Public Space and Public Education

[Dr. Shades]

Same thing kid got detention for sticking up for an AA student as well.

"AA student" = "Alcoholics Anonymous student?"

[Jersey Girl]

Same thing kid got detention for sticking up for an AA student as well.

"AA student" = "Alcoholics Anonymous student?"

African American.

[Manetho]

I'm fine if public schools teach all this stuff but I have no vested interest in it, and I'd be perfectly happy if they didn't.

The law contains a provision allowing parents to sue school districts, similar to the Texas abortion law. I think that's one of the reasons LGBT people fear this law so much. There are thousands of lawsuits waiting to happen, based on some individual right-wing parent's definition of what it means to "teach children about sexual orientation". Teachers offhandedly mention their own families to students all the time; what if a gay teacher mentions his or her same-sex spouse in passing? Will some fundamentalist sue over that? It may seem improbable, but when you put power in the hands of individuals who are caught in a radicalization feedback loop, it's a genuine risk.

[Moksha]

"AA student" = "Alcoholics Anonymous student?"

African American.

Woah! Some abbreviations are downright confusing.

[ajax18]

What if I used my platform as a teacher to inform the grade schoolers that Mr. Ajax has three wives. Then I'd go through history and teach how this is natural for human beings and that most of our ancestors were polygamist. Then I'd tell the kids that if their parents believe my choice of lifestyle is immoral, it's because they are bigots. I'd tell the young men that it is natural to want to have more than one women and if they feel like they would want this than they should live out their desires rather than hide in the closet because they weren't born monogamous but rather polygamous. Or maybe we could just stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic and leave teaching of controversial views of morality to the parents, maybe even respect the faith and beliefs of everyone rather than push them upon other peoples children.

[Physics Guy]

The problem of deciding who is the public is so difficult that even a radically simplified mathematical version of it is a topic of current research. The field is known as Judgement Aggregation, and it looks abstractly at ways to map many judgements onto fewer judgements. There are some discouraging paradoxes and no-go theorems to show that there is never going to be any ideal system that won't lead, in sufficiently perverse cases, to conclusions that aren't just unfair but even downright absurd.

[Kishkumen]

Yeah, I hadn't thought about it in those terms but what you wrote makes sense to me.

My primary reaction to it is that one's attitude toward what the public is is likely a reflection of one's general attitude toward education, especially when you consider how many people have antipathy toward education corresponding with their distrust of the government. I doubt that's an accident. Less educated people are easier to convince of outrageous things, and are easier for authoritarians to control. Convincing people they should distrust facts, education and educated people is on page one of the dictator's handbook.

Trump is by no means the only authoritarian in the GOP. The party should really rename itself and give back "Republican."

Yes, interesting points, Schmo! Of course, the Roman Republic was very aristocratic in nature. It was organized in such a way as to minimize the influence of the citizenry at large. People voted in blocks called centuries or tribes. An individual vote truly counted for very little in this system. Imagine if every time you cast a vote it was like a stage before the electoral college. You vote for someone else to vote, in essence.

Republicans actually hold onto that name deliberately. They prefer a system in which the common man votes for the better man whose vote is the one that really matters. Democrats have the one person, one vote philosophy, which is also consistent with their name.

[Kishkumen]

Interesting topic, Kishkumen. When you started I expected to see a version of the social contract debates arise beginning with Hobbes. The divergence from that gave me cause to think about it more which I appreciate, in no small measure due to the modern debate reflecting this pruning as well.

In some ways I imagine modern Americans could be grouped under the political views represented by a number of past thinkers. Of those, I think three are most informative, focusing on the struggles around the French Revolution as it seems applicable to our times:

The political right: Joseph de Maistre

The political left: Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès

Those who feel sympathetic to progressive ideas but not outspoken progressive politicians and internet personalities: Edmund Burke.

A very learned and fantastic response, honorentheos. Now I need to get down to reading. I would say you have it spot on here, but I know very little about each figure.

[Kishkumen]

It started out as consenting adults behind closed doors. Now you want to teach my 1st grader about homosexuality and tell her it's ok. Why? And why has the number of transgender people risen enormously? Up to 20% of the rising generation view themselves as intersex. We need to lock people up for taking an extra oxycodone but a kid can get gender reassignment surgery and permanently disfigure himself and the parents can't do anything to stop him?

I am part of the public to. It's my tax money paying the teachers salary as well. And there is no reason for you to be teaching my child about homosexuality nor trying to mold his mind about it. I view homosexuality as immoral and no you don't get to tell my kid that it's ok.

You are the ideal opponent in this debate, Ajax. Yes, it really did go there, despite the fact that everyone swore up and down that it was hysterical to think that it would. Plato was right when he observed that people, being imitators of what they see, ought not to be exposed to what is thought to be immoral because they would emulate it. Well, duh, they do. Hell, it was Al Gore the Climate Guy who updated Plato's argument in this regard with the aid of science.

But, here's the thing. All of this is leading to a lower human population. As people get wealthier, they have fewer kids. They cultivate and satisfy desires in all kinds of outre forms. And, as a result, they are less likely to leave behind their DNA. It is the simple folk out there going to church and having all of those kids who will be the future generation to repeat the process of civilizational decline.

Perhaps that should be some consolation to you in your disgust. At least there will be fewer liberals in the next generation to worry about. They don't have enough kids.

[Kishkumen]

For the same reasons that the so-called number of gay persons has risen over the past decades. Because trans persons are finally identifying themselves to the society that has marginalized, ostracized, and abused them in the past. They are human beings who want the right to live their lives like the rest of us.

I don't agree. I think it is because it is more popular. While there are people who are very fixed in their preferences for one kind of sexual partner or another, there is probably a fair number who, in a given situation, can and will be more flexible. They can follow the trends and do what they see others doing. Now that people get all kinds of attention for their heroism of being a particular gender identity, it is inevitable that more people will do it.

And honestly, it is impossible to fight this stuff. It just happens and will happen. Ajax is going to need to form a new gender-rigid Amish community to shield himself and his family from these developments. That is what all of this societal Balkanization is about. That is what taking your kids out of public schools is about. This is what the November 5th Policy was about.