That system still baffles me . In Alberta you build a public school beside a catholic school . Over 1/2 the kids that go to catholic schools are not catholic and a god portion of the teachers are not practicing catholics.

Hey I went to Private Christian Education were you paid part of your tuition now their part of the school system

If you built one school and offered religious studies electives your in a better fiscal place and you could probably offer more arts and trade programs

WE agree on some things

I just want to ask again, when you claim I have no idea what the schools are teaching, are you trying to say I cited the wrong curriculum or that the schools aren't teaching the curriculum posted publicly? Also are your referring to the schools in MY area when you deny they are teaching what I cited? I wouldn't know how you would know to argue otherwise?

You skirted these questions. All the best.

Your games are not clever. You didn't just cite the curriculum. You studiedly called inclusion of indigenous ways of learning as marxist.

I accused you of straw manning me here which is clear:
This is a strawman response to my pointing out the previous strawman:
I have been accused of not knowing what is being taught in the bc school curriculum. But I cited from it. Here is more citation from the source of the public curriculum:



1) this is being taught in the BC school curriculum
2) this is marxist

Dude, I do not know the "area" you are in, nor do I care in the slightest, but I am clearly correct that you do not have any actual kids in that school district. Trust me, I and others have seen variants of you at many school board meetings over the years, and it is always obvious when a person with a huge agenda, but no actual direct contact, talks about their whatever concerns. I admit I have never seen anyone go on about Marxists so there is that!

That being said - it is often a public forum at these public meetings so feel free to speak your mind, but realize that many there have seen variants of you many times over the years. Good luck with it.

All the best.

Dude, of course not, and you have no ****ing clue what is being taught in my area other than what i have posted from the publicly available curriculum.

You get a hero cookie, but its non-sequitur when you try and establish that as evidence/fact to show that I don't know whats being taught in my local school curriculum. I do believe this perfectly shows the extent of your intellect however.

I cited the school curriculum, you said ' you have no direct idea what the schools are actually teaching'.

Again I ask, do you feel that I am citing the wrong curriculum or do you feel that they aren't teaching what is publicly stated they are teaching? I don't think you are capable of basic formal reasoning.

All the best.

Go to a public board meeting and have your say about Marxists or Groucho Marx or whatever you want. Most there will quickly identify you for what you are - a rando with no kids in the system with an agenda, so while you go on about gender identity/Marxism they will likely patiently wait for you to finish so they can get to the important topics like upgrading the play areas and such. I and others have seen countless iterations of you at annual meetings, council meetings etc. Do your things, feel better about yourself, and then realize the world will go on with your input on topics like this being given the proper weight they deserve.

All the best.

Its a weird strawman. I have no intention of going to a school board meeting, especially since I don't have a vested interest ie children in the system. I am not that person.

I have cited from the school curriculum and you have claimed you have some knowledge that suggests I don't know what is being taught in the system from my area.

I showed what is from the curriculum, I claim its being taught, and I claim its marxist. And you haven't addressed either claim, as you don't have the intellect to do so.

All the best.

Hey, all the rest of us can counter that with is actual experience with what is being taught, so you know, there you go. Not saying that assuming it will have anything to do with your agenda or need to believe in it, just letting you know that you as a character have been often encountered and are easily identified and are pretty much always completely out of sync with how actual reality works in the area of your concern. If your get off my lawn issue is Marxism in the schools then cool, at least that is a bit different. I do not say that with any expectation it will have any impact on you, and frankly most others know that (including Bobo who was much more polite than me on this) - hence they usually "humor" people like you who do make the effort to show up to say their piece on whatever, whether it be masks, gender stuff (which I have never seen at a meeting) or how the schools are not as good as they were back when they were kids in the 40s when they walked uphill in both directions. In the end they are politely told thank you, and gently moved aside as the agenda moves onto actual issues that matter. Welcome to reality.

All the best.

Again I cited the curriculum and since you feel I don't know what is being taught in my area under that curriculum I think its a fair question to ask if you are claiming that the schools aren't teaching whats in their curriculum. Otherwise what could you be possibly claiming?

All the best.

Nope.

Well, you'd be wrong.

Correct. I believe that your definition of "trans ideology" is not being taught to young kids.

Doesn't sound like it.

Allow me to clarify a bit. When I hear people talking about "teaching trans ideology to kids as young as they can", what I'm hearing is an assertion that someone is taking kids that are perfectly happy with who they are and trying to convert or change their way of thinking about themselves. To "bring them over to the trans ideology", so to speak. What is actually happening is that kids are being taught things like this:



Which can be found here, if you're interested in learning more:

https://bc.sogieducation.org/

Right. Because of course there is.

I don't see anything about "against the west" there, nor have I heard such a thought expressed in the curriculum.

Same for this.

Now it's Indigenous ideology as well? Wow, OK then.

I'm hiding behind nothing. The word is in quotes because I'm trying to reflect the way people are using it incorrectly.

Whatever you might like to call it, that doesn't sound like anything that is part of the BC education curriculum.

Perhaps you should stop trying to guess at what I mean to say, and read what I'm saying. I'm absolutely meaning to say "there isn't a movement with growing intensity and success that is pervading the infrastructure that educates the children" that is "grooming" children.

Why the **** would any of us care whether "jordan peterson would absolutely agree and assert that the BC curriculum I cited has marxist tendencies when it comes to the indigenous content"?

This.

So if we steelman that what you present is in fact being taught to kids, from that reference:

This is what some people call grooming ^^
There is only knowledge, there is not white man knowledge or indigenous, or non-Indigenous knowledge.

I'm trying to understand what you meant to imply is correct. The quotes don't help, replace it with what you mean I suggest.

I'm just pointing at this
this is what peterson calls marxist. You might not care, or care what peterson calls marxist, but you aren't being clear on anything, and its a cop out. Are you saying what you present is not taught in schools? No.

Are you saying that its not marxist? You haven't stated this.
Are you saying that someone like Peterson wouldn't think this is marxist? Or are you saying he's wrong and its not marxist?

Well, now you know why I put the word in quotes, because, as I said, I'm trying to reflect the way people are using it incorrectly.

There is knowledge that has been shared by indigenous people, just like we have learned from other cultures. I don't see the issue in distinguishing where the knowledge came from; such context can be quite useful.

Suggesting that every person has a sexual orientation and gender identity is Marxist? Um, wait, what? I thought it was pretty much an obvious fact that we would all identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc. I can't see why this would be even remotely controversial. It sounds like you and I have very different ideas of what Marxism is.

It's also kind of strange how you choose to frame the issue by identifying things as Marxist, and therefore bad. It would be much simpler if you would simply state what the problem is with these ideas. Or is there really nothing more for you than "they are Marxist"?

I'm not sure what your obsession is with Peterson in this discussion. I'm saying I don't give a **** what Peterson would think about this. I can't be any clearer than that.

I understand that part but not what is correct versus incorrect with regard to 'grooming', or rather what you mean by the word.
Context is useful and it has always been apart of the curriculum to reference the history of knowledge with context. So we agree on this distinction. Yours is important, but I would claim, with the source I gave, which is from the public stated school curriculum from my province, that is not the intent of the indigenous program. That the intent is to teach there there is indigenous knowledge that is separate and somehow sacred from non-indigenous knowledge. This is not science. Its the opposite. And that is not simply distinguishing where it came from. This is marxist (its also racist):


This is what I think we want to establish. We take on identities in a sense to traverse daily life yes. But thats not the same as treating these things as subjective and fluid to our own subjectivity. But its the next step, projecting it onto others with the expectation that they view this subjective fluidity as objective. I'm not sure how you would feel about that or if you feel thats pervading the curriculums being taught. Its a growing force I would claim.

Its the pejorative view of Marxism. Loosely put a marxist would feel that what is moral is that you act for the greater good and of course in actuality the greater good is the subjective view of the marxist. A marxist might say thats a strawman, thats why I call it the pejorative view. Its the realityof the marxist's actions and intentions.

Equality, to the indigenous knowledge teacher, means indigenous knowledge. Of course.

I understand that, but we can use him as an example to be clear about what our words are trying to convey. Because you haven't been clear. This is JP's domain of expertise. Its not clear if you think he is wrong about what marxism is, or I am wrong whether or not his definition fits this curriculum reference you gave, or if you think its simply fine that there is marxism pervading the public system etc.

You could be clear instead of saying this like 'I don't give a **** '

I will be clear for him. Your beliefs on this topic are complete nonsense. Your beliefs have nothing to do with reality. It is clear you have no kids and have no personal direct experience in this area. You would easily be identified for what you are - a rando with a whateverburger personal agenda. Yours being Marx and Jordan Knight or makes no difference other than to you.

Attend public meetings. Have your voice heard, which is clearly important to you. Odds are people will politely listen (for a while). Nothing you say will have an impact because everyone with actual personal experience will see you for the trope that you present yourself to be, but that should not matter to you, and you can tell the people who are in your specific area and spend a lot of time on this (in the real world) that they do not have your expertise in this as you see fit because you have used the internet a lot.

Hope that helped clarify it for you, though I know it will do literally nothing.

All the best.

Thats an assertion but you are still skirting the question of whether or not you mean to claim my source is not what is being taught in schools, knowing that its the actual curriculum. Retorting 'your beleifs are non-sense' is simply removing yourself from intelligent dialogue.

Thats non sequitor when I cite the publicly posted curriculum and when Boba Fett posts what he claims is being taught.

Thats a strawman I have no reason or intention to do so.


All the best.

Bring your concern to your school board in the exact way you are presenting it here and see how it goes, if not in person then in writing. Don't worry, nothing they say will change your beliefs, because you looked at the internet, but you can then see how your presentation and concerns are politely handled by them. Good luck with it! If your only plans on this topic is to yammer on them on a dusty outdated forum with old white dudes, then carry on as you need. Remember to be Hangin' Tough.

All the best.

You continue to skirt ur logical fallacy and paint me with a strawman view. I cited the curriculum. You said it wasn't what was being taught.

For every interaction I have ever had with you, this is the extent of your intelligence.

All the best.

Contact the people who are actually doing the teaching and see what they say. When they tell you that nothing you are worried about is being taught in the way you think (despite you you searching the internet) you can then hit them with all the marxist strawmen non sequitur logical fallacy with a cherry on top points you like.

If this topic matters to you, and all you are going to do is whine about this on an outdated poker forum, what else is there to say, other than ask Skalansky to start a thread on it for you.

All the best.

I posted cited sources of what is publicly stated as being in the curriculum. You acted like you knew better and accused me of referencing incorrect information because I don't have kids in the system. Thats invalid logic and the extent of your intellect.

What are you doing? All the best.

I am actively involved in this area in my municipality so I know how nonsensical the stuff you are worried about is. I have also seen many variations of you at all sorts of public meetings to know how someone clearly unfamiliar with what is actually going on is regarded when they present themselves as an expert because they cite something they found on the internet. Basically, in this area I do know better than you from a lot of personal experience. Your concerns are nonsensical. Others in this thread who are also much more directly familiar with this area have said the same thing. No doubt there are other areas where you do have more personal experience to draw upon than me and others here, but this is not one of them, and it shows. Again, I say this knowing it will have no impact, and apparently you will do nothing on this issue than talk about it on a poker forum.

All the best.

That wouldn't make you an authority on the curriculum where I am from. Its also quite suspect as being support for your argument since its you stating and self confirming you are a proper authority on the subject.
This is literally the definition of stramanning and ad hominem. The 'something' I found on the internet is the curriculum from my province. You are implying that they don't teach their stated curriculum which is baseless and absurd. Furthermore I used what boba fett posted to further my point. Thats their source. Not mine.
These are your sentiments that are based on your self stated authority. I have never seen you contribute to the content of a discussion in my history of interacting with you.

I have simply put forth the source of the curriculum. This is like your 10th time skirting the truth of this and trying to use your self asserted expertise to attack what isn't my argument nor my character, nor would that be properly engaging in rational and sincere dialogue.

You aren't capable

all the best.

As I suggested, bring your get off of my lawn concerns to those who are teaching things you believe is not proper based on your internet searches. Have your voice heard by those who are in your area. If this is important to you and you are not willing to do that and you prefer to try to win a few internet debates with those with a lot more first hand experience in this, who know you are spewing nonsense, then whatever. If the latter is at play then here you go - you win - Marxism/whatever you think is being taught exactly the way you think in the places you believe because of what you found on the internet. Congrats on that victory. Anyway, as I look at my wrist with no watch on it I realize it is time to move on from this interaction with you. Guessing you get that reaction a lot in your travels. Bye.

All the best.

Let's suppose I grant your (rather terrible) talking point that indigenous ways of learning are "marxist" and that it correct to apply this western philosophical perspective on indigenous ways of learning. Granted. Can you explain why it is bad in a way that isn't circular, i.e. it is bad because it is marxist and marxist is bad?

Let's take the first one from the list (or if this isn't the problematic one, choose another):
This seems like an entirely benign and reasonable thing. I want my kids to also understand the consequences of their actions while they are learning. Why is this bad?

I think we could inquire into this with references to marxism etc rather than suppose but for the steelman we can suppose....

Well if we think marxism is bad and that its marxist, its not really circular. But I think many here actually support marixist sentiments and have never been introduced to why they are bad.

Its bad when we label it 'indigenous' knowledge. And I am suggesting that it is very apparent this is what this part of the evolution of the curriculum is meant to do.

Its like the 'trans ideology', teaching acceptance is something proper, teaching acceptance of a specific group, and then extending specific rules from that group is what I would say is the pejorative connotation of 'ideology'.

So we have to be razor careful in expressing our opinions here because they can be easily muddied. understanding the consequences of your actions is great as part of learning, understanding the consequences of actions but with specific intent and regard to non-indigenous versus indigenous persons is a step towards racism.

Put another way, this isn't indigenous knowledge and doesn't require an indigenous arm of education:

Ascribing it as such is false conditioning.