This velodrome session is whooping my arse! It’s only been 1 set (of the 3 I have planned).🦶🔫
“Self-improvement is masturbation. Now self-destruction…” - Tyler Durden
In seriousness, it depends. Reform if something is worth keeping, but improving. Yet, a lack of necessity coupled with bad results could use rebellion/destruction.
If you have to teach general education, mine as well teach the AP or college freshmen curricula.
Because he enters guard in jiu-jitsu😂😂
On Florida Education’s benchmark standard of slaves gaining skills which resulted in personal benefits.
History asks, “what happened?”
At this beginning, no bias or value judgement is made.
First, there was no slavery.
Then, slavery happened.
After, blacks were freed.
Moral judgement on slavery?
OBVIOUS violation of human rights.
No rebuttal.
History asks, “what happened?”
Factual: slaves performed vocational work.
Slavery ends.
How are free blacks supposed to be self-sufficient?
Work.
The education in slavery was abysmal due to a lack of access. Their manual labor defined their limited education.
The trades enabled this *limited* access to work.
So on the political divide of this topic, I tread slow and ask readers to wait until the end to judge my thought.
Facts alone, did blacks have skills to enable some sort of self-sufficiency, however limited? Yes.
(This sides with Republicans)
HOWEVER
Why is this benchmark added to the curriculum as opposed to disregarding it?
Understanding historical facts. (Republican view)
or
Is a political agenda being enforced through coercive education? Most likely to dethrone the victimhood of slave descendants. (Democrat view)
The optimal guidelines I propose to go about this learning discussion is as follow:
• start this discussion with a clear understanding of context
• reiterate the immorality of slavery
• offer everyone to challenge their preconceived notions of WHAT happened
• Ask, “how would blacks advance in society post-slavery?”
• Although technically true, use another word than “benefit” to give a neutral judgement of facts-based history
• only have this discussion with a class that is able to discuss this with maturity
• possibly relate the benchmark clarification to the establishment of Agriculture & Mechanical universities
—————
Whilst history - the good, the bad, and the ugly - must concern facts, then offer students to make their own interpretations upon understanding facts, the addition of this standard is questionable given all the limitations being enforced for classroom discussion.
I say this, granted, I have no hope for compulsory education being a legitimate environment for honing critical thinking and reason-based debates.
If people really want to learn history, they’d ditch the textbooks and state curriculums. The replacement would be dense books written by true historians and not corporate money grabbers who write a remedial hodgepodge of paragraphs which only reach surface-level understanding.
To learn history, seek the rare discussions - the awesomeness of heroes who hide in the shadows of victory, the innocence and ideas in the losers, the evil in society’s saints, and the gut-wrenching costs of major decisions.
Republicans - all about freedom of religion (including its absence) whilst imposing their religion on political matters.
On Political Voting
“If you didn’t vote, you can’t have an opinion.”
These people would never care for your opinion even if you voted.
“You voted for a 3rd party? That’s a wasted vote.”
These people are suckers to tribalism. They wouldn’t support a policy that doesn’t neatly fit inside their party’s plan.
The people who don’t want to discuss politics with those refusing to vote “for the lesser of two evils” are the ones who only vote for the president and governor.
Yet, they hold opinions on how school should be ran without attending a board meeting, hate the taste of their water without writing a complaint to waterworks, or say the country needs more troops without allowing their kid to enter the military.
Sadly, the majority limit their political involvement to two people.
To do politics, one must fight for change in policies themselves, not merely select someone who creates a false promise through pristine rhetoric.
They want to relive their communist youth - when rent was low and status wasn’t a grand concern.
Trabaja para ahorrar dinero💸;
aprenda fisiología deportiva en el nivel de doctorado🧠
entrena para atletismo 🚴🏽♂️;
adquiera la idioma de español🇵🇪;
I’m making a future prediction to myself in 2030:
Marcelo, you still have never owned a credit card.
Debt is the enemy.
Owe your life to no one.
Americans also fight with each other, but nothing worth a Civil War.
Southern California & South Florida are highly different from their northern parts. And that’s only the beginning of culture differences here in America.😂😂
Texas would prefer to be its own country too.
This aged poorly and fast.
I just applied to a teaching position.
I consider teaching a window of opportunity for mentorship or power abuse. I only fancy the latter.
That being said, the prison-like connotation derived from the coercion aspect of schooling.
Tradition overestimates the value of the “core” curriculum.
Learn what you need.
Learn what you want.
The “need” is often not taught in school. nostr:note1glva4accstghqrqj0mws2xqh3aztrj6732sfmgmf2mr93lmwq5vqwz2m77
I’m grateful for not being indoctrinated. I was baptized as a baby, but then pondered existence in middle school, which lead me to atheism in high school (a private catholic one 😂).
I realized any good morals I developed stemmed from a secular perspective.
My best friend is super Christian which is ironic due to my stance. He roasts my vegan lifestyle, I belittle his deity. I do me. He does his thing. We aim for the same moral ends, but for different reasons. He only annoys me when he tries pushing his beliefs or tries to convince me God exists.
Religious parents should contemplate this question more than non-religious parents. The religious ones are the ones who tend to suppress freedom of choice.
