Most likely because of the myths taught in school,
myths which are a part of a fictional story about
what a "child" is. "Children" cannot learn without
having to buy an educational package and being taught
by a professional (being taught is taken to be
more important than learning). "Children", moreover, should
be free of responsibility, because the ability to
make responsible decisions has to be taught.
So when I come out and say that the school is preventing
its students from behaving and thinking creatively and
autonomously, no one even blinks, because "that is what
schools are supposed to be doing".
Well said. Remember though, soldier, that in the future most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
Your post is very thoughtful, and yes, I am pretty much going for the "ZOMG" argument.
Just one thing:
Children are not responsible adults, that is why we call them children.
But no, I would argue the direct opposite: They DO want them to act more like responsible adults.
"A child"--that is not an absolute category. There is no "coming of age" in regard to the
responsibility and learning, despite of what most pedagogues are saying. The "irresponsible
childhood" is perpetrated by the compulsory schooling itself. It denies the students
the satisfaction of their natural desire to make their own decisions, act on them,
and learn by experiencing what happens next. Consequently, it generally denies
them an opportunity to learn, because much of the learning is accomplished while
making a mistake. You are absolutely right if by "acting like responsible adults"
you mean "readily submitting to the authority" or "becoming consumers" (first of
education, then of everything else). What I meant, though, was more along the
lines of "walking down your own path", which has to do with exercising one's own will
and therefore being responsible for one's own actions. The latter doesn't really
happen without the former.
I am only talking about the mud that is already legal to throw.
The law in question would not make anything illegal, but would give
principals the power to detain and expel for all kinds of independent
expression outside of the classroom which the school deems inappropriate.
All of my personal experiences are negative examples; I am not very confrontational
in person.
I've seen some teachers who were incompetent, teachers who were wrong (in my opinion, at least),
and teachers who were jerks. I almost never was in a position, though, to criticize their methods, because
of the authority granted to them by the school. It would take me (and the rest of the class)
nowhere. And yet making personal decisions and choosing your own path, especially with respect
to learning, are qualities of a responsible
adult. The compulsory schooling conditions its students to sacrifice these traits for the
sake of "efficiency". I could go on a rant about how that, in turn, prepares students for
fitting into the corporate world, where the same childish attitude is encouraged (saying
"yes" to your boss when he is wrong, because "no" might get you fired), but that
would take me entirely too far from the topic.
So, you are saying, we should crack down on "cyber-bullies" and censor
speech on the Web because my potential employers are too greedy,
impersonal, and utilitarian, and they prefer to appraise me in the
cheapest way possible? That is, they go by the "cyber-rumors", which
they get off the anonymous message boards, and websites whose real
owner is unknown to determine what kind of person I am? Don't
you see a problem here?
I've been in school (both in Russia and in USA) for the past... mmm... 20 years.
I can may be think of two or three teachers who would sometimes stir the lesson
in the direction that the students wanted. Those are exceptional examples.
I can think of a couple who were so modest as to accept criticism during
the class. All of these examples are confined to the university. I cannot think of a single grade
school teacher who would not have flipped at the first sign of a student expressesing
himself freely.
It is unthinkable that any student will be prosecuted for learning outside of the school. In fact, that accusation is too retarded even to take into account.
Really? Last time I checked, the schools discredit all such education.
If you do not believe me, try to get anywhere in life without official certificates.
It's objective is to not let a few rotten students jeopardise the school climate. If a student dedicates his time to denigrate and smear the reputation of his fellow students and/or teachers, why shouldn't he be called upon his actions? Why would the school tolerate such destructive behaviour, pretend that there isn't anything wrong with it and carry on?
He should not be called upon his actions because, as you are well aware,
generally, nobody gives a damn about what some dude says on his private Web page.
Those who want to see it -- see it, and those who do not are not forced
to visit it, ever. If that is a gibberish of the type
"my principal is a monkey", then one must be insane to take offence.
If that is a libel: "my principal raped me", then we have courts
for that. If that is a fair criticism: "my principal verbally abused
students on many occasions", then... that is what they are after.
They do not want students to behave like responsible adults.
My point is that there is no such thing as "cyber-bullying". The educators'
motives stem from their desire to prohibit free expression, even though
they might say that the purpose of the law is to protect the children.
Seriously, what exactly is "cyber-bullying"? Does it involve tying up
and taping eyelids to make one read a slanderous comment? As Zorak would
put it, Where is the violence? Where is the bloodspray? Can you really
call it "bullying" if it has no violent side to it? Beating up is bullying.
Chasing down the hall and calling names is bullying. Vandalizing a
locker, smearing glue on the seat... bullying. Posting something on your
god-forsaken myspace page? Who cares?
And besides, what does "bullying" have to do with comments about teachers
and principals?
GP is talking specifically about the cyber-bullying, which is almost
an oxymoron (because you certainly do not have to visit a myspace
page where you are being slandered). Is that the part of the law you
are supporting?
What really bites is when a kid posts something mature, like
a fair criticism of the principal's actions, he gets suspended.
Kids being kids does not rock the school system nearly as much
as kids behaving like responsible adults. The latter is a strict
taboo of the compulsory schooling.
Cyber-bullying is just another word they made up. What they are trying
to control and eliminate is the free expression and the will to learn
outside of the school. It is not enough that
students are prohibited from expressing their ideas and desires (to
learn some things rather than others) during the lesson; not enough
that they are detained for openly confronting and criticizing a teacher
at school, regardless of how fair the criticism is. It is not enough
because, apparently (gasp) students are discovering that the Web
is a place where they can learn things on their own,
things that they are passionate about, and also a place where their
opinions are not getting squashed by the authority.
On a serious note, the vast amount of the artificial selection
might have been detrimental to the human evolution. I have nothing
to back up my guess, though; it's just a thought.
This is the smartest reply I've seen to the notion that "it would have
ended so much sooner if other students were carrying guns". I can just
imagine a couple of guys with no military or police training pulling
out their weapons: "Justin, what a fuck is going on? -- Some Asian kid
with a gun went postal." Then they go out in the
hall and see a bunch of other guys, some of them Asian, with guns at
the ready. Oh, that is going to work out well...
But for entertainment, I can see the need for copyright and a monopoly on distribution.
Specifically concerning the entertainment, what is that "need" you are talking about?
Who needs and what do they need? I know that publishers need copyright law so that they
can create an artificial scarcity of digital reproductions. But you obviously mean
something else.
Ah, the good old warheads myth again... The only thing that the Internet was
designed to withstand is the direct hit by an academic researcher. And it
copes pretty damn well.
I am not sure I understand. AFAIK, anyone (given the hardware resources) can
run an honest to god root DNS. I am under an impression that if every root
DNS provider suddenly closes the shop tomorrow, they can be easily replaced in a
matter of hours. (I may be wrong about this though, I don't know that much
about the Internet's inner workings.)
I agree. Whoever is fed up with the spam is already whitelisting.
They don't get any spam. If everyone was fed up with the spam,
everyone would be whitelisting and/or
using some kind of challenge,
and there would be no spam at all. There is absolutely no need for a hero
to step in and assume the absolute control in order to save the day.
If they were redoing the internet from scratch, [...]
But that's the point. Why would anyone want to rebuild it from scratch,
to "reboot" it? I can make a long list of wishes that could
improve the Internet, like higher speeds, universal access, better
email service, more addresses, better DNS, and so on. And the beauty
of the Internet is just this: we can implement any of these changes whenever we
want and however quickly we need them. We can do these things in a coordinated
manner, over a single month, everywhere in the world, or we can do them
host by host, on an opt-in basis, over a period of ten years.
There is not
a single reason to scrape the whole thing, unless there is a fundamental
problem with the design. And, sure enough, there is such a problem, and
I've outlined it above: no single aspect of the Internet can be effectively
monopolized.
RIAA, for example, can start their own DRM-net tomorrow, no one is holding
a gun to their head. Microsoft can patch Vista to refuse connections to
non-Vista computers. We'll see if that very secure design catches on.
As others have noted, anyone can start using their own non-SMTP email server,
either in isolation or with a bridge to the SMTP world. Anyone who wants
a better Internet can just start with their own server or router and then
spread the word (and people do that already with IPv6 and email, afaik).
Anything more than that is an attempt by a single party to extract more
value at everyone else's expense.
On the contrary, it would be an awesome use of money for the
folks like MS, **IA, and Bells who stand to benefit hundredfold if they assert
complete control over some aspect of the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Most likely because of the myths taught in school, myths which are a part of a fictional story about what a "child" is. "Children" cannot learn without having to buy an educational package and being taught by a professional (being taught is taken to be more important than learning). "Children", moreover, should be free of responsibility, because the ability to make responsible decisions has to be taught.
So when I come out and say that the school is preventing its students from behaving and thinking creatively and autonomously, no one even blinks, because "that is what schools are supposed to be doing".
Well said. Remember though, soldier, that in the future most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
Aye. Ijon Tichy must be turning in his astral grave.
Your post is very thoughtful, and yes, I am pretty much going for the "ZOMG" argument. Just one thing:
"A child"--that is not an absolute category. There is no "coming of age" in regard to the responsibility and learning, despite of what most pedagogues are saying. The "irresponsible childhood" is perpetrated by the compulsory schooling itself. It denies the students the satisfaction of their natural desire to make their own decisions, act on them, and learn by experiencing what happens next. Consequently, it generally denies them an opportunity to learn, because much of the learning is accomplished while making a mistake. You are absolutely right if by "acting like responsible adults" you mean "readily submitting to the authority" or "becoming consumers" (first of education, then of everything else). What I meant, though, was more along the lines of "walking down your own path", which has to do with exercising one's own will and therefore being responsible for one's own actions. The latter doesn't really happen without the former.
I am only talking about the mud that is already legal to throw. The law in question would not make anything illegal, but would give principals the power to detain and expel for all kinds of independent expression outside of the classroom which the school deems inappropriate.
All of my personal experiences are negative examples; I am not very confrontational in person.
I've seen some teachers who were incompetent, teachers who were wrong (in my opinion, at least), and teachers who were jerks. I almost never was in a position, though, to criticize their methods, because of the authority granted to them by the school. It would take me (and the rest of the class) nowhere. And yet making personal decisions and choosing your own path, especially with respect to learning, are qualities of a responsible adult. The compulsory schooling conditions its students to sacrifice these traits for the sake of "efficiency". I could go on a rant about how that, in turn, prepares students for fitting into the corporate world, where the same childish attitude is encouraged (saying "yes" to your boss when he is wrong, because "no" might get you fired), but that would take me entirely too far from the topic.
So, you are saying, we should crack down on "cyber-bullies" and censor speech on the Web because my potential employers are too greedy, impersonal, and utilitarian, and they prefer to appraise me in the cheapest way possible? That is, they go by the "cyber-rumors", which they get off the anonymous message boards, and websites whose real owner is unknown to determine what kind of person I am? Don't you see a problem here?
I've been in school (both in Russia and in USA) for the past... mmm... 20 years. I can may be think of two or three teachers who would sometimes stir the lesson in the direction that the students wanted. Those are exceptional examples. I can think of a couple who were so modest as to accept criticism during the class. All of these examples are confined to the university. I cannot think of a single grade school teacher who would not have flipped at the first sign of a student expressesing himself freely.
Really? Last time I checked, the schools discredit all such education. If you do not believe me, try to get anywhere in life without official certificates.
He should not be called upon his actions because, as you are well aware, generally, nobody gives a damn about what some dude says on his private Web page. Those who want to see it -- see it, and those who do not are not forced to visit it, ever. If that is a gibberish of the type "my principal is a monkey", then one must be insane to take offence. If that is a libel: "my principal raped me", then we have courts for that. If that is a fair criticism: "my principal verbally abused students on many occasions", then... that is what they are after. They do not want students to behave like responsible adults.
My point is that there is no such thing as "cyber-bullying". The educators' motives stem from their desire to prohibit free expression, even though they might say that the purpose of the law is to protect the children.
Seriously, what exactly is "cyber-bullying"? Does it involve tying up and taping eyelids to make one read a slanderous comment? As Zorak would put it, Where is the violence? Where is the bloodspray? Can you really call it "bullying" if it has no violent side to it? Beating up is bullying. Chasing down the hall and calling names is bullying. Vandalizing a locker, smearing glue on the seat... bullying. Posting something on your god-forsaken myspace page? Who cares?
And besides, what does "bullying" have to do with comments about teachers and principals?
GP is talking specifically about the cyber-bullying, which is almost an oxymoron (because you certainly do not have to visit a myspace page where you are being slandered). Is that the part of the law you are supporting?
What really bites is when a kid posts something mature, like a fair criticism of the principal's actions, he gets suspended. Kids being kids does not rock the school system nearly as much as kids behaving like responsible adults. The latter is a strict taboo of the compulsory schooling.
Cyber-bullying is just another word they made up. What they are trying to control and eliminate is the free expression and the will to learn outside of the school. It is not enough that students are prohibited from expressing their ideas and desires (to learn some things rather than others) during the lesson; not enough that they are detained for openly confronting and criticizing a teacher at school, regardless of how fair the criticism is. It is not enough because, apparently (gasp) students are discovering that the Web is a place where they can learn things on their own, things that they are passionate about, and also a place where their opinions are not getting squashed by the authority.
Would that also extend to students who gun down a bunch of their peers and then take their own life? Oh, nevermind...
On a serious note, the vast amount of the artificial selection might have been detrimental to the human evolution. I have nothing to back up my guess, though; it's just a thought.
This is the smartest reply I've seen to the notion that "it would have ended so much sooner if other students were carrying guns". I can just imagine a couple of guys with no military or police training pulling out their weapons: "Justin, what a fuck is going on? -- Some Asian kid with a gun went postal." Then they go out in the hall and see a bunch of other guys, some of them Asian, with guns at the ready. Oh, that is going to work out well...
Specifically concerning the entertainment, what is that "need" you are talking about? Who needs and what do they need? I know that publishers need copyright law so that they can create an artificial scarcity of digital reproductions. But you obviously mean something else.
Ah, the good old warheads myth again... The only thing that the Internet was designed to withstand is the direct hit by an academic researcher. And it copes pretty damn well.
I am not sure I understand. AFAIK, anyone (given the hardware resources) can run an honest to god root DNS. I am under an impression that if every root DNS provider suddenly closes the shop tomorrow, they can be easily replaced in a matter of hours. (I may be wrong about this though, I don't know that much about the Internet's inner workings.)
No, it's one of those things I've heard from a guy on the Internet.
Hehe, one of my most favorite teachers is the professor of Biblical history. What exactly are people like him supposed to "do"?
Forget the "taxpayer". We are consumers of even the taxpaying.
I agree. Whoever is fed up with the spam is already whitelisting. They don't get any spam. If everyone was fed up with the spam, everyone would be whitelisting and/or using some kind of challenge, and there would be no spam at all. There is absolutely no need for a hero to step in and assume the absolute control in order to save the day.
But that's the point. Why would anyone want to rebuild it from scratch, to "reboot" it? I can make a long list of wishes that could improve the Internet, like higher speeds, universal access, better email service, more addresses, better DNS, and so on. And the beauty of the Internet is just this: we can implement any of these changes whenever we want and however quickly we need them. We can do these things in a coordinated manner, over a single month, everywhere in the world, or we can do them host by host, on an opt-in basis, over a period of ten years. There is not a single reason to scrape the whole thing, unless there is a fundamental problem with the design. And, sure enough, there is such a problem, and I've outlined it above: no single aspect of the Internet can be effectively monopolized.
RIAA, for example, can start their own DRM-net tomorrow, no one is holding a gun to their head. Microsoft can patch Vista to refuse connections to non-Vista computers. We'll see if that very secure design catches on. As others have noted, anyone can start using their own non-SMTP email server, either in isolation or with a bridge to the SMTP world. Anyone who wants a better Internet can just start with their own server or router and then spread the word (and people do that already with IPv6 and email, afaik). Anything more than that is an attempt by a single party to extract more value at everyone else's expense.
On the contrary, it would be an awesome use of money for the folks like MS, **IA, and Bells who stand to benefit hundredfold if they assert complete control over some aspect of the Internet.