Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Throw Your Kid in the Scorpion Pit

"He has a class on race and emotional safety," an old friend of mine squealed with delight about her son's public school schedule.

I am equally delighted to report that my own kid receives no such lessons. When it comes to Anthony's education, my goal is to de-emphasize, not ratchet up, the importance that race plays in his interpersonal dealings. I also don't think that focusing on emotional safety—whatever that is—is likely to build the kind of strong, resilient people who can handle life's curve balls.

But I'm also glad that my friend is free to feed her offspring whatever nonsense she sees fit. The worst-case scenario is a world of homogeneous groupthink. Instead, if enough families do their jobs right, our kids will grow up in world of differing opinions and contending values—the sort of intellectual scorpion pit that fuels a free and open society.

"An important part of critical thinking is being able to give reasons to support or criticize a position," argues Joe Lau, a philosopher at the University of Hong Kong who specialized in metacognition. "The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice."

Critical thinkers "strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society," writes educational psychologist Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking. "They strive never to think simplistically about complicated issues and always to consider the rights and needs of relevant others."

To support or criticize a position and consider the rights of others, you first have to be aware that ideas beyond your own exist, and that it's important to engage them. There's not enough of that right now.

Echo chambers arise when children are raised in an environment kept scrubbed of disagreement. Many college students today never learned to defend their positions because they rarely encountered contrasting views. Given that, headlines about speakers being chased off campus, while troubling, are hardly surprising.

In her May 2017 commencement speech, Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust addressed the obvious disconnect between the students and faculty at elite universities, including hers, and recent political developments in the country. Too many people were simply blindsided by the degree to which a large percentage of Americans disagreed with them, and were willing to support a presidential candidate and policies that university dwellers overwhelmingly rejected.

"From at least the time of Galileo, we can see how repressing seemingly heretical ideas has blinded societies and nations to the enhanced knowledge and understanding on which progress depend," Faust said. "We must work to ensure that universities do not become bubbles isolated from the concerns and discourse of the society that surrounds them."

To avoid fueling this problem, I try to give my son contrasting viewpoints on controversial subjects in our home-school lessons. When he studied the Progressive Era, we worked from video lectures by a college professor sympathetic to the progressives' cause, alongside lectures from a broadly conservative point of view, readings from Thaddeus Russell's A Renegade History of the United States, and excerpts from Illiberal Reformers by Thomas C. Leonard—which is to say, a group of sources with very different takes on the same topic. My son knows where I'm coming from, but he also knows that a lot of people strongly disagree with me, just as he inevitably will on some topics.

As a result, he's already better prepared at 12 than most of those Harvard students to engage with somebody with different views, such as my old friend's son. And that kid will hold his own a lot more effectively if his class on race and emotional safety similarly draws from a variety of ideas and arguments.

There's a lot of talk about the value of educational choice—of experimenting with different teaching methods and environments. Some approaches work for some kids, different ones for others; competition among the many alternatives drives them to excel overall. Often neglected, though, is the importance of avoiding groupthink by making young people grapple with conflicting ideas and test them against each other through healthy debate in a free and open society.

Ironically, throwing our kids into the scorpion pit may be the safest thing we can do for them.

Photo Credit: Beatriz Gascón

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Radioactive||

    Personally I prefer the cobras...

  • DiegoF||

    Traitor! Like any loyal American, I proudly support the Joes.

    Now you know where I stand. And knowing is half the battle.

  • zonevazo||

    I just started 7 weeks ago and I've gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000...this is the best decision I made in a long time! "Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. go to this site for more details..... www.startonlinejob.com

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Good for you! Now how's about a sequel? I hope I don't have to wait for your kid to write it :-)

  • Jerryskids||

    "From at least the time of Galileo, we can see how repressing seemingly heretical ideas has blinded societies and nations to the enhanced knowledge and understanding on which progress depend," Faust said. "We must work to ensure that universities do not become bubbles isolated from the concerns and discourse of the society that surrounds them."

    What was Socrates, chopped liver? Has that heretic been stricken from the curriculum yet for his views on questioning authority? Or is his story still being taught, but with the state as the hero of the story?

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The same thought occurred to me.

    But Faust is president of Harvard. I went to a state university.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Sorry, but Galileo and Socrates were both pedophiles, and so must be stricken from history.

  • Dan S.||

    Some will surely say that Faust, like her namesake, must be in league with the Devil to say what she does. Which reminds me of those so-called After School Satan Clubs, which were supposed to foster a spirit of free inquiry among school children. I thought the name was utterly preposterous and counterproductive, now I'm not so sure.

  • DiegoF||

    Well, the people who persecuted Socrates were not Christians, so he makes a rather less inspiring figure to rally behind.

  • Trollificus||

    Well, just re-tell the story and MAKE them Christians. They could crucify him, rather than him drinking hemlock, and that could be used as lessons in irony and the hypocrisy of Christians.

    Eventually, they'll get history neatly judged and properly re-written so that it is useful for instruction.

  • Spinach Chin||

    "But I'm also glad that my friend is free to feed her offspring whatever nonsense she sees fit"

    Your friend is not "free" to do this. Her kid goes to a public school. She has no choice.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    She could home school. Having to simultaneously support public schools through taxation makes this harder. If she has no spouse or other parental unit, that makes it harder. But there are always choices.

  • Bubba Jones||

    She could vote with her feet.

  • Trollificus||

    By kicking the shit out of a politician or school administrator? Yes!

  • kevrob||

    Meanwhile, we childless people have to pay for this PS crap. I thank J D for taking the responsibility to see to the education of his own child. Sending the tyke to private school would also be cromulent.

    No, I don't owe the taxpayers for my education: 12 years in Catholic school, and a degree from a private university. There were subsidized student loans involved in the last.

    Want to learn to see more than one side of an issue? Join a debate team. I would have hated to have faced the "South Lawndale Home Schoolers Assn" squad.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Even those who were public-schooled as children but are childless/childfree now should not have to pay for the gigantic boondoggle of a union jobs program that is public education in the U.S.

    Per pupil expenditure has more than doubled, in today's dollars, since I started K-12 in the mid-1970s. The last time per pupil spending declined even a fraction of a percent was in 1992-93.

    Today's schools spend on everything from police and metal detectors, to halal and gluten-free lunches (because Mommy and Daddy can't be bothered to pack Precious a safe or Allah-pleasing lunch at home) to iPads for every kid, to "diversity/homeless/undocumented task forces," to utter bullshit like "a class on race and emotional safety," to more utter bullshit like DARE programs and genderfree bathrooms for wilting hothouse pansies who can't decide what junk they want to see in their pants.

    I don't care if somebody else's taxes covered my education when I was a kid. That doesn't mean you get to hold me hostage for more than double, for many times the number of kids. Two wrongs really don't make a right.

  • DiegoF||

    "She has no choice" whether to send her child to the public school, or to a private school of her choice, or to educate the child herself? What country does this anecdote take place in?

    In the U.S. the only impingement on her "freedom" is that "she has no choice" whether to pay for the bloated, overpriced public schools in her district. That's pretty much the only gripe she can have.

  • Gleep Glop||

    "The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice."

    This quote makes it seem that "critical thinking's" only purpose is to help people make decision in regards to government and prejudice. What about all the other areas of life that require critical thinking outside of the domain of these areas?

    Given what Mr. Tucliie has outlined in his home school curriculum I can assure him that his children are leaps and bounds ahead of their peers.

  • IceTrey||

    It also doesn't really require that much critical thinking. The proper function of government is to defend individual negative liberty with the retaliatory use of force. It's actually pretty simple.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yes, "proper governance" stays out of "social issues".

  • Paper Wasp||

    TBH, I'm not convinced "overcoming biases and prejudice" is a good or essential justification for developing critical thinking ability. For one thing, it assumes that the entire burden of "overcoming biases and prejudice" rests on the observer who supposedly entertains "biases and prejudice", not the ones claiming victimhood from the "biases and prejudice" of others.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The modern liberal arts university functions kind of like a medieval monastery. The monks know that their beliefs are correct, but they are also aware of the sinful world outside, and disapprove of it. The monastery serves a safe space for those who wish to contemplate orthodoxy, recite its incantations, and practice its rituals. No deviation from orthodoxy in faith or practice can be tolerated.

    Of course, no analogy is perfect, and this one is unfair to medieval monasteries. Quite a few medieval monasteries did intellectually honest research into non-Christian systems of thought (pagan Greek philosophy, Islam, and Chinese.)

  • vek||

    So close to the truth it's scary...

  • Vernon Depner||

    I doubt it. I suspect most of the Catholic clergy have always been atheists, who used the appearance of orthodoxy to keep the rabble under control.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    As Yes, Prime Minister put it, "Theology is a device for enabling agnostics to stay within the church."

  • Vernon Depner||

    And the best place to keep the agnostics in church is in leadership positions, so they are vested in maintaining the orthodoxy.

  • kevrob||

    In medieval times, joining the clergy was a jobs program for second sons who weren't going to inherit the land. This allowed for educated nobles and sons of merchants and yeomen,who could staff the state's bureaucracy. Taking orders was one of the few ways to get an education in Irish Catholic families well into the 19th century. The nobility aside, "one son for the church" was a strong tradition in Catholic families even on this side of the pond, at least until Vatican II.

  • Longtobefree||

    Third son.
    The second became an officer and insured the preservation of the estate from internal and external enemies.

  • DiegoF||

    Yes. That doesn't really resemble the role of actual monasteries in medieval intellectual life very closely.

  • vek||

    My dad raised me with a lot of libertarian influences from the beginning. He read Ayn Rand, and lots of other philosophy I still haven't even gotten around to. But he always taught me to think things through for myself, to have REASONS that I held the positions I do, to seek out people who hold the opposite opinion to see if they have any logic to their arguments, etc.

    In other words he taught me how to think correctly. Almost nobody else ever does. All of their ideas are simply programmed into them by one set of authority figures or another. I am so glad I am not one of those people. It is fun to systematically destroy people with facts in debates too, even though they will usually not concede their clear defeat. Once in awhile people open their minds and accept corrections to their thoughts though, which can make it worth it.

  • Vernon Depner||

    People will not admit to changing their minds as the result of a single confrontation, but, over time, exposure to arguments can turn them around. Most of us with a few miles on us have had the experience of changing what had once been a dearly held belief that we never thought we would give up. Argument and debate does work, but don't expect instant results.

  • Trollificus||

    The most effective inputs are the ones that get through, not the ones that threaten people with defeat in an argument. People naturally resist being "beaten", but if you can avoid going for the victory, some facts or salient arguments may get through. And that's probably the best result you can hope for with people whose ideas have been formed from peer-group pressure, emotional anecdotes and "results" from bad methodologies.

    Had the opportunity to do that this very day, with a couple of door-to-door Greenpeace kids (NEITHER, I was disappointed to observe, a cute chick. It's like they don't know how to proselytize.). Actually got a couple of points through, got them to respond, and then respectfully backed off. Seeds, man, seeds...

  • vek||

    Trollificus, absolutely. Which is why it all depends on what I'm trying to do, and the situation. Some random asshole I don't know I might just troll them and be a dick about things... Because I really don't give a fuck. If it's someone I know and actually want to convince someday, I take a more low and slow approach, and don't really try to argue at all, just present some facts and let it stay at that.

    I find the compliment sandwich (usually used as a way to nicely give somebody advice or direction) like approach is a great way. This is essentially something you agree on, a point you would like to make put softly, and another thing you agree on. Being nice and laid back is far more effective than being combative.

    But boy howdy, trolling people and making them look stupid in front of other people is fun!

  • vek||

    Vernon, all true. I have changed many ideas compared to when I was younger. I am actually less of a strict libertarian for instance... As far as "typical" libertarian dogma issues go, I still believe in the underlying principle as being morally right in most instances, but in practice in this crazy world I don't think some things are worth pursuing. 20 year old me wouldn't have imagined!

    But yeah, I usually just toss facts out there and don't press too hard on anyone I have regular interaction with. I just don't care that much about trying to convince people, but also know it takes time for things to sink in. A lot of long time friends I have have come around on many issues over the years.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You must get banned a lot from lefty websites trying to utterly dominate their faulty facts.

  • vek||

    If only I had the time! I don't really post anywhere other than here lately, and even here it is spotty. There are enough things to argue with overly dogmatic libertarians about, I don't have time to troll outright communists! The immigration articles on Reason alone can eat up sooooooo much time. Sooner or later maybe the dogmatic ones will figure out that 80 IQ peasant farmers from third world countries will not land on American soil and magically become brain surgeons 10 years down the line... :)

  • Flinch||

    Thank goodness: plain reason without the jabberwocky. One good subject to arrive at a clear thinking mind is geometry, and the structure of having to provide proof without logic holes. Do they even do that anymore in school, or are they using some ersatz artifice like mumbling about 'great shapes in history: which one is racist'?
    People have different views, and the ones that get my respect [even when I vehemently oppose them] are the ones who can explain their position & why they believe what they believe. Everyone else might turn out to be potted meat for all I know. The interesting thing about the human element is that changing someone's mind on most matters is best done with the right question [minus a soap box]. Give someone the chance to have an "ah ha" moment, and the joy of discovery gives them ownership attitudinally speaking which allows an equal footing.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I also don't think that focusing on emotional safety—whatever that is—is likely to build the kind of strong, resilient people who can handle life's curve balls.

    If you don't know what the phrase "emotional safety" means, what is your basis for concluding whether or not it would be helpful building strong, resilient people?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    An important part of critical thinking is being able to give reasons to support or criticize a position

    You know, like looking up the meaning of "emotional safety" before discarding it out of hand.

  • Trollificus||

    Would you have been better served by the more explicit statement "Emotional safety, the totally bullshit nature of which it is not the purview of this article to address"??

    Or would you have been equally triggered? Maybe, for your own emotional safety, you should find a more echo chambery environment than REASON.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You're being pedantic. "Whatever that is" is just a colloquial way of saying that the term is bullshit, not a admission of ignorance.

  • cc2||

    "Emotional Safety" comes from the confidence that you are competent and capable. The fact that I can run away from danger, can fight if necessary, can shoot a gun, and respond to being teased with a witty comeback that makes everyone laugh, that I know what is going on in the world--this makes me feel safe emotionally. So, then I don't give a sh*t is someone doesn't like me. Not everyone is going to like you. Some people are jerks. So what. Where did people get the idea that they must have everyone's approval? If you do an exceptional job and get rich, some people will criticize just because they are jealous. No matter how you decorate your house or who you vote for, other people would do it differently. Tough.

  • Trollificus||

    Umm...so sorry not sorry but what you are describing is "Emotional STRENGTH". Not the same thing as 'emotional safety' at all. You probably triggered some people by demeaning their own coping mechanisms, which may or may not involve coloring, meditation, affirmations, plush animals to cuddle and anti-depressant drugs. It's like you're talking about some kind of 'emotional privilege' and not even seeing the actual damage you're doing to these people!

  • Libertarian||

    I'll come to your emotional rescue.

  • Rich||

  • ||

    That's, like, cultural appropriation from the Scots, man.

  • IceTrey||

    Actually the modern kilt was designed by an English Quaker and the English are known for forcing people to appropriate their culture.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilt

  • poptart||

    Which, of course, in no way refutes his statement.

    See cornrows.

  • IceTrey||

    It refutes the cultural origin of the kilt as Scottish.

  • poptart||

    Which was not his statement.

  • poptart||

    Listen, let's cut to it. You started your stupid cunty post with "actually" as though you were correcting something, but your "correction" didn't correct anything. He never said kilts were created by scots. He never said anything about " the cultural origin of the kilt as Scottish. "

    That was your stupid ass trying to shoehorn in that the Scots didn't invent kilts. Great. You know a fact. However, if you weren't an imbecile, you'd understand that blacks didn't invent cornrows either, and yet claim they are cultural appropriation.

    It other words, you totally missed the point, and doubled down with your stupid ass reply.

  • DiegoF||

    Well the Scots did wear belted plaid at various times during a period in their history. They just didn't invent the modern tailored kilt--which, as it happens, is a garment whose heritage is steeped in Unionism about as many ways as you could imagine! It's about as Unionist as...as, well, Guinness beer.

  • DiegoF||

    Yeah, the modern kilt, with its entirely made-up-on-the-spot by-manufacturers'-marketing-departments "clan tartans," has really become one of everyone's favorite examples of "manufactured history." Hopefully mankind will become more widely aware of this phenomenon as time passes, but for now most folks seem to at least have a blind spot for the myths that serve their own desires.

  • Trollificus||

    I got a kilt for Kwanzaa.

    Not sure what to do now.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Traditional Masai dress.

  • Bubba Jones||

    They didn't last long on Star Trek.

  • DiegoF||

    Skirts have been the hottest next big thing in men's fashion every single year for at least the last thirty. For the women's shows the big houses show off outrageous designs to exercise their creativity and position themselves as the creative leaders in the field. They don't expect to actually sell such pieces, but their existence is important for their reputation and therefore for the sales of their actual pieces.

    The presence of a skirt is just one of the various "silly" aspects that designers incorporate into the male counterpart of the above phenomenon. They're just there to enhance the houses' avant-garde cred, but each year fashion writers with an assignment to file sometimes take the least outré of these exercises and try to pass them off as a believable trend. Manskirts fit the bill nicely year after year; you're not going to see many cub fashion reporters with the balls to say that nipple windows, or Klingon epaulettes, or whatever, are about to become the new trend in fashion-forward practical menswear, but skirts seem just this side of believable.

  • Sevo||

    "Skirts have been the hottest next big thing in men's fashion every single year for at least the last thirty."
    I still read the paper version and as pathetic as the Chron is as anything other than a coffee cup coaster, they put the "Man Skirts New Fashion Hit!" annual BS in the "features" section, along with the announcements of the "edgy" comedian playing next week featuring Bush jokes. Well, maybe one or two have moved on to Trump jokes.

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    It's really not fair that women can wear men's clothes and express a multitude of ideas based more on the styling - sexy, classy, sexless, etc. But men in women's clothes are only seen as silly. So silly that even MRA's aren't behind this.

    Anyway, if men keep getting hooked on those compression pants for various sports things, men will be wearing leggings as pants any day now. Gird your loins, it's happening.

  • poptart||

    Um, it already happened in the 90's. How old are you that you don't remember that?

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    I wasn't looking at adult men's pants that much in the 90's, but guys at my school would roll up one leg of their athletic pants to show off a muscular calf and I remember thinking "how Elizabethan!" Did you get stuck behind too many cyclists in the 90's? Because if that was a thing, it wasn't a big thing. Dudes wore baggy pants, white dudes wore super wide legged jeans, and no girls wore leggings because they were 80's.

  • DiegoF||

    Oh I remember that one pant leg rolled up shit! That was some weird shit.

    By the way, rolling up one pant leg is also a cyclist custom! If you are stuck wearing loose pants instead of the tights, you roll up (or strap down) the leg on the chain side so the gears don't dirty or eat it. At least that's what I was told, when I saw a colleague doing that long after I'd last seen it done for fashion.

  • poptart||

    "Because if that was a thing, it wasn't a big thing. "

    Every athlete I can think of at the time wore compression garments.

    It was huge. You're either forgetting or an idiot.

  • DiegoF||

    When nobody stood up to that ridiculous suggestion that the House women were suddenly being misogynistically oppressed by the ban on sleeveless tops, I knew we were in even deeper than I thought. And establishment Republicans have the audacity to ask the public, why did you go with this Neanderthal instead of us true, principled conservatives?

    I'm pretty sure the peak of the man-spandex trend was in the 80s. You also saw the hot pink tank tops and shit around that time too. By the early 90s, the tide was already starting to turn, and--especially if you went full gangsta with the flannels, khaki vests, baggy jeans, and so forth--you were wondering how anyone could have ever looked that faggoty.

    SNL recently did a skit like that. Pete Davidson was a pink-haired SoundCloud rapper type being denounced by 80s rap veterans for various sins against traditional hip-hop purity--nonsensical lyrics, being a cokehead, and so forth. And of course the joke was that the OGs did everything Davidson did. My favorite was when they denounced him for being a flamboyant, effeminate, trivial faggot instead of hard and serious like they were back in the day, then you cut to them mean mugging in their Indian headdresses and vests with no shirt.

  • mtrueman||

    "Ironically, throwing our kids into the scorpion pit may be the safest thing we can do for them."

    Not if these kids are planning to get a job after they graduate. Employers prefer the compliant snake pit avoiders for all the obvious reasons.

  • IceTrey||

    Ha! They're going to be the ones hiring the snowflakes!

  • mtrueman||

    Why not? As long as they don't show strong tendencies of questioning authority. The workplace is not the functioning liberal democracy the author is going on about.

  • poptart||

    Your comment says a lot about you, more than anything else.

  • mtrueman||

    You're not the first person here who prefers discussing me to schools, snowflakes and all that other boring stuff.

  • Sevo||

    "You're not the first person here who prefers discussing me to schools, snowflakes and all that other boring stuff."

    You're an imbecile and your comments are inane at best.
    There's a very good reason your stupidity draws more attention than your worthless posts.
    Fuck off.

  • poptart||

    Yes, in this case you were the first person to discuss you.

  • mtrueman||

    Let me remind you. My comment was as follows:

    "Not if these kids are planning to get a job after they graduate. Employers prefer the compliant snake pit avoiders for all the obvious reasons."

    No mention of myself until you chimed in with:

    "Your comment says a lot about you"

    No need to feel bad about your interest in me. It has fueled almost the entire corpus of our dear friend Sevo's writing.

  • JeremyR||

    What about Aristarchus of Samos? He game up with the whole Gallileo thing like 1500 years earlier.

  • poptart||

    What about him? The idea itself wasn't the point of this article.

  • DiegoF||

    He proposed a heliocentric model. It wasn't very good. It's like if some guy back in the day saw elephant shrews, denounced Darwinists at the time for suggesting that they were shrews that had evolved probosces, and said they obviously could only be tiny, tiny elephants. As genetic evidence has recently revealed, elephant shrews are much, much more closely related to elephants than shrews (of course their probosces evolved separately), but we wouldn't give the original meshugana much credit for his loopy "discovery" of that fact.

    Not sure if Aristarchus was persecuted by anyone though. Galileo was a genius but an arrogant asshole who pissed off everyone, including the Jesuits and his erstwhile friend the pope; and that's why they decided to fuck him and no one stood up for him.

  • Trollificus||

    He managed to piss people off less than Giordano Bruno, apparently,

  • Careless||

    Too many people were simply blindsided by the degree to which a large percentage of Americans disagreed with them, and were willing to support a presidential candidate and policies that university dwellers overwhelmingly rejected.

    this suggests that it was the *Trump* voters who were blindsided

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    Kids are being taught two things that are going to get them into serious interpersonal trouble - words are violence + you must be a passionate defender of current morality. How can you even have a discussion with another person when you think this stuff? Let alone an argument? Do teens go home from a movie and go on the internet to find out what kind of social justice opinion they needed to have before they go back to school so they won't say the wrong thing?

    I wonder if this is the backlash from the "teach the controversy" solution over evolution. I mean, anyone with half a brain would realize that teaching both sides would mean most kids would come away thinking evolution made more sense, but I can't help but think many people now think that teaching kids more than one opinion on a subject means teaching them both the truth and fairytale.

  • Trollificus||

    "Do teens go home from a movie and go on the internet to find out what kind of social justice opinion they needed to have before they go back to school so they won't say the wrong thing?"
    *********

    Pretty much, "yes". My son (slightly older, out of school) today recounted how his circle of friends are watching old episodes of "Friends" and being horrified by the sexism and insensitivity blahdeblah. I pointed out to him that people used to expose themselves to the customs and mores of people who lived even more than 20 years in the past and considered such exposure "education" rather than an opportunity to virtue-signal to each other.

  • Sevo||

    OT:
    "Assange's poor hygiene cited in move by Ecuadoran Embassy"
    http://www.sfgate.com/world/ar.....495042.php

    Perhaps the French know how to get out of jams!

  • DiegoF||

    I wonder how his teeth are; I never noticed. His teeth might be, as it happens, the least white thing on his entire body! How freaky is that!

  • Sevo||

    Dunno, and I consider him a sort of 'hero'; adding transparency is always and everywhere good.
    He is accused of rape (albeit under some rules which seem to allow retroactive claims) and he is claimed to stink. So I'll take a stinky hero as a hero, and *IF* it is rape, I'll still take the transparency he delivered minus seeing him as a hero.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    *know how to get out *using* jams, applied liberally to the limbs and torso (hence the smell- very hard to get out of their nooks and crannies afterward)

  • Sevo||

    More OT:
    Perhaps there's a reason state government should not be involved in international matters:
    ''We made a mistake' Hawaii sends false missile alert"
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/.....496174.php

  • Flinch||

    Emotional safety classes... only at snowflake high. No wonder we had a bunch of college kids in 2016 in need of a shot of thorazine after an election. This caliber of idiocy posing as curriculum cannot possibly be driven by local/grass roots concerns at local school boards. We owe it to our neighbors to help take back 'community standards', which means our school districts do not operate on remote control per the dictates of outside hacks. A good slice of the problem occurs when accepting federal dollars as we know, so that's a herculean fight: the Dept of Ed. needs closing, as it impinges on states rights and worse still, it basically serves as a grant factory primarily serving the NEA and their wobblie friends [no boon to local school boards seeking to steer their own ship, to be sure]. A second issue of lesser note [for now] is some case law we know a Lawrence v. Texas. If you thought that was only about gay rights, you need to look again: a cornerstone was set for attacking community standards of all types and we can expect it to show its teeth somewhere down the road because it is yet another tool in the prog toolbox to hammer on states rights by affirming the court can imbue itself with power as long as the facade looks 'high minded' enough to avoid due process for amending the constitution. Time for me to re-read Marbury v Madison I think, and tighten my belt.

  • Len Bias||

    Then Rock Them Like a Hurricane.

  • Brandybuck||

    When I was a kid we didn't need classes on how racism is wrong, because we already knew racism was wrong.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You must be younger than me. When I was a kid, the validity of racism was openly and sincerely debated.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I recall writing papers on current events in school and utilizing various magazines and newspapers from across the spectrum. That really opened my eyes to how much propaganda and bias was ingrained into the media. Prior to that I thought that the goal of these periodicals were to educate me on the issues. I had no idea how politicized it all was.

  • AlmightyJB||

    In think to a large extent, many of the journalist doing the reporting are not even aware of their own bias. To them, they are presenting "common sense". I've definitely had that same feeling watching TV journalist. It's clear to them that what they are saying is simply common knowledge that everyone knows and yet it's BS.

  • Mike Sean||

    that is what I am thinking about kids these days. https://downloadterrariumtvapp.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online