zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
Knowledge of history has gone down, year over year. Students are more likely to get a propagandized and highly skewed caricature of history that leaves out certain "inconvenient truths." This is also an overcorrection.

>>stcred+Zp
Which students, and where? I don't see that happening locally, but perhaps it's different where you are?

>>onepla+Gu
Well over 90% of people those ages I interacted with online are for throwing out principles like Free Speech and innocent until proven guilty -- it just depends on the context for them. To understand those principles, it's necessary to understand their historical origins. Virtually none of the young people in such conversations understood those things and none of them cared. All basically responded to such information as if it was trash. Stuff like, the Magna Carta and The Bill of Rights.

>>stcred+mv
You need to find new online circles. I know if no young kids who are against free speech and innocent until proven guilty. But they also feel like they don’t “personally” need to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

>>kenjac+tA
But they also feel like they don’t “personally” need to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

If you dig deep enough, for far too many of them, this amounts to either taking away certain means of speech from people they disagree with, or exercising pressure through getting people fired, or through nasty allegations.

This is exactly the same sort of extra-legal thing which homophobic societies did to homosexuals. It's the same thing that used to happen to Jewish people, even in the 20th century in the US. It's the same thing that used to happen to Chinese in San Francisco, when they as good as let Chinatown burn down. It's underhanded stuff that happened to my immigrant parents. It's not that far removed from unsavory things that happened to me in locker rooms and on the street because of my perceived race or my perceived sexual orientation.

Forcing people to not speak through fear or through unconsented force isn't winning an argument. It's oppression through extra-legal means. It's using exactly the ugliness practiced by bigots of the past. It's what I find that far too many young people advocate, and strangely label as "virtuous." How is it, that people can be like this, then be surprised when there's no societal unity? Does that even make sense?

Principles aren't legalisms to be followed by the letter of the law. They should be reflected in the attitudes and manifestly practiced values of a truly virtuous society.

>>stcred+IU
There are consequences to doing things people don’t like. There are plenty of legal things I can do that will get me fired. I’m arguing that you can say what you like and you won’t go to jail, but I don’t have to employ you. Likewise, there is probably some group that sheared your views who may want to hire you because of them.

If you hate black people and progress it daily then you probably won’t keep job at The NY Times, but there are plenty of people that share this view and I’ve seen their publications around although not with the circulation of the Times.

There are a lot of unpopular opinions. Sardines on pizza are not nearly as popular as they once were. But only a few that are so abhorrent that you lose your job or social standing.