Parents: Prepare your kids for left-wing campus bias

[neilsimon]

Honestly, parents are the single biggest source of indoctrination in kids.

Brainwashing and indoctrination are the two most overused words on Castanet. Basically, they both mean, "teaching your children (or others) things I disagree with."

No they don't and that is certainly not what I mean when I use the word "indoctrination". I meant to teach a topic or idea without allowing or encouraging criticism of the provided viewpoint. It is not indoctrination to teach a kid a religious belief if you invite criticism of that view and other alternative viewpoints, but it certainly is indoctrination to teach a kid a religious belief without providing any such alternative. The same is true of other beliefs, views, etc.
Of course, we all indoctrinate our kids to some degree, and mostly relatively harmlessly, such as favourite sports teams are the best, favourite brands, Canada is an exceptionally nice country, etc.

[Glacier]

No they don't and that is certainly not what I mean when I use the word "indoctrination". I meant to teach a topic or idea without allowing or encouraging criticism of the provided viewpoint. It is not indoctrination to teach a kid a religious belief if you invite criticism of that view and other alternative viewpoints, but it certainly is indoctrination to teach a kid a religious belief without providing any such alternative. The same is true of other beliefs, views, etc.
Of course, we all indoctrinate our kids to some degree, and mostly relatively harmlessly, such as favourite sports teams are the best, favourite brands, Canada is an exceptionally nice country, etc.

I'm confused. You are talking about authoritarian parenting then? Experts say that permissive parenting is just as bad, but that's another topic.

I'm indoctrinating my kids because they like the same sports team as me? I've never told my kids to like Toronto Blue Jays, and yet they all do, apparently because they picked it up by osmosis. Is this indoctrination? If not, then how can you or I, as outside observers, look at what a person believes, and conclude that they were indoctrinated? Culture (of which sports, religion, and the like are a significant part) are passed on to the next generation by observing and taking part a lot more than force. Force/indoctrination has the opposite effect.

[neilsimon]

Do you realise that pretty much all of the relevant scientific community agrees that anthropogenic climate change is about as much a fact as evolution?

That depends on what you mean by ACC (or AGW) Most people agree with AGW, but the debate is whether or not it's going to be catastrophic. The science is not clear on that. There are both positives and negatives to AGW; if it's completely random, for every extra flood we get, we'll escape a drought.

It really matters little to it's accuracy as whether most people agree with it or not. That's the beauty of science and facts, it is true whether you believe in it or not. Relevant scientists don't disagree and they are fairly sure that we are looking at significant changes. While the predictions made using climate change science are not sufficiently accurate to say if things will get better or worse for a particular place, but on the whole, significant changes in weather patterns will be bad precisely because we have adapted to living in the areas we live with their current weather patterns and climate. The odd place might just get fewer droughts, but most places that suffer drought aren't heavily inhabited. We tend to live in places where significant weather changes would change the infrastructure, agriculture, and even viability of the area. We find that a little extra rain causes significant problems in Kelowna. Imagine what it would be like if we got Vancouver levels?

[neilsimon]

No they don't and that is certainly not what I mean when I use the word "indoctrination". I meant to teach a topic or idea without allowing or encouraging criticism of the provided viewpoint. It is not indoctrination to teach a kid a religious belief if you invite criticism of that view and other alternative viewpoints, but it certainly is indoctrination to teach a kid a religious belief without providing any such alternative. The same is true of other beliefs, views, etc.
Of course, we all indoctrinate our kids to some degree, and mostly relatively harmlessly, such as favourite sports teams are the best, favourite brands, Canada is an exceptionally nice country, etc.

I'm confused. You are talking about authoritarian parenting then? Experts say that permissive parenting is just as bad, but that's another topic.

I don't think it has to be authoritarian to be heavily indoctrinated parenting, nor do I think that authoritarian parenting requires indoctrination. One is about how you discuss a topic, the other is about how strict you are on rules and power structures. They may be related, but are certainly not the same.

I'm indoctrinating my kids because they like the same sports team as me? I've never told my kids to like Toronto Blue Jays, and yet they all do, apparently because they picked it up by osmosis. Is this indoctrination? If not, then how can you or I, as outside observers, look at what a person believes, and conclude that they were indoctrinated? Culture (of which sports, religion, and the like are a significant part) are passed on to the next generation by observing and taking part a lot more than force. Force/indoctrination has the opposite effect.

Much indoctrination is unintentional, but just because they like the same sports team is not indoctrination. If they like the same sports team because you belittled all others and frequently claim that your favourite is the best, then yes, that could be seen as relatively harmless indoctrination. As for culture being indoctrination, it's only so if you do not treat it with a critical eye. And, if I claim that the only religion worth following is atheism (yes, I know, it's not), then I am indoctrinating my kids. If I treat other religions and beliefs with respect and explain why I don't follow them, but that at least some do have merit, then it's not indoctrination. There is no need for force in indoctrination and while very true that force would likely not achieve the desired effect, indoctrination can and often does come a friendly face and a smile.

[The Green Barbarian]

The vast majority of those studying it accept that it's occuring.
.

This just plain isn't true.

[The Green Barbarian]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... 2842dd485d

[Ka-El]

Brainwashing is the most overused word in the English language to the point of being pretty meaningless other than to mean "expressing views to others that contrast with my own." Perhaps a better word would be "single-sided," as in many students in psychology might never be exposed to more than a single-side of most issues, which is not brainwashing, but still not good if you believe in diversity of opinion and thought.

Ironically, it is the open examination of conflicting theories and diversity of opinion and thought that form the foundation of a Liberal Arts education geared toward the development of critical thinking (gotta give Stephen Harper credit for getting through the program). I have never attended a university class where opposing theories to explain a condition weren’t all presented, compared and debated. It is the idea of critically and objectively considering “opposing theories” that has the truly single-minded Liberal Arts education critics here in a huff. If it is not their “news”, then it must be “fake news”. Where’s Milo when you need him (probably smart enough to know it is time for all former Trump apologists to lay low)? Prepare your kids to think.

[neilsimon]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... 2842dd485d

Since you could refute, to a point, one of the links I provided, how about the other?
Or the other questions asked of you with regards to your claims re leftist rants by lecturers?
The only reason I can see for you not addressing these questions and addressing others is that you just can't.

[The Green Barbarian]

Since you could refute, to a point, one of the links I provided, how about the other?

We'll see how much NASA continues to pump the Man-made climate change horn now that Trump and crew are cutting their funding to "study" this supposed issue. If NASA is finally allowed to do what it was supposed to do, and explore space and innovate new ideas for space exploration, I predict that they will forget all about manufactured consensuses about fairy tales.

[neilsimon]

Since you could refute, to a point, one of the links I provided, how about the other?

We'll see how much NASA continues to pump the Man-made climate change horn now that Trump and crew are cutting their funding to "study" this supposed issue. If NASA is finally allowed to do what it was supposed to do, and explore space and innovate new ideas for space exploration, I predict that they will forget all about manufactured consensuses about fairy tales.

While NASA's budget for studying climate change might be going away (for 4 years), that certainly doesn't mean they will change their stance on it. In fact, since they will no longer be able to study it, they will be unable to formulate a better theory of climate change and so will be stuck with a less accurate position than they would have if they could study it further. Basically, by stopping the funding for it, you reduce the chance that they will disprove anthropogenic climate change, if it is incorrect. The only people who truly benefit are those who wish to retain the level of doubt (which is tiny) which currently exists around whether anthropogenic climate change is real, but realise that it probably is.
Something you may have noticed is that Earth is in space and as such, studying it, especially from space, is very much in NASA's remit.

[Glacier]

Much indoctrination is unintentional, but just because they like the same sports team is not indoctrination. If they like the same sports team because you belittled all others and frequently claim that your favourite is the best, then yes, that could be seen as relatively harmless indoctrination. As for culture being indoctrination, it's only so if you do not treat it with a critical eye. And, if I claim that the only religion worth following is atheism (yes, I know, it's not), then I am indoctrinating my kids. If I treat other religions and beliefs with respect and explain why I don't follow them, but that at least some do have merit, then it's not indoctrination. There is no need for force in indoctrination and while very true that force would likely not achieve the desired effect, indoctrination can and often does come a friendly face and a smile.

I see definition that's being invented on the fly. If I explain to my kids that Fascism or Nazism don't have any merit, then I'm indoctrinating them? I need to highlight the benefits of Fascism so that I'm not indoctrinating my kids?

For the most part, I give my kids both sides. I say, "this is what I think of climate change and this is why, but others disagree because of such and such." But on some other issues where the right and wrong answers are much more clear, I guess I indoctrinate because I say, "racism is always wrong." I do not give the KKK side of the argument.

[neilsimon]

...
I see definition that's being invented on the fly. If I explain to my kids that Fascism or Nazism don't have any merit, then I'm indoctrinating them? I need to highlight the benefits of Fascism so that I'm not indoctrinating my kids?

I think my belief on what indoctrination is broadly fits with dictionary definitions. In my opinion it is adequate that one has to be open and willing to discuss why it is wrong in your opinion, why people may be attracted to it, even intelligent, rational people, and accept that there is an argument, even if I can't think of one right now, that supports fascism.

For the most part, I give my kids both sides. I say, "this is what I think of climate change and this is why, but others disagree because of such and such." But on some other issues where the right and wrong answers are much more clear, I guess I indoctrinate because I say, "racism is always wrong." I do not give the KKK side of the argument.

If you are unwilling to discuss the pros and cons, and lets be honest some values have few cons (murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc.), then it's indoctrination.

[JollyGreenBully]

I have never attended a university class where opposing theories to explain a condition weren’t all presented, compared and debated.

I haven't either which is exactly why I want to know what happened to people in this thread during their university studies which makes them think profs attempted to indoctrinate / brainwash them with "leftist" ideals. The climate change discussion here only started because the university bashers refused to explain their positions adequately so other users attempted to guess.

The complete lack of explanations makes me think the people never attended university in the first place. Not that that's a bad thing, but parroting negative things you hear about university only serves to perpetuate ignorance.

[Glacier]

If you are unwilling to discuss the pros and cons, and lets be honest some values have few cons (murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc.), then it's indoctrination.

Here's what Google brings up: Indoctrination: n. the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Indoctrination has nothing to do with showing pros and cons. The key word is uncritically. I don't have to show the side of the argument that says rape and murder are great things to avoid indoctrination.

Indoctrination is about teaching someone to accept something uncritically. Even then, it's ambiguous, especially if you believe the word is pejorative.

For those of us who believe in objective truth (as opposed to subjective/relative truth), words with ambiguous definitions are problematic. How do you know someone is teaching someone else to accept uncritically?

Because I believe in objective truth, I want everyone to think critically. If I instead believed in moral relativism and subjective truth, I'd probably be more prone to trying to coerce others into accepting what I have to say as truth because truth is relative, and therefore, is based upon who gets to you first, not on what is actually truth.

[techrtr]

Of course universities are hot beds of liberalism and left wing philosophies. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. Hopefully students are intelligent enough to form their own opinions but in the process they're exposed to all sorts of viewpoints ideas, and theories.

The alternative is some weird, US based religious college turned university where they still teach that evolution is a hoax.