
Undoing the Dis-Education of Millennials - CarolineW
http://newbostonpost.com/2017/11/09/undoing-the-dis-education-of-millennials/
======
dwaltrip
I only quickly skimmed the article, but it seemed to mainly be about
understanding and engaging seriously with ideas (even if you disagree),
thinking critically, being open to new ways of looking at things, and so on.
That seems like a very reasonable message to me, and something that
politically active younger adults could definitely benefit from.

We all need to wrestle with and face the limits of our own understanding at
some point, if we wish to grow.

------
Buttes
>newbostonpost

Someone on r/boston constantly posts links to this garbage "news" source,
everyone flags it as spam there, I'm going to flag it as spam here as well.

~~~
Yetanfou
That's called _' shooting the messenger'_. It is not a good idea for those who
want to be open to different opinions, a fact which actually can be gleaned
from the linked article. If, as you say, _' everyone flags it as spam'_ it
would be good for _' everyone'_ to read the linked article. That does _not_
mean you need to agree to everything written there, by all means disagree but
do so on the base of reason.

------
humanrebar
> First, except when describing an ideology, you are not to use a word that
> ends in “ism.” Communism, socialism, Nazism, and capitalism are established
> concepts in history and the social sciences...

I agree with the impulse here, but I wouldn't give those words a pass so
quickly. Some (all?) of them are poorly understood.

Even here on HN, a potential bastion of reason, and presumably populated
mostly by products of education in capitalist countries, I routinely come
across anti-"capitalist" sentiment that is really complaining about something
else: cronyism, regulatory capture, non-violent extortion, etc.

From wikipedia:

"Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership
of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics
central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage
labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

Go google "site:ycombinator.com capitalist". All sorts of nonsense HN comments
show up in which people object to capitalism but aren't clearly criticizing
wages, prices, private contracts, private property, etc.

~~~
spamizbad
I disagree. Many complaints about capitalism are often rebuffed with some form
of "No True Scottsman" fallacy when people raise this points about capitalism.
Defenders of communism fall into the same trap.

I don't see what's so controversial about the simple fact that capital markets
will not significantly reduce global human suffering. Some will benefit
tremendously, significantly more than others, and there's no correction
mechanism for that.

If we look back a few decades, it seems like there was a sea-change in thought
around capitalism after WWII. Prior to the war, it was seen as an imperfect
system but our best option. Something I don't think it's hard to argue with.
Now, we place capitalism on a pedestal and blame its shortcomings on
impurities of its implementation-- again, similar to academics who had to
defend Marxism/Leninism vs its implementation in the Soviet Union.

~~~
humanrebar
My basic point was that "capitalism" is a term not understood broadly enough
to be meaningful. Your (justified) complaint about "No True Scotsman"
fallacies supports my point. As does your critique of the shifting feelings
about capitalism over the years.

My main point was that people criticizing capitalism and the people defending
it are rarely talking about the same thing. I _have_ seen people defending
capitalism (as defined in dictionaries and wikipedia) that obviously are
referring to the canonical definitions. I _have_ seen, though less frequently,
people criticizing capitalism in the same sense. It seems like you might be
one of these, though most of the time the solutions to capitalism look mostly
like tweaked capitalism with another label attached. For example, a
progressive wealth tax doesn't (directly) dispute the importance of wages,
property rights, market-based pricing, etc. Likewise, proponents of rent
control aren't in favor of a centrally controlled housing authority that sets
and approves rents (as opposed to a market based solution).

------
strangecasts
This piece is incoherent "campus loonies" outrage, pushing _" diversity of
opinion"_ talking points (while unintentionally demolishing it in a
paragraph), demonstrating a surface-level understanding of issues (grouping
"cisgenderism" with "racism"), and ultimately going for really silly "logical
gotchas" instead of pointing out the importance of arguing soundly _for_ your
ideals.

~~~
Turing_Machine
I get it: you don't like the piece.

Do you have any _substantive_ and specific criticisms of it?

For instance, can you give an example of what you call a "logical gotcha" in
the piece, and demonstrate why it is a "logical gotcha" (and, for that matter,
why "logical gotchas" are bad)?

What you have written here is basically just name calling.

~~~
strangecasts
_> For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible
and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. [...] So when you
say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have
difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself._

This is a strawman argument - the rhetoric only works if you already agree
with the author's belief that a statistically significant proportion of
students desire _literal_ equality (as satirized in _Harrison Bergeron_ )
instead of social equity.

~~~
WkndTriathlete
> if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically
> significant proportion of students desire literal equality

Anecdotal, I know, but based on what I see in my kids's high-school classmates
and from what I've heard from university professors I think that there is a
good chance that a statistically significant proportion of students do desire
literal equality.

------
FLUX-YOU
People have been giving this same speech for centuries for different labels of
generations.

~~~
humanrebar
I presume you mean "kids these days!"

OP agrees and quotes Aristotle to that effect. But he still wrote and posted
the article, right? So the purpose of the piece must be different, or at least
more specific, than a trite "kids these days!" rant.

~~~
FLUX-YOU
Everything he says basically feeds into that point. I don't think it was
really an article about how -ism word usage is changing.

~~~
humanrebar
The post isn't trite in context since he was responsible for educating his
particular audience. Complaining about generic kids these days is venting.
Setting up ground rules for discussion to advance education is part of his
job.

And, besides, his instruction is basically a critique of all the things
(media, primary schools, undergraduate schools, parents, etc.) that _should_
have been teaching those lessons but weren't. So he had to teach them not to
"kids these days" but to people who were intelligent and educated enough to
make it into law school.

Besides, part of his point was that dismissing old thoughts because they are
old is bad reasoning. To dismiss his thoughts likewise because they're not new
(I think they're a new spin on things, but YMMV) does _ourselves_ a
disservice.

