#ideological indoctrination

[cupidsncheerios]

its so wild to me how underpoliticized jayvik is in fancontent, especially considering how incredibly political their league roots are

like. arcane set up two character arcs about assimilating into oppressive cultures, living with disability and trying to change the nature of life & death, and working to change the world and help the downtrodden only to be stopped by capitalism every step of the way and then forced to confront the fact that your efforts did more harm than good, and fans have NOT DONE ENOUGH to make these characters leftists. nuh uh. not on my watch.

anyway tune in next week for my fic where viktor takes jayce to a communist meeting and they make awkward eye contact with a guy they're pretty sure is silco the whole time

[isuggestbetterforcemasc]

when i say forcemasc as it currently stands (mostly) sucks, it's less that i think that forcemasc as a concept sucks and more that the majority of the execution is really bland. it doesn't explore even half of the concept, instead existing in this kind of blandly motivational twilight zone where your masculinity is rewarded universally by some nonspecific male role model or lover. i haven't dedicated as much time as i could be to trying to fix that, admittedly, but i have been trying to shoot off an idea here and there.

forcemasc as a concept exists as a sort of bizarro mirror to forcefem. forcefem in its original incarnation is about stripping someone's identity away and reducing them to a sexual object for someone's pleasure. it's "what if we did misogyny to men so intensely that they ceased to be men at all?" you are reduced to something framed as being intrinsically pathetic and degrading. the flip side of this isn't necessarily "what if we uplifted women until they weren't women anymore?" it would be "what if we applied coercive masculinity to women until they ceased to be women at all?" sometimes the fantasy of being loved as a real person instead of as a set of reproductive organs performing expected behaviors is nice. it's fluff. it's comforting. i don't mind the light stuff. but it's not sexy.

proper forcemasc, to me, is about taking away the only thing society values you for. you cannot reproduce, you have no breasts, your beauty is gone. you're almost male, but not quite. all the sweat and hair and muscle, but none of the virility that would validate its presence. permanent damaged goods, playing at being something better. if you cannot be regendered, if you can't be used as a tool for someone else's legacy anymore, what kind of tool are you? men are defined by their purpose. do you exist for pleasure? do you enforce? do you wield power on someone else's behalf? you're trapped in almost-power. no matter how well they treat you, you're still a mere puppet to power.

[amygdalae]

My archeology prof has gone on multiple tangents about how stupid gender reveal parties are ("they aren't gender reveal parties, they're sex reveal parties, and that's stupid) and spent a good chunk of a lecture going into how gender is a cultural/social construct and gender does not equal sex and neither gender nor sex are anywhere near as binary as western norms have us believe. And also she's beautiful. Just bragging

[gynandromorph]

maybe it's just the context that i have? i'm sure i've posted this before

even then???!?!?? there are people who still go to church after God kills their mother!!! there are people who still go to church after the pastor drops dead during the sermon because God decided it was HEART ATTACK TIME!!!!!! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO START GOING TO CHURCH AGAIN AFTER GOD GIVES THEM STAGE 4 CANCER

SO I CAN'T EVEN SAY "NO ONE WOULD DO THAT" CLEARLY A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD DO THAT

[ladystardustinblackjeans]

"Empty Calories"

I'm sure most people have heard of this term. It's most often used for carbohydrates, but I've also seen it applied to "sauces and oils" and almost all processed store bought food.

It has never made sense to me and i want everyone who reads this post to know that it is indeed a nonsensical term.

Now the first reaction to it from me is "Empty of what?" The answer to that is usually "nutrients". Nutrients being restricted to the nutrient group of choice of the person using the term, often vitamins and minerals.

Don't get me wrong, vitamins and minerals are great and many people don't get quite enough of them. But the people saying this type of thing tend to have overreacted and could usually benefit from some moderation, specifically the fact that you don't need to intake 3000% of your daily requirement of vitamins and minerals in every single meal. I am exaggerating that number for emphasis but only slightly. Plus most vitamins and minerals are water soluble so your body can't store them in large quantities. You just piss them out if you eat more than your body can use or store at the moment. And for the fat soluble ones: with the still widespread movement of a low or no fat diet people can't even absorb fat soluble vitamins properly so it doesn't matter how many they might eat.

Looking closer at the underlying logic that lies behind the usage of the term empty calories, it tends to be a fear of calories. Maybe they have progressed from trying not to eat anything at all but need a justification for what they allow themselves to eat, maybe they are trying to intensely maximise every single food intake for health benefits via vitamins or protein or whatever it is.

Whatever the specific logic is, the conclusion is usually that calories need a valid reason to be allowed inside their body.

So, what even is the point of calories? Do they need a justification for existence other than what they already bring to the table? (pun intended)

The point of calories is, of course, energy. And since taking in energy and building blocks for your body is sort of how we keep our bodies going to do the whole being alive thing, I don't see how "energy" by itself isn't already a valuable property for food to have.

To get into more specific examples: what is empty about carbohydrates? First of all, they often also contain a number of vitamins, minerals and protein as well. But secondly, they contain easily accessible energy. Which is of course a sin under the doctrine that energy is bad for you, but also makes this inaccurate on a definitional basis.

Food contains micro and macro nutrients. Micro nutrients we don't need a large quantity of, such as vitamins, minerals, etc. Macro nutrients are bigger quantity wise, and are carbs, fat and protein. And we do indeed need all three groups to keep up our body. Plus fibre but we usually can't absorb those nor are we supposed to, they're for the digestive tract.

When people say that carbs are "empty calories" it always confuses me. Empty of what? Empty of nutrients? They're literally one of the three macro nutrients. Empty of purpose? They have easily accessible energy. Empty of micro nutrients? Often not even, plus we don't need to consume our entire daily requirement of those with every meal. Side note, one of the purposes of food is enjoyment and the big bad scary sugar can certainly be useful for that.

One of the main applications of the term "empty calories" is processed food. Or specifically, (highly) processed store bought food (as opposed to the food processed at home i suppose).

And i agree that a lot of, especially highly processed, store bought food doesn't contain much micro nutrients and is maximised to be tasty (although that isn't bad, per se; pleasure isn't evil). But people also sometimes underestimate the nutritional contents of not instagram-photogenic store bought food (for example many frozen vegetables contain more vitamins and secondary plant substances than fresh vegetables who had a long way behind them). And while balance is important and yes, a lot of people don't could use some less highly processed food in that balance, one could, if one really cares about the topic, for example work to increase knowledge of home cooking skills and gardening. It is perfectly fine to get energy and macro nutrients from highly processed food. Because again, we won't wither like a petulant flower when we don't get all of our daily requirement of vitamins and minerals in every single meal. It is also completely normal to spread that intake not evenly over every day but in bursts, as we are evolved to. I am not a big fan of the current food industry, but demonising "empty" calories doesn't help change that industry or how it contributes to climate change and human rights violations and exploitation. Directly doing activism to reform the food industry might.

"But that is not how our ancestors lived and ate" first of all are you sure? Did you get that info from someone with cited credible sources and historical/archaeological research into diet and agriculture and common recipes 100 300 5000 years ago? Or from someone who sells a free pdf detailing how you can start your clean eating journey if you comment "course"? A lot of historical recipes were maximised to be tasty, to be high energy, or to use food that could be stored long term. They did have knowledge and skills about what they were doing but it wasn't some arcane mystical teachings that will bring us salvation cure you of all your issues.

Second of all yeah it's different. We are living in different times and we have a way higher population world wide that just can't be fed the same way anymore. Industrialisation has people in cities and a small number of people specialised in agriculture with big machines. This doesn't mean there aren't things that could do with some improvement in that system, but it's just different, not evil. Maybe learn about the fast food places and renter based apartment blocks in ancient rome 2000 years ago and realise that this is not some unprecedented thing, and you won't be easily influenced by people invoking a magical pure past to sell their stuff and get engagement on social media.

Im conclusion: what are empty calories? Usually all foods/food components that don't contain the specific group of nutrients, nutrients that the person making that claim has decided are valid as a justification for allowing calories into their body.

While actually, those calories aren't empty, they contain calories. And usually in high concentration, which is mighty helpful for taking in enough energy to keep staying alive, and the result of our ancestors working hard towards making food more nutrient and energy dense and hopefully also more tasty, so it may keep them alive with less effort. And isn't it marvellous that we now have such foods available to us?

I recommend anyone invested in the topic to get some available science education about the chemical base for what our food is made of, the biological processes in digestion, and what parts of the body all the various food components get used in. It's very helpful in learning to decipher what the health bloggers and "nutrition experts" are talking about and if they're just trying to sell you something.

Don't just believe my post either, google my claims. Read some more about the ones that interest or upset you the most.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Brad Polumbo

Published: Jun 25, 2024

Republicans are very concerned about left-wing indoctrination in the public school system, and often for good reasons. Yet, it seems that some Republican leaders feel differently about ideological indoctrination in the classroom when they’re the ones doing it. 

In Louisiana, a recent law mandates the display of the Ten Commandments across all public educational institutions, from elementary schools to universities. The bill, championed by Republican Governor Jeff Landry, was signed into law at a private Catholic school. During the ceremony, Governor Landry declared, “If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses.”

This makes Louisiana the only state in the nation with such a mandate. Other red states haven’t ventured into this territory in recent years, perhaps because they know it’s blatantly unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Governor Landry appears undeterred, openly stating that “can’t wait to be sued.”

He may not have to wait very long.

A coalition of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has already announced its intention to file suit, condemning the mandate as “unconstitutional religious coercion of students, who are legally required to attend school and are thus a captive audience for school-spons.ored religious messages.” The ACLU also added that the mandate “send[s] a chilling message to students and families who do not follow the state’s preferred version of the Ten Commandments that they do not belong, and are not welcome, in our public schools.”

This is not uncharted territory. The ACLU cited the 1980 Supreme Court case Stone v. Graham, where the court explicitly ruled that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits the establishment of a formal state religion, prevents public schools from displaying the Ten Commandments. 

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” the Supreme Court ruled in that case. “However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

Governor Landry is surely aware of this precedent and simply does not care that this legislation will almost certainly be blocked in the courts. Nonetheless, it represents an opportunity for him to signal his cultural war bona fides—a move that, in any other context, Republicans might rightly describe as empty “virtue signaling.”

Regrettably, this isn’t just an isolated incident among Republicans in one conservative state. Louisiana’s initiative has garnered support from many of the most prominent figures in the modern GOP. One such figure is Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who praised the legislation in an interview with Real America’s Voice. “This is something we need all throughout our nation,” she said. “I’m so proud of Governor Landry…. We need morals back in our nation, back in our schools, and if there’s anything we’re going to present in front of our children, it should be the word of God.”

This stance appears to be a mainstream view within the Republican Party, as the party’s leader, Donald Trump, also threw his support behind Louisiana’s efforts in a post on Truth Social: 

The Republicans’ embrace of this religious mandate in public schools is deeply hypocritical, contravening many principles they have previously claimed to stand for, and incredibly short-sighted. 

Firstly, they are proving to be fair-weather fans of the First Amendment. These same types regularly champion free speech when it comes to opposing government censorship or progressive attempts to crack down on “hate speech” (which now includes uttering basic biological truths), and they are absolutely right to do so. However, you cannot selectively support the First Amendment, endorsing free speech and freedom of religion clauses while actively violating the Establishment Clause. After all, if Republicans can disregard the parts they don’t like when it’s inconvenient, then progressives can too!

Secondly, Republicans are compromising their stated beliefs about the importance of parents’ rights and opposing “indoctrination” in schools. Now, they suddenly advocate for the government’s role in teaching children morality, instead of leaving this responsibility to parents or families.

Which is it? Consistent supporters of parents’ rights believe that it should be up to parents to teach their kids about morality, whether it concerns pronouns or prayer. 

There’s also the issue of misplaced priorities. Louisiana ranks 40th out of all 50 states in education. Meanwhile, 40 percent of 3rd graders cannot read at grade level, according to The Advocate. Yet, the governor prioritizes mandating posters of the Ten Commandments—and allocating tax dollars to defending it in court—that many students probably can’t even read.

Even many conservative Christians can see the issue here. As radio host Erick Erickson put it:

When the 3rd grade reading level is only 49 percent, I don’t see why the state wants to spend money on lawyers for a probably unconstitutional law making the Ten Commandments mandatory just to virtue signal a side in a culture war. Actually use conservative reforms to fix the schools instead of putting up posters half the 3rd grade cannot even read.

Perhaps the most common Republican rejoinder is that displaying the Ten Commandments is an educational initiative focused on historical context rather than a promotion of religion. But while there’s no disputing its historical significance, it’s not being presented as part of a broader course on religion that features a variety of religious and secular perspectives, which would be fine. Instead, beliefs from a particular religious tradition, the Judeo-Christian one, are being elevated and mandated to the deliberate exclusion of others. This selective approach is hardly subtle: Governor Landry purposefully signed the bill at a Catholic school and even referenced Moses! 

There’s no denying that the Ten Commandments are inherently religious, as they proscribe not only murder and adultery but also idolatry, taking the Lord’s name in vain, and working on the Sabbath. So, conservatives making this “history, not religion” argument are straining credulity. 

What’s more, further empowering government schools to promote a specific ideology to students will not end well for conservatives. It’s not exactly breaking news that the public education system is overwhelmingly staffed and run by people with increasingly left-leaning political and cultural views. Conservatives should be fighting to restore viewpoint neutrality in the public square—not further undermining it and thereby making it easier for woke ideologues to propagandize to everyone’s kids. 

It’s sad, but ultimately not surprising, to see so many Republicans proving to be inconsistent allies to true liberal values. At least those few genuine, principled defenders of the First Amendment now know who our allies are—and who they are not. 

--

About the Author

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.

==

Moral consistency requires opposing both.

... Secularism means that no particular ideology is being forwarded and getting special treatment. Go have your belief. Believe what you want. Privately. You don’t get special treatment because you believe this with tons of conviction. Secularism means that your belief in your faith covers none of the distance to proving that it’s true. Conviction is not evidence of much of anything. Except conviction. -- James Lindsay

--

“If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses.”

Leviticus 25:44-46

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Who's going to tell him?

[imscaredofyou2824]

hello transgender community, why are so many detranstioners videos like that. I cant find any that don’t just blame queer people for their problems as if it’s their fault you thought anything. Also if I see one more goddamn post by buck angel im gonna delete YouTube. I am so sick of seeing him and Blair white being pretty much the only search results about detransition.

[superdiscochino]

Helping 12-year-old study for her history test the other night, they're doing European explorers, I'm reading names off flashcards, "Hernan Cortes" "Amerigo Vespucci" "Vasco de Gama," and every time she starts with "he discovered..." I make giant air quotes and exaggeratedly say "DISCOVERED" and every time she's like I KNOW I KNOW I GET IT!!!

[omegaphilosophia]

How Ideologies Are Used to Control People

Ideologies are comprehensive sets of beliefs and ideas that provide a framework for understanding the world and guiding behavior. While they can unite and inspire people, ideologies can also be employed as tools for control. Throughout history, those in power have used ideologies to manipulate perceptions, shape social norms, and maintain authority. This blog post explores the mechanisms through which ideologies are used to control individuals and societies.

The Mechanisms of Ideological Control

Creation of In-Group and Out-Group Dynamics:

Us vs. Them: Ideologies often define clear distinctions between those who belong to the group (in-group) and those who do not (out-group). This division fosters loyalty and conformity within the group while encouraging hostility or distrust towards outsiders.

Social Identity: By aligning personal identity with the ideology, individuals become more invested in its tenets and more likely to defend it against criticism.

Normalization of Certain Behaviors and Beliefs:

Cultural Norms: Ideologies establish what is considered normal or acceptable within a society. By defining these norms, ideologies shape behaviors and attitudes, often discouraging dissent or alternative perspectives.

Social Sanctions: Deviating from the established norms can result in social sanctions such as ostracism, criticism, or punishment, reinforcing adherence to the ideology.

Manipulation of Information:

Control of Media: Those in power often control media outlets to disseminate propaganda that supports their ideology. By controlling the narrative, they can shape public perception and opinion.

Censorship: Suppressing information that contradicts the dominant ideology prevents individuals from accessing alternative viewpoints and forming independent opinions.

Education and Indoctrination:

Curriculum Design: Ideological control often begins in the education system, where curricula are designed to promote certain values and beliefs. This early indoctrination shapes the worldview of individuals from a young age.

Repetition and Reinforcement: Repeated exposure to ideological messages through education, media, and social institutions reinforces belief in the ideology.

Appeal to Emotion:

Fear and Insecurity: Ideologies often exploit fear and insecurity to maintain control. By portraying external threats or internal chaos, those in power can justify their authority and the need for strict adherence to the ideology.

Hope and Aspirations: Conversely, ideologies also appeal to positive emotions like hope and aspirations, promising a better future for those who follow the prescribed beliefs and behaviors.

Legitimation of Authority:

Divine or Moral Justification: Many ideologies claim divine sanction or moral superiority, making it difficult for individuals to question the authority without feeling morally or spiritually compromised.

Institutional Support: Institutions such as the government, church, or educational bodies often endorse the ideology, lending it legitimacy and authority.

Use of Symbolism and Rituals:

Symbols and Icons: Symbols, flags, anthems, and other icons serve as tangible representations of the ideology, fostering a sense of unity and identity.

Rituals and Ceremonies: Regular participation in rituals and ceremonies reinforces the ideology, creating a sense of community and shared purpose.

Historical and Contemporary Examples

Totalitarian Regimes:

Nazi Germany: The Nazi regime used propaganda, education, and fear to instill its ideology, emphasizing Aryan supremacy and anti-Semitism to justify its actions and policies.

Soviet Union: The Communist Party controlled information, education, and social norms to maintain its ideology, suppressing dissent and promoting loyalty to the state.

Modern Democracies:

Media Influence: In contemporary democracies, media conglomerates can shape public opinion by promoting certain political ideologies and downplaying or ignoring others.

Educational Content: School curricula in various countries are often designed to instill national pride and support for the prevailing political system.

Ideologies can be powerful tools for shaping societies and guiding individual behavior. While they can promote unity and shared values, they can also be used to control and manipulate populations. By understanding the mechanisms through which ideologies exert control, individuals can become more critical consumers of information and more aware of the forces shaping their beliefs and actions.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Margo Margan

Published: Jan 7, 2025

“The teacher’s weak “Congratulations!” Opening a blue envelope as she said “This doesn’t really matter…” Award-winning SAT scores I swore to hide. Eye rolls mocking me for wanting AP classes. Squalling protests over homework. Finding the book we read senior year in my middle school sister’s bookbag.”

This is a scene from Chapter 3 of my fiction piece IVY, where protagonist Seph Quark is told to hide his academic interests in favor of being something “different.”

The same scene happened to me with my ACT scores. I was told not to tell my friends I did well so they wouldn’t feel bad. I went to a private high school, one trying to correct the problems found in traditional education. We were told their curriculum was much better for our mental health.

I find it fitting that this piece is being published at The Coddling of the American Mind, as my high school’s curriculum is best described as “coddling us to death.”

The Coddling of My High School

Teachers employed a tactic they called “scaffolding,” which gives guidance so students wouldn’t be left to figure things out alone—for instance, using fill-in-the-blank worksheets in place of taking notes.

We were assigned 16 “senior exhibitions’ to prepare us for college (or as I like to call them, 16 actual homework assignments.) For instance, a test on “Calculations and Number Sense,” would include problems like, “Which number is in the hundreds place?”

Students could work on these homework assignments during regular classes, and we were also forced to attend summer school to make sure we finished them. Though it felt like we were being tested on things we should know in order to attend high school, our teachers told us, “Colleges want students who can challenge themselves. It’s not about being the smartest.”

No need for merit!

My art teacher taught us nothing. He offered three different electives — Comic Art, Drawing & Painting, and Bookbinding — but all were effectively a break period to do whatever we wanted, as long as we had some type of “art” for the school’s art show by the end of the year. We were told our teacher was missing qualifications, and the classes were named to look better on college applications.

My high school offered something called “spring mini-courses,” courses we paid for to study something special for a week. I signed up for a playwriting course, expecting something rigorous.

When we shared work for critique, I realized I wasted my money. We used something called “Liz Lerman style feedback.” As “all art is subjective,” our feedback was meant to help identify if the work met the artist’s intention. We were instructed to:

Say what stood out to us

Ask a question

Say what we wanted to see more of

How could “learning what others wanted to see more of,” help us identify flaws in our work?

What if the work met the artist’s intentions, but failed in execution?

Weren’t we here to learn?

Luckily, artists were shielded from facing potential discomfort. After all, hearing criticism could make someone give up art.

The Outside World is Deadly

While it may seem like we faced nothing difficult, this was not the case. My high school was sure to make us aware of society’s hard truths. Our curriculum had a social justice focus.

It began the first week of school.

We sat silently in the auditorium, as one by one, different identity groups were called to stand. While participation was optional, our principal told us we were “highly encouraged” to stand with our groups. I didn’t want to look selfish, so I did—even when I wanted to keep something private, like the disability I believed I had. (I was misdiagnosed with autism.)

I didn’t know these student’s names, but I knew which gender they had crushes on, and who had been diagnosed with mental disorders.

In fact, students were so happy to talk about challenging subjects that I knew which psychiatric medications everyone in my class was on.

In history class, we had a unit on social norms. We learned about influential sociologists, as well as a woman and a black man in the field. Our teachers made sure everyone felt “represented” so we would not become depressed.

Through this unit and others like it, we were shown footage from the darkest parts of American history. Riots against civil rights protestors? Yep. Stonewall Riots? Yep.

Pick a Historical U.S. Riot, I’ve seen every episode!

In English, we read books with themes of discrimination like Kate Chopin’s The Awakening, Gene Luen Yang’s American Born Chinese, and James Baldwin’s Giovanni’s Room. While my peers at other schools were reading To Kill a Mockingbird and practicing writing techniques, we were watching videos about Asian stereotypes and, yes, a documentary on the Stonewall Riots.

To Kill a Mockingbird was removed from our curriculum because the author was white.

Our school taught us to exercise critical thinking when analyzing texts. We learned that Shakespeare might be gay. We discussed if Nick from The Great Gatsby was gay.

Yes, Nick had a relationship with a woman, but she was the most masculine option he could choose. Yes, it was a book from the 1920s, but Fitzgerald, like Shakespeare before him, was definitely trying to slip some homosexuality into his work.

Yes, my teachers modeled the antics of middle school fanfiction authors who romanticize gays as supposedly being intellectually superior.

We were also sure to look for signs of prejudice in the texts. For instance, Giovanni’s Room was critiqued for lacking female representation. Sorry, Baldwin, not even your diversity credits could get you out of this one!

The Culture Spreads

It’s not a problem specific to only my high school. At the school where I interned for my gap year, these practices were not uniform, but they were starting to creep in among some of the staff.

For instance, I recall something from my leadership skills course — some of you may remember the class where my teacher asked if I was so quiet because my fellow student’s maleness made me uncomfortable.

We were shown something called an identity wheel (see above). The center circles are the “big ones,” as my teacher put it, the most important pieces of a person’s identity. Towards the outside are smaller, less important pieces.

We were asked to share what on the wheel we thought about the most. One of my classmates didn’t answer, saying it was “too personal.” I wish I had the courage he had.

Readers of IVY have told me that while Seph thinks about being gay a lot, it makes sense narratively and doesn’t feel preachy. Schools like mine and Seph’s pointed to a diagram and told us sexual orientation was the center of our personality. Whether it helps or hinders the narrative, it’s why I portray Seph thinking things like this: “…“being queer” was who I was meant to be. [...] I was coming out blazing or I was a deadbeat husk.”

The Aftermath

Did my school’s safety blanket of support prepare us to handle any challenges life threw at us? No.

My classmates snapped at the prick of a pin. When asked to read two chapters of Frankenstein— only ten pages—for a quiz the following day, the school was in an uproar. Students in this so-called “intensive” English class struggled so much, the teacher dropped the book in favor of reading a play adaptation. At least we learned Nick from Gatsby isn’t straight.

We were shown an inflated version of ugly truths. If we denied them, we were called cowards. But at the same time, the school babied us with frequent compliments. Instead of being taught to handle criticism, criticism was treated like a death sentence. We believed the world outside only contained bad apples—a mindset useful only for radical protesters.

Were we prepared for college? No.

A friend told me she hadn’t been challenged for so long she wasn’t even sure what she was capable of. She and nearly every person I knew from my school either had to transfer colleges or dropped out entirely. I can’t think of a single classmate of mine who actually graduated.

While many had mental health issues coming into my high school, I strongly believe the school made them worse. Moreover, the school drained the potential from many bright people who didn’t have mental health issues.

This scared me so much I canceled my own college plans. I was already dealing with a false diagnosis telling me I was going to barely get by. Seeing everyone I know fail made college seem hopeless.

A lot of artists say being judged for their craft gave them Imposter Syndrome. They try to counter this with “Don’t care what people think! All art has value!” mantras. But these statements never teach artists to accept reasonable critiques, and instead keep them reliant on validation.

Imposter syndrome? Try getting a scholarship-winning 4.0 you know you didn’t earn, and tell me you aren’t begging for criticism!

So, how did I not crumble like the rest?

Discipline. I could see through the facade, and decided to practice writing on my own. If it wasn’t for pushing myself with challenges like National Novel Writing Month, I probably wouldn’t have a shot at a job.

I tend to be hard on myself, but this comes from a place of not wanting to take compliments unless I know I’ve earned them. It’s not insecurity. It’s humility.

For instance, I used to write Warrior Cats fanfiction in notebooks during class. When people asked me what I was working on, I said, “Oh, just something dumb…”

My friends, teachers, everyone insisted “It’s not dumb!”

At first it might seem like they were just being polite. But no matter how much I insisted the piece was just a joke, the compliments never ceased… My notebook scribbles about shapeshifting anime cats were hailed as a masterpiece.

Sometimes, nobody will be there to put me in my place but me. But I’ve also had my share of negative feedback.

I’ve seen sexist comments. Homophobic comments. Angry liberal comments. They don’t stop me. I actually look forward to receiving these, like I’m earning battle scars.

And I need more training. So, go for it! Hit me with your best shot!

[beautifulscreaminglady]

white police and military bootlicker: par for course

non-white police and military bootlicker: Something Terrible Happened Here, Who's Paying You, or alternatively Blink If You Need Help

[dontlookforme00]

i feel like you should know that thanks to you i am now starting to develop a chonny jash obsession (i am here to thank you this music is very good and im liking it a lot)

I keep getting asks from my mutual about chonny jash I am SO fucking pleased with myself. YES. YES, STAR, JOIN US. YOU'RE WELCOME, NOW come scream about the music with me, I need to balance my lack of irl friends who know him (NONE of them)

The music is fucking great. Have this video essay, please

[to-thelakes]

regulus arcturus black is my roman empire

(jkr completely glossing over his importance is another reason i hate dislike her 🫶)

[anauwhere]

Do you ever stumble upon video essays or photo analysis made in fandom and given the proofs you are like wow these people are delusional bc that's not what is happening at all???

[z0mbiechylde]

There is something fundamentally wrong with humans who reject the very nature of what they are. They are truly the puppets of Soros and Gates funded transhumanist projects, playing into the hands of p*edophiles who so love it when you delay puberty of little children. I feel tremendous disgust.

"This does not align with my vision of yourself. Indeed, I didn't raise you to believe in or be shackled by harmful, sexist gender stereotypes. I raised you to believe that anything men can do, women can do too. I didn't raise you to believe there's something wrong with being a woman, or that enjoying short hair and not wanting your t shirt to show off your navel makes you a man."

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Aaron Sibarium

Published: Apr 24, 2024

Top physicians, including former Harvard dean, say required course is riddled with dangerous falsehoods

Students in their first year of medical school typically learn what a healthy body looks like and how to keep it that way. At the University of California, Los Angeles, they learn that "fatphobia is medicine’s status quo" and that weight loss is a "hopeless endeavor."

Those are two of the more moderate claims made by Marquisele Mercedes, a self-described "fat liberationist," in an essay assigned to all first-year students in UCLA medical school’s mandatory "Structural Racism and Health Equity" class. Launched in the wake of George Floyd’s death, the course is required for all first-year medical students.

The Washington Free Beacon has obtained the entire syllabus for the course, along with slide decks and lecture prep from some of its most explosive sessions. The materials offer the fullest picture to date of what students at the elite medical school are learning and have dismayed prominent physicians—including those sympathetic to the goals of the class—who say UCLA has traded medicine for Marxism.

Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of Harvard Medical School and one of the world’s foremost experts on obesity, said the curriculum "promotes extensive and dangerous misinformation."

UCLA "has centered this required course on a socialist/Marxist ideology that is totally inappropriate," said Flier, who reviewed the full syllabus and several of the assigned readings. "As a longstanding medical educator, I found this course truly shocking."

One required reading lists "anti-capitalist politics" as a principle of "disability justice" and attacks the evils of "ableist heteropatriarchal capitalism." Others decry "racial capitalism," attack "growth-centered economic theories," and call for "moving beyond capitalism for our health."

The essay by Mercedes "describes how weight came to be pathologized and medicalized in racialized terms" and offers guidance on "resisting entrenched fat oppression," according to the course syllabus. Mercedes claims that "ob*sity" is a slur "used to exact violence on fat people"—particularly "Black, disabled, trans, poor fat people"—and offers a "fat ode to care" that students are instructed to analyze, taking note of which sections "most resonate with you."

"This is a profoundly misguided view of obesity, a complex medical disorder with major adverse health consequences for all racial and ethnic groups," Flier told the Free Beacon. "Promotion of these ignorant ideas to medical students without counterbalancing input from medical experts in the area is nothing less than pedagogical malpractice."

Nicholas Christakis, a sociologist and physician at Yale University, who has spent decades providing medical care to underserved communities, including in the South Side of Chicago, called the curriculum "nonsensical."

The relationship between health and social forces "should indeed be taught at medical school," Christakis wrote in an email, "but to have a mandatory course like this—so tendentious, sloganeering, incurious, and nonsensical—strikes me as embarrassing to UCLA."

UCLA did not respond to requests for comment.

Snapshots of the course have been leaking for months and left the school doing damage control as members of UCLA’s own faculty have spoken out against the curriculum. The most recent embarrassment came when a guest lecturer, Lisa Gray-Garcia, led students in chants of "Free, Free Palestine" after instructing them to kneel on the floor and pray to "Mama Earth." Lessons on "decolonization" and climate activism, as well as a classroom exercise that separated students by race, have also stirred controversy.

"There are areas where medicine and public health intersect with politics, and these require discussion and debate of conflicting viewpoints," Flier said. "That is distinct from education designed to ideologically indoctrinate physician-activists."

The mandatory class is part of a nationwide push by medical schools to integrate DEI content into their curricula—for residents as well as students— both by adding required courses and by changing the way traditional subjects are taught.

Stanford Medical School sprinkles lessons on "microaggressions," "structural racism," and "privilege" throughout its curriculum. Residents at Yale Medical School must complete an "Advocacy and Equity" sequence focused on "becoming physician advocates for health justice," while those in the infectious disease program must complete additional lessons on "Diversity, Equity, and Antiracism."

Columbia Medical School promotes an "Anti-bias and Inclusive" curriculum by encouraging educators to use "precise, accurate language." Instead of "women," guidelines for the curriculum state, faculty should refer to "people with uteruses."

The changes have been driven partly by the Association of American Medical Colleges—one of two groups that oversees the accrediting body for all U.S. medical schools—which in 2022 released a set of DEI "competencies" to guide curricula. Schools should teach students how to identify "systems of power, privilege, and oppression," the competencies state, and how to incorporate "knowledge of intersectionality" into clinical decision-making. Students should also be able to describe "public policy that promotes social justice" and demonstrate "moral courage" when faced with "microaggression."

The course at UCLA, which predates those accreditation standards, offers a preview of how DEI mandates could reshape medical education. It is littered with the lingo of progressive activism—"intersectionality" is a core value of the class, according to slides from the first session—and states outright that it is training doctors to become activists.

Students will "build critical consciousness" and move toward a "liberatory practice of medicine" by "focusing on praxis," according to the slides.

A section called "Our Hxstories" adds that "[h]ealth and medical practice are deeply impacted by racism and other intersectional structures of power, hierarchy, and oppression—all of which require humility, space and patience to understand, deconstruct, and eventually rectify."

That jargon reflects a worldview with clinical implications. In a unit on "abolitionist" health, which explores "alternatives to carceral systems in LA," students are assigned a paper that argues police should be removed from emergency rooms, where 55 percent of doctors say they’ve been assaulted—mostly by patients—and threats of violence are common, according to a 2022 survey from American College of Emergency Physicians. Other units discuss the "sickness of policing" and link "Queer liberation to liberation from the carceral state."

Flier said the syllabus was so bad it called for an investigation—and that anyone who signed off on it was unfit to make curricular decisions.

"Assuming the school’s dean," Steven Dubinett, a pulmonologist, "does not himself support this course as presented, it is his responsibility to review the course and the curriculum committee that approved it," Flier said. "If that body judged the course as appropriate, he should change its leadership and membership."

Dubinett did not respond to a request for comment.

One of the leaders of the course is Shamsher Samra, a professor of emergency medicine who in December signed an open letter endorsing "Palestinians’ right to return" and linking "health equity" to divestment from Israel.

"To authentically engage in antiracism health scholarship and practice is to explicitly name injustices tied to white supremacy and maintain an unapologetic commitment to antiracism praxis that transcends US borders," the letter reads. "As such, we, the undersigned,* unequivocally support a free Palestine and Palestinians’ right to return."

Samra, who in 2021 published a paper on "infrastructural violence and the health of border abolition," did not respond to a request for comment.

To the extent the course addresses actual medical debates, it frames contested treatments as settled science, omitting evidence that cuts against its activist narrative. A unit on "Queerness/Gender," for example, assigns readings on "gender self-determination" and "DIY transition," but does not include any of the research from Europe—such as the newly released Cass Report—that has led England and other countries to restrict hormone therapies for children.

"UCLA School of Medicine has decided to shield its students from the ongoing scientific debates playing out in Europe and even in the U.S.," said Leor Sapir, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute who researches gender medicine. "This is fundamentally unserious, and a stain on the school’s reputation."

The omission of inconvenient facts extends to a unit on Los Angeles's King/Drew hospital—nicknamed "Killer King" for its high rates of medical error—which the course promotes as an example of "community health."

Founded in 1972 as a response to the Watts riots, the hospital was majority black, had a documented policy of racial preferences, and was hit with several civil rights complaints by non-black doctors alleging discrimination in hiring and promotion.

It closed in 2007 after a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation by the Los Angeles Times found numerous cases in which patients had been killed or injured by clinical mistakes, such as overdosing a child with sedatives and giving cancer drugs to a meningitis patient. Efforts to reform the hospital stalled, according to the Times, because its board of supervisors feared coming across as racially insensitive.

The assigned readings on King/Drew do not include any of this history. Lecture slides instead praise the hospital for "suturing racial divides," but suggest that it may not have gone far enough. A focus on "producing highly talented and skilled physicians," one slide reads, "forced" King/Drew to hire doctors who were, "in some cases, not Black."

The curriculum is a "compilation of ideologic and anecdotal assertions that represent a warped view of medicine," said Stanley Goldfarb, the founder of the medical advocacy group Do No Harm and the father of Free Beacon chairman Michael Goldfarb. "American medical education needs to purge itself of this nonsense and treat every patient as an individual."

The slides suggest that "lived experiences," "historical memory," and "other knowledges" can constitute medical expertise.

Biomedical knowledge, after all, is "just one way of knowing, understanding, and experiencing health in the world."

==

The moral of the story is, if you see a UCLA medical school certificate on your doctor's wall, leave.

If you don't see this as the same thing as faith-healing, I don't know what to tell you.