican-American War

Spanish-American War

World War 1

World War 2

Desert Storm

Afghanistan (you can argue this wasn't a full war)

Second Iraq War (the war has been won, it's the occupation that is a complete disaster)

Loses:

Vietnam - no way we can't call this a loss

Tie:

Korean War (Officially a state of cease fire exists between North Korea and the UN coalition. The war never officially ended.)

As for the "No war fought on American soil" thing, that is a common misconception. But I don't think that the Mexican American War counts, I don't remember Mexican troops ever entering US controlled land; but I could be wrong. . Now we did conquer territory from Mexico... but that wasn't US soil at the time.

Link to comment

Yeah, as much as I hate to say this, on the whole US war record, I think GPS has it a lot more right than CF.

Now, onto the issue

If you redefine an already heated term to make your point, you are a dick using for circular logic (you redefine racist to mean all white people, then say that all whites are racist) If you knowingly use a term created in this way, you are a dick. If you attempt to force others to accept the new meaning of this term and reeducate them, you are Orwellian.

and Amy, that link doesn't work for me.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...