Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfannkuchen | Hacker News Reader

I didn’t say it was fake, per se. What happens is undersampling that conveniently aliases with a supporting story for the present moral zeitgeist. It’s not hard to find samples that contradict the story. This happens primarily in history, but also in auxiliary classes that touch on history or morality such as various humanities courses and what little is covered of economics.

View on HN

The Private Catholic school I attended was forced to teach a particular religious education curriculum by the state. However, that curriculum was highly modular, and the only testing of their methodology was final test scores. So we skipped the entire section on islam (Test was "Pick 2 religions and compare them, we were given catholicism and judaism), and we also skipped every chapter under catholicism that implied any wrongdoing, historically on the part of the catholic church, like the occupations of the holy land.

Sure, everyone knows this about religious schools. Does everyone accept this about secular schools? My impression is that they do not.

And this is in contrast to private schools how? Just that they may diverge from the current moral zeitgeist to insert their own morals in the same places?

I’m not contrasting with private schools, I’m just not sure 100% of private schools do this so I focused on what I know.

It’s kind of funny how everyone projects their own dialectic framing on statements, and assumes that a person opposing side A automatically supports whatever is side B in their own mind.

Yes everyone does do that. Most people will not take a tangential single sentence criticism of an institution to mean that you hold none of the typical accompanying political views and are just narrowly opining on your experience.

I would imagine a large majority of readers read your original post and immediately in their head thought, “are they one of those school voucher people” or something along those lines.

I don’t really understand why it’s necessary to assume anything at all. Can the statement not be taken at face value?

If we are all going around assuming 99% of the positions of people we are engaging with, what is the point of discussing anything?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com