If “Vote for Educated Leaders” is truly a controversial statement, then we’re all fucked.
Your leaders absolutely should be educated, not even necessarily in politics, but Bob next door who’s only got two neurons in his head fighting for third place shouldn’t be leading any country
The indian PM has a controversial masters degree ( mostly a fake one), so when someone says vote for educated people , he feels its an personal attack on him and his party !
I mean if he chose to communicate his preference, that’s a problem. But “Vote for educated leaders” shouldn’t be exactly controversial. If you’re angry, is it because you know the ppl that you voted for are uneducated?
Well that is where societies get to. Being educated or uneducated becomes equivalent to a political stance. There are plenty of examples of educators getting murdered by governments, sometimes en masse.
What’s more concerning is when a society is populated by people who have take the most facile understanding of a position, and then go about confidently as if they understand it. Like, say, if a news article has a rage porn headline and then people don’t read it to understand what actually was going on but make comments on websites as if there was no nuance to the subject whatsoever. … Very concerning.
sigh the massacres were in side streets, not the square. The students themselves left under the threat of being removed violently once it became clear that the hardline faction in the CCP had won out over the reformists.
Saying things like “Students were massacred on the square” only gives the CCP ammunition for their “see what kind of vile propaganda the west spreads, they’re making shit up” narrative.
He said, “Next time vote for someone who is well-educated so you don’t have to go through this again.” I agree with him, and moreover I think teachers should be allowed to express themselves because everything is political. But I can’t in good conscience argue that this was a politically-neutral statement. In particular, the words “Next time” are saying very plainly that he doesn’t think it went well this time. This is a political argument against the current ruling government.
he made a response on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU09ODTvMqg
He said he meant to be politically neutral.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=fU09ODTvMqg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It’s so incredibly sad how adults need to be reminded and told to vote for people that have a background with real education. I can’t believe people don’t care about education when it comes to voting for someone to be put in your government. I feel sorry for those people who don’t. You know it’s the people who don’t that have lives that revolve around politics and consume it everyday
It turns out that the more you know about the world, the more you tend to lean left.
It’s no wonder the right wants to keep people as ignorant as possible.
Identifying left and right is also ignorant. There is no balance to the thought process.
Sure, let’s not vote for the person that dedicated years on studying history, sociology, economics and political science (or “social studies” if you prefer). Let’s instead vote for the person that stepped on everyone’s heads to make sure he and his company are successful! What could go wrong? Running a country is exactly the same as running a factory, no?
And I’m sorry that so many universities are heavily left-leaning. I’m sure that if the right stops burning books at every corner there would be more right-leaning universities (tho politics should always stay out of classes in my opinion).
I seen a couple of these typical youtube commenters. “Left-leaning university”, shut the fuck up jeez. They are either completely lost here, or intentionally trolling, or pursuing their victim complex by venturing into enemy territory.
This is the dumbest comment I’ve seen on lemmy yet.
Well the first part is spot on…
Actually, there are numerous trades and other careers where you dont go to college and do very well.
The second part, not so much…
But please keep voting for people with degrees in History because thats working out awesomely.
Eh, more like you want law makers to prove they’re smart enough to understand how the law works. Honestly, a high school education doesn’t prove that. It’s not that someone with only a highschool education can’t teach themselves law, only that they’ll have to find a different way to prove they have the ability to be a good administrator. Even just a college degree doesn’t guarantee the person is all that competent, but it’s better than no degree. It sucks that the world is that way, but any other education system just changes exactly where the lines in the sand are for quickly judging people.
I’d rather they are educated in facts and not feelings.
The facts they teach in school have been rigorously tested for centuries. They aren’t just some opinion of an angry Youtuber. If you don’t agree with them feel free to debunk them using science and receive your Nobel price.
That you don’t get how most facts support left leaning policies says more about you than about the left.
Do you think the guy running his own lawn mowing business would be a better surgeon than the girl who spent 25 years in STEM studies, medical school, and residency?
You imbeciles think being a representative/senator/president is like volunteering at the after school bake sale. And that’s why we have such shitty politicians.
Good luck with that lawn mowing guy trying to remove your colon cancer.
Medicine has a clear goal- politics do not. That is one of many reasons that good governance should not be looked for only in academia. A really simple example, if I run for senate should I campaign on policies that help my state but cause diffuse harm nationally or should I campaign on policies that may cause specific harm to my state but are good nationally? I’m not asking which you would win with, I’m asking which is being a good senator? Should I respect the will of their constituents if it conflicts with my personal morality? If I’m a member of group which feels underrepresented in or betrayed by higher-level academia should members of that group vote in a member of academia regardless? Even within a technocracy, ignoring voters, there still has to be aligned goals with the “gatekeepers” to be included in the technocracy- otherwise they will see your conclusions and deem you wrong, unfit. People can be fully informed, acting in 100% good faith, and equally intelligent and still disagree on moral principles and therefore will strongly differ in conclusions.
Tell me you don’t know what the work “educated” means in a truly demented political rant without admitting you don’t know what the word means.
Plumbers. He’s talking about people who’ve done plumbing appreticeships. It seems pretty obvious.
Yeah no the whole “Universities are leftist brainwashing stations” is the most bullshit take I’ve heard and almost always comes from people who haven’t been within 15 feet of a college.
Literally most of the shit I was taught was literally neoliberal capitalist-friendly stuff mandated by the states requirements for the degree. A ton of it was helpful in terms of building effective critical thinking skills but if anything the only instructors that ever introduced any sort of political slant was usually the right wingers or religious people. Literally had an instructor intentionally frame parts of our philosophy class in a way that made more pro-religious philosophy appear to be the correct answer. Students that spoke out and tried to say they favored things like determinism for instance were often shut down by the instructor trying to make us look at things like free will in a way that was more favorable to religion. Later found out after the class the dude was a former pastor.
And even the few openly left-leaning instructors were usually just generic neoliberal democrat voting cut-outs that for some reason Republicans and other fringe lunatics pretend are leftist-communist-extremist-goblins.
The vast majority of instructors just simply didn’t even make their politics affiliation apparent. There’s tons I couldn’t even remotely gauge just simply because they only taught and talked about class material.
The US republican/trump/conservative (known collectively as Nazi’s) followers are historically against education. These people are currently promoting a religious inquisition to eliminate books and curriculum in schools that they feel do not align with their hate based religious and intolerant beliefs. Teachers and librarians are being physically threatened and fired for refusing to comply with the book bans and twisted educational mandates. The politicians that populate the groups I mentioned are not considered smart themselves (like stating wind generators were a threat because they would use up all the wind eventually) so advising children to vote for educated politicians threatens their one and only goal, the retention and accumulation of more power.
Around 40% of Indian politicians are only educated up to school (stat might have changed), and the ruling party is quite dystopian in silencing narratives that go against it.
Sorry, but what does “up to school” mean? (I am American, and many of our education groups are schools.) Is that school prior to college, ending near age 18, or something else?
Edit: thank you, I now understand
I would guess that most republicans politicians are actually pretty highly educated. Trump even went to ivy league schools. They value it, just not for their voters.
Quirk of a polarized political system thanks to FPTP-voting. Sooner or later even the lamest, most basic stuff suddenly turns political and “controversial” while billionaires laugh all the way to the bank. It’s by design and what happens when groups of individuals are allowed to hoard obscene wealth and use it to rule the masses.
I mean - I dislike financial inequality as much as the next person, but attributing the failing education system and polarization to “billionaires” will get us nowhere.
The vast majority of politicians, educators, propagandists and just insecure people are not billionaires. Don’t take away their responsibility, they are not mindless babies.
Except that the money flowing to the top 1% are the result of politics. The tax cuts which funnel money out of the public coffers and into billionaires’ pockets also require cuts to services, like education. Polarization is what’s required to motivate voters to continue to vote against their own interests. They’re very much connected.
The question then is why the 1% have such influence. Why is lobbying even legal when politicians are supposed to represent the people. Why are politicians allowed to trade stocks with inside information on policy. Why do we allow money to corrupt democracy.
Other countries have the problems of first past the post (and I’m it’s biggest critic) but I don’t think politics is as polarising like a team sport as in the USA, and monetary incentives like lobbying are illegal in most countries
Everything is connected if you look deep enough. People who drive rolling coal cars and hate “the libs” are responsible for their action. Choosing an ideology, watching propaganda, immersing oneself in hate are all actions. Sure, billionaires are having an outsized impact on the world. That’s power. In general - power does corrupt. We, the people, have to take responsibility for our actions, not expect billionaires to stop growing and exercising their influence. It’s easy to blame “the billionaires” for making someone a shitty person.
