I don’t see a problem with teaching about a history of communism and about atrocities. As long as its fair and factual. Cause there have been atrocities and failures, as with any system.

Yes, its different in that’s its a change in propaganda. As you said. But that’s nothing new. The propaganda changes as the agendas change. What’s not new under the sun is institutions compelled to propagandize. That’s was my point.

Any system of power or influence, state, corporate, etc. will eventually veer towards the slipping in/introducing of propagandas. If they don’t from the jump, which they often do. That’s another of my points.

It’s a comment fueled by the OPs post with a title ending with “Schools will become propaganda machines.” As if they weren’t already. Which I obviously think they are / have been for a long time. Some just don’t like the changes in propaganda or amount of propagandas. Hence why I say maybe best we generally can do is argue which propaganda may be useful and which are not. For instancd, maybe we feel having children pledge allegiance to a state through the symbol of a flag is useful for the cohesion of a populous via fostering national unity, patriotism, and loyalty to the republic (for U.S). Or maybe we find it to be gross indoctrination, too religion/coded, and fundamentally un-american in original spirit.

And I don’t think propaganda is define as simply a “slanted perspective”. Propaganda is communication of info/ideas/etc that is deliberately and primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda. And it’d often very systemic. I may have a bias or slant towards an opinion, but doesn’t make it propaganda. I think there are more characteristics needed.

I was just going to reply in a similar way. I read that and thought: They will BECOME propaganda machines? Riiight…

Honestly, I don’t see how any state managed educational system, or any educational system controlled by any powerful entity, wouldn’t eventually slip in propaganda. If Coca-Cola ran an educational system, I’m sure it’d be increasingly full of subtle and not so subtle propagandas that Coke favors.

I suppose best we can do is argue/decide which “propaganda” are acceptable/useful, and which are not.

In short, nothing new under the sun.

I really appreciate your recent replies. Really changed my preconceptions about you and this convo, in a positive way. So thank you.

Honestly, I suspect we see eye to eye on many many things regarding the police. Maybe a great majority of it we’d agree on. If we were to deep dive into the topic, over a meal or something. I strongly lean towards being skeptical/cynical of the police by default, and really any institutions/people of power/influence, at any scale. I’m just very careful/mindful about becoming a zealot in any direction. Lest I become a unwitting pawn for any side. Because let’s face it, the police aren’t the only “gangs” roaming out there vying for or asserting power and control. Some even pretend to be our friends. And those are often the most dangerous. And the media is often unhelpful. We live in a static age, bombarded with information all asserting to be fact/truth. So much noise, its hard to know whats really going on. So I’m Just trying to honestly, calmly think about and engage with these things as best I can. And not be swept into it by me feelings.

Good talk at the end here, I’m really glad I chose to continue responding. You seem like a good person.

State violence, no. Not a fan. As someone with Libertarian leanings, I esp. recognize the state’s only means by which it can enforce its laws is through violence. Often that’s the only way to enforce laws, for those who want to be lawless.

Pro police, sometimes.

That being said, it really probably depends on our definitions. I try not to be too myopic. I get the sentiment behind ACAB, but I find it largely not useful, and often used more as a thought terminating device nowadays. I’ve dealt with shit cops, for sure. I’ve also dealt with cops that weren’t. There’s plenty to criticize. I’ve just never seen much value in reducing any complex system with issues into slogans and insular statements. That’s all.

Okay. Gotcha. So you’re not really a sensible person. Just a zealot. Thanks for the clarity.

You’re the one who originally made the strong assertion that police don’t come now if you live in the wrong area. That American police protect the property of the rich. And “That’s its”

I’m not the one making such confident claims. I never asserted anything as fact. I merely suggested that it might be reductive. You seem so confident that you’re right. So I imagine it should be easy for you to prove this or back it up.

So, lets see it. Let’s see/hear what makes you so confident. To assert such things and cap it off with a confident “that’s it”, as it its fact, end of story.

And what proofs are you referring to that has proven this?

America is pretty massive. Is this the case across the board? Seems like an oversimplification of a complex system/problem. How much of it might be something as simple as staffing shortages, not enough staff to respond to every need, esp. in a very “needy” place?

So is it time again to start activating the people for the midterms? Will democracy be on the ballot this time? Will it be too close to call?

I highly doubt it will, but I would not be sad if it did.

Gross

ShoutingIsFun seems to be the artist

ShoutingIsFun seems to be the artist

Not wild to me. Code is written by people, people who engage in organizational politics. No “base” created by people, digital or otherwise, will be free of such influences.

Kinda reminds me of Falkor the Luckdragon (The Neverending Story)

Already understood your point. Where in my post is it clear that l didn’t? Its hinted and referenced that I understood as I use variations of your own phrases and challenge you using the same point on, Specifically, this quote:

“Especially because it’s become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?”

What exactly is the utility of the above quote of yours then? Cause its structured as something you assert as a fact that’s used to bolster your initial point to arc.

The bolster being something like:

If its so obvious that Linus’ original style was so “demonstrably effective” as to be the reason for the massive success of Linux then how can you (arc) explain the fact that it has especially become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?

but like, has it? Has it become even more successful after he’s mellowed out? Your bolster kinda hinges on that fact to be true. Cause if we were to somehow find your assertion to be untrue and the project to be worse off by X degree after he mellowed out then that could more bolster arc’s assertions.

I find this kinda insulting in an unnecessarily personal way. How is this comment not toxic in its own right? Kinda gross imo.

Or he’s just playing the game within the current “social layers” that have attached to or are inherit to the project to placate those who require placating. Not like pubic figures haven’t had to blow sunshine up asses to shut the the “whiners” up before. And if so, maybe those lasting changes are trivial because it was never a major habit to begin with and rare. Its was just an approach to get the result. But you’ve to show the public you care (even if you don’t) and talk about how you worked real hard and put in the work. (Even if the work was trivial)

“Especially because it’s become even more successful after he’s mellowed out?”

You state that as if its also “obvious”. How is this a fact? How is it obvious? Is it more successful because of his mellowing or irrespective of it? On its face, seems to me we cant nod our head in agreement to your sudden assertion any more than arc’s assertion that Linus’ initial style worked.

You seem to want arc to provide some sort of metric or proof to back up his assertion. Well, where is yours? Where’s your metric/data?