Are these people mad?

[Workingman]

There is a push to make pupils "politically literate", so says a new group of MPs and peers, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Political Literacy.

Fine, but what does it mean?

Is it, as one interviewee says, that: "There's a fire inside of our generation that is so willing to change everything and it's motivating us to become more politically active than any other teenage group this past century," or is it, as another says, that: "Issues like Black Lives Matter, the climate crisis and LGBT rights have captured the attention of Generation Z."

If it is either then both are wrong.

The first obviously was not around in the 1960s and 70s when, believe me, we did not need lecturing about politics in school (from the state) we were out to make our own version. The second is conflating political and societal issues and is probably from a PPE graduate's perspective.

I do not like the idea one little bit. There is a danger that 1984 will creep in and that young minds will be taught what is 'good' and what is 'bad' according to the 'literacy' provider. It's dangerous in its present form.

[cromwell]

90% of University lecturers said they held left wing views in a recent survey.
If the same holds good with teachers then what you are looking at is political indoctrination.

[Workingman]

It will be indoctrination whoever delivers it, and that is my big worry. The "truth" will flip-flop depending upon which side is in power.

Unfortunately politics is such a dry subject that nobody in their right mind would ever take it so it would have to be jazzed up; and there hangs another problem.

Young minds are easily swayed as magazines, advertisers, and Internet 'influencers' already know and those who wish to push an agenda would certainly go for it. This whole thing just seems so wrong.

[Suff]

It is, in fact, exactly what the USSR did. One of the "literacy" things they would not tolerate, when teaching politics, was "why". Teachers would simply ignore the question until the pupils learned that it was unacceptable.

During the whole section 28 raging argument, my Bil (a teacher), told me I was wrong and the act would not force all school material for the 5-14 age group to contain references to sexual orientations other than heterosexual. He told me they would not have to "explain" the differences because headmasters would not buy books like that or run content like that.

I told him that it would be illegal not to include this material so heads of schools would have no choice.

Sadly I was right, much though I would have preferred to be wrong.

It is this kind of rampant politico think that has consequences far beyond any expectation.

Needless to say I am not in favour. t

[cromwell]

Yes. They will be taught the "right" way to vote.
The upcoming buzz phrase is being"kind". They will be told who is kind and who is not, the implication being not to vote for unkind people.
Those who go out to work for themselves will soon learn that it is specious rubbish. Those who go through Uni and work for the state may believe what they are taught at school; even if they don't they will soon learn that questioning the orthodoxies will kill their career in the state sector.
For instance, even as a theoretical question "Why is diversity seen as being superior to uniformity?" will kill your career stone dead were you to ask that question.

[Suff]

People who push this sort of agenda are planning for changes long after their death. They plan to set the wheels in motion and then see the consequences grow until it reaches the tower of its possible idiocy.

The real risk is that someone else, with a different agenda, sees the potential and uses it for their own ends. The most glaring 20th century example I can think of was Lenin and Stalin.

[Workingman]

We are sleepwalking into this and it appears that not many of us are bothered: ah well.

We already have an education system that abhors critical thinking at all levels from primary to degree. We pretend that it is not the case and this proposal will take it one step further in creating the future's sponges, especially in humanities subjects.

Cromwell, you are so right. Questioning or even being non-committal about current norms, mores and values will see you out the door or tagged for life. It is already happening. Look at 'taking the knee' and the hatred shown to those who refuse.

[Suff]

It's not just this agenda. I had something to say and I wanted a forum for it. I created a Twitter account for that purpose as I don't use twitter. I used no unacceptable words, it was impossible to take what I had said as racist, eletist or anything other than a question as to whether the politician in question felt that his actions had been wise.

The single tweet it has ever sent has been removed and the account suspended. Not that I care very much. I can create twitter accounts and public mail accounts all day long and send single tweets all day long if needed. Interestingly this tweet, had it not been deleted, would have been inundated over the last day. I also can use my VPN to create them.... Although Google seems to have set captcha to never complete when it detects a VPN.

Political censorship comes in many ways. I've challenged it. Let's see what comes of it. In the meantime I feel a new single use account coming up. But I quite liked that handle.

[Workingman]

Aha, censorship!

We have always had censorship by States and organisations for breaking well known and published rules. We tend to accept those even though we might not like them, but nowadays we have the insidious censorship of the people by the people. This is the more dangerous kind.

I see it every day on platforms and blogs where posts get removed simply because someone does not agree with or like what has been said. The posts do not have to have foul or abusive language or incitements to do xyz or be *phobic or *ist, all it needs is to hit the report button and the post gets removed. The days when a counter argument or position is taken and debate begins are long gone. This happens on any subject imaginable, not just politics, it's everywhere.

[Suff]

True, but asking, in a roundabout and humorous way, whether the politician in question liked the consequences of their actions, would now appear to be "unacceptable". So, apparently, holding our politicians to account is no longer acceptable. Well on public forums anyway.