Fake News

[Martin Hash]

The lesson plan could be interpreted as an attempt to educate children about some of the roots of terrorism, but it seems more like an effort to make them choose a side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Also my impression.

Minds made up as children are damn near impossible to change as adults. This isn't even subtle indoctrination.

[BjornP]

Right, but this is where the lesson plan kinda fails. It could be useful as part of a broader study of the topic. On its own, however, it is overly simplistic (I didn't follow all of the links - just skimmed the plan and watched the videos). The motivations of only one 'side' are provided. The bomber explains that he is reacting to Israeli attacks on Palestinian settlements, but no explanation for those attacks are given, except by the bomber himself (Israelis are racist).

It doesn't say "oppressor/oppressed", that was just my interpretation, because it seemed to encourage children to attach an emotional reaction to an oversimplification of a complex issue.

A good teacher could use this material, as a supplement to a more thorough examination, but I'm not sure that that is the intent (this is where my biases and assumptions come into play, I suppose)

I would hope that students do attach an emotional reaction to what they're taught. We are human beings, both rational and emotional. The Palestinian conflict isn't a rational conflict between two rational actors. Understanding the conflict means trying to understand the emotions that guide both the history and current sentiment of the Zionist struggle for the re-establishment of a Jewish Homeland and what became the Palestinian struggle. That, however, doesn't mean that teachers should direct, guide or tell students how they should feel about one side or the other. Wether one sympathizes with Israelis or Palestinians is secondary to the greater value of simply being taught what the conflict is about. One's sympathies in that, or other conflicts, is an entirely personal matter. Teaching the basics of what each side believe, presenting their arguments, though... that's the very point of education.

And I do think your biases may come into play when it comes to accurately pinpointing their intent. However, you'd also be right to demand a high level of educational professionalism in your teachers, given the news that a disproportionate amount of teachers have gotten in the news for preaching activism rather than teaching about viewpoints neutrally. It's a societal benefit for all citizens to be as aware of both the ideas and beliefs of enemies and friends, but also your neighbours, and foreign countries your countries may have dealings with (or want to go to war with). A poor level of educational professionalism among teacher staff should, IOW, not be considered a valid counter-argument for not teaching about the motivations, beliefs and history of groups, countries, ideologies or religions that run counter to American values, or just anyone's personal values.

[Martin Hash]

I will say again, most of the irrational debate I have with people, if they're debatable at all, are malformed conclusions they acquired in their teenage years. I've never met an 18-year old, including myself, who could recognize what's truly happening in the ME: the quest for control, the natural hatred one side feels towards another, the sense of superiority, self-righteousness, envy & resentment. THESE are the true motivations. American adults can barely comprehend how chaotic their own lives are, let alone another culture halfway across the world.

Any "knowledge" about the subject given to Middle-schoolers by "teachers" borders on criminal.

[Okeefenokee]

You said we should teach high school kids to think like terrorists to better fight terrorism.

You're going to have to provide the quote where I said that.

Need to defund that shit right away.

Serious question. Why is trying to understand the mindset of the enemy a bad thing?

Oh, are we training our officers from age four now?

I read high school, not preschool. Yes, agree that preschoolers shouldn't be learning about psychology.

You were fine with teaching this to high schoolers so they would understand the mindset of the enemy. Unless you're talking about future soldiers, all that understanding is gonna mean bupkis from the couch.

[Mercury]

Minds made up as children are damn near impossible to change as adults. This isn't even subtle indoctrination.

Interesting point. This is likely a natural explanation for how much influence parents have on their children's worldviews. Maybe also why teenagers feel so screwed up; they're not just questioning what they've been taught and have believed, but also, without realizing it, the choices that they themselves have made.

[Mercury]

Right, but this is where the lesson plan kinda fails. It could be useful as part of a broader study of the topic. On its own, however, it is overly simplistic (I didn't follow all of the links - just skimmed the plan and watched the videos). The motivations of only one 'side' are provided. The bomber explains that he is reacting to Israeli attacks on Palestinian settlements, but no explanation for those attacks are given, except by the bomber himself (Israelis are racist).

It doesn't say "oppressor/oppressed", that was just my interpretation, because it seemed to encourage children to attach an emotional reaction to an oversimplification of a complex issue.

A good teacher could use this material, as a supplement to a more thorough examination, but I'm not sure that that is the intent (this is where my biases and assumptions come into play, I suppose)

I would hope that students do attach an emotional reaction to what they're taught. We are human beings, both rational and emotional. The Palestinian conflict isn't a rational conflict between two rational actors. Understanding the conflict means trying to understand the emotions that guide both the history and current sentiment of the Zionist struggle for the re-establishment of a Jewish Homeland and what became the Palestinian struggle. That, however, doesn't mean that teachers should direct, guide or tell students how they should feel about one side or the other. Wether one sympathizes with Israelis or Palestinians is secondary to the greater value of simply being taught what the conflict is about. One's sympathies in that, or other conflicts, is an entirely personal matter. Teaching the basics of what each side believe, presenting their arguments, though... that's the very point of education.

And I do think your biases may come into play when it comes to accurately pinpointing their intent. However, you'd also be right to demand a high level of educational professionalism in your teachers, given the news that a disproportionate amount of teachers have gotten in the news for preaching activism rather than teaching about viewpoints neutrally. It's a societal benefit for all citizens to be as aware of both the ideas and beliefs of enemies and friends, but also your neighbours, and foreign countries your countries may have dealings with (or want to go to war with). A poor level of educational professionalism among teacher staff should, IOW, not be considered a valid counter-argument for not teaching about the motivations, beliefs and history of groups, countries, ideologies or religions that run counter to American values, or just anyone's personal values.

I don't disagree really, but the people who made that lesson plan have their own biases and assumptions just as surely as you and I do.

Did you read the lesson plan/watch the videos (they're short)?

[BjornP]

I don't disagree really, but the people who made that lesson plan have their own biases and assumptions just as surely as you and I do.

Did you read the lesson plan/watch the videos (they're short)?

Assumptions are bad, bias is...well, maybe not "good" but any human being is going to biased for or against something. Not that I see much bias in the linked lesson plan, though. I didn't watch the videos (regional restriction), but read most of the student plan. Just finished reading it more in depth now. Nothing stands out as actually biased. To me, what springs most in mind is that 14-15 year old are supposed to use paper, scissors and glue for an assignment as if they were making a kindergarten show and tell game. At 14-15 years+, you'd imagine being able to demand more of them.

But as it relates to biases and assumptions..there are signs of assumptions, and those seem to be of it focusing too exclusively on religious reasons for the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Those are there certainly, but before Zionism came around Jews only attempted to retake Jerusalem once...and that was nearly 1300 years prior to 1948. And Palestinian nationalism barely existed prior to Yassir Arafat. There were cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences between Palestinians and other Arab or Arabized Middle Easterners, but nationalism wasn't really a thing. It isn't just religious Palestinians, or even just Muslim Palestinians that have a beef with Jews.

[Mercury]

I don't disagree really, but the people who made that lesson plan have their own biases and assumptions just as surely as you and I do.

Did you read the lesson plan/watch the videos (they're short)?

Assumptions are bad, bias is...well, maybe not "good" but any human being is going to biased for or against something. Not that I see much bias in the linked lesson plan, though. I didn't watch the videos (regional restriction), but read most of the student plan. Just finished reading it more in depth now. Nothing stands out as actually biased. To me, what springs most in mind is that 14-15 year old are supposed to use paper, scissors and glue for an assignment as if they were making a kindergarten show and tell game. At 14-15 years+, you'd imagine being able to demand more of them.

But as it relates to biases and assumptions..there are signs of assumptions, and those seem to be of it focusing too exclusively on religious reasons for the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Those are there certainly, but before Zionism came around Jews only attempted to retake Jerusalem once...and that was nearly 1300 years prior to 1948. And Palestinian nationalism barely existed prior to Yassir Arafat. There were cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences between Palestinians and other Arab or Arabized Middle Easterners, but nationalism wasn't really a thing. It isn't just religious Palestinians, or even just Muslim Palestinians that have a beef with Jews.

Fair enough. The focus on religion seemed, to me an attempt to not cover some other aspects.

My view is colored somewhat by familiarity with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's output and the ways that they often frame issues. Assumptions are indeed bad, but sometimes they are necessary. When an information broker has established a pattern of omitting key aspects of what they cover, one must assume that they are not providing the whole story.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

CLEVELAND– The Cleveland Division of Police is searching for the suspect who shot and killed a man live on Facebook Sunday afternoon.



This guy broadcast that he has killed fifteen people! He's on the run. There's his picture. Be on the look out, you denizens of the mistake by the lake.



Why does CNN omit his skin color?
h/t PJW.

[JohnDonne]

CLEVELAND– The Cleveland Division of Police is searching for the suspect who shot and killed a man live on Facebook Sunday afternoon.



This guy broadcast that he has killed fifteen people! He's on the run. There's his picture. Be on the look out, you denizens of the mistake by the lake.



Why does CNN omit his skin color?
h/t PJW.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/us/clevel ... index.html

I see his picture is in this CNN link, not a blank picture like your photo shows. Have you been fake newsed about fake news?

"Authorities say Stephens is a black male who is 6-feet 1-inch and weighs 244 pounds. He has a full beard."