US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1407

On May 01 2019 02:59 farvacola wrote:
The US itself is a good example of how federalism and the risk of authoritarianism do not relate in the linear way described above. Decades of conservative jurisprudence on the subject (and sovereign immunity) has given state governments wide latitude to act as they please, which is why many of the worst states metrics wise will remain the worst states. How that relates to authoritarianism generally is not clear, but the idea that centralization=more risk of authoritarian government acts, at least with regards to the US alone, is not borne out by what has happened here.

On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.

That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy.

On May 01 2019 04:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:


I'll have to ask you to explain that one. This time hopefully using mutually agreed definitions of words and actual explanations that have a connecting trail of thoughts. See, it sounds like you want to say that a democracy relies on those with voting rights to be able to think critically, but I don't see what that has to do with federalism or centralism.

On May 01 2019 04:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Is this the bit where Plansix explains what he thinks you said, and you say quote him and say that is what you meant to say even if it was different from what you wrote before? I wish I had Plansix to explain my own thought processes to general audience for me.

Critical Pedagogy represents, in a phrase, the reaction of progressive
educators against such institutionalized functions. It is an effort to work
within educational institutions and other media to raise questions about
inequalities of power, about the false myths of opportunity and merit for
many students, and about the way belief systems become internalized to
the point where individuals and groups abandon the very aspiration to
question or change their lot in life. Some of the authors mostly strongly
associated with this tradition include Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, Peter
McLaren, and Ira Shor. In the language of Critical Pedagogy, the critical
person is one who is empowered to seek justice, to seek emancipation. Not
only is the critical person adept at recognizing injustice but, for Critical
Pedagogy, that person is also moved to change it. Here Critical Pedagogy
wholeheartedly takes up Marx's Thesis XI on Feuerbach: "The philosophers
have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to
change it" (Marx 1845/1977, 158).

This emphasis on change, and on collective action to achieve it, moves the
central concerns of Critical Pedagogy rather far from those of Critical
Thinking: the endeavor to teach others to think critically is less a matter of
fostering individual skills and dispositions, and more a consequence of
the pedagogical relations, between teachers and students and among
students, which promote it; furthermore, the object of thinking critically is
not only against demonstrably false beliefs, but also those that are
misleading, partisan, or implicated in the preservation of an unjust status
quo.

On May 01 2019 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


No idea why you're jumping on a pretty innocuous post with such apparent ire but it sounds like you're going to be very inhibited to my argument from me as well as there being a gap in what we're prepared to discuss.

This does seem to bring us to a bit of an impasse, but there but for the grace of god go I

Your concern seems to be focused around a disagreement on terms and their meaning so let's try to address that. Critical Pedegogy and Critical Thinking are not the same thing.



mediaeducation.org.mt

On May 01 2019 05:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Dude, where's the explanation?

I asked you for an explanation, not a copy and paste form a link.

On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.

That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy.

On May 01 2019 05:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I am simply asking you to explain properly something you have written:If you cannot or will not, that is up to you.

Does that help?

See, it sounds like you want to say that a democracy relies on those with voting rights to be able to think critically, but I don't see what that has to do with federalism or centralism.

On May 01 2019 05:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Your reluctance to actually explain yourself is rather telling and obvious to all but yourself.

It would had been easy to simply write whatever explanation you have in your own words if you believe me to have a contrary view to yourself to correct me, but instead you immediately leapt towards throwing a wall of text as an appeal of authority.

Is that clear?

It's not hard, I mean I would have even accept soemthing like how you think that a democratic society can only be maintained by a constant anti status quo, and then somehow tied that with federalism and centralisation somehow, but you can't even do that.

On May 01 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the problem is less federalism or centralism and more trying to split the baby of having a democratic society while trying to keep the members of that society mostly unable to functionally engage in that democracy.

That's to say we want to have a democracy, but we don't want to do the work it takes (critical pedagogy) to maintain a society capable of managing that democracy.

On May 01 2019 05:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No really GH lets go word by word. Lets break down your thought process.What is the problem?

On May 01 2019 03:05 JimmiC wrote:


What country is the closest to your ideal? Just trying to see if it works in practice.

My personal experience since working in government is we lack the ability to move quickly or make process improvements. We mean well but often grow almost for the sake of growth. We have an advantage of being able to pay people more and have it cost the same because we have no need for profit. We often lose this advantage do to a lack of productivity as people seem to lose motivation when there is no reward/fear of firing. In spite of this we do a way better job of keeping costs down on necessities such as health care, education, garbage, waste water, insurance, electricity so on. Because when the private gets onto those the profit creep over paces the gains in efficiency.

So my ideal system is more of a hybrid where the government controls all the "musts" (and cell phones are no falling in the category) and then the private sector controls the "wants" with government regulation to make sure the environment and so on is protected. Lots of businesses are happy with regulation when it allows them to still compete and do it well, and the regulation can keep the "bad" ones for beating them for unscrupulous reasons, creates a level playing field. In my dream scenario these regulations would be global so for example the clothing industry couldn't just move all their production to some country where they could do everything they are not allowed to and is expensive.

I would outlaw planned obsolescence and single use items like coffee cups. Costs would obviously go up but so would quality and waste would go way down.

In my ideal system their would still be a floor and ceiling but they would be MUCH MUCH closer than they are now. Ideally no poor class and no rich class but everyone would fall in that middle class bubble.