That different parts of your tongue taste different things.
When I was little, we did an experiment where we were supposed to “feel” which part of our tongue we were tasting things with, and I was like, “pretty sure I taste it everywhere”. That teacher was fired for her anger issues at the end of the year, and that was certianly one of the moments where it came out, haha.
The United States was founded on principles of liberty and equality for all.
While I was taught that in elementary school, I was also taught about the 3/5ths compromise as early as middle school. By the time high school rolled around I was being taught about reconstruction and the corrupt bargain of 1877. I guess I’m lucky I got a good education in the north because I am aware that’s not necessarily the standard nationally.
Yeah we talked about colonialism in my middle school.
However, it was discussed as a fact of history, not in terms of a political narrative.
Sometimes moralizing is necessary. In Canada we had one teacher go into detail on the kidnapping of indigineous children and the residential schools they were sent to where they were often beaten or raped. I’m glad that teacher did that since many of my contemporaries were not aware of that history and some remain oblivious into adulthood. There’s nothing worse for a nation than people having a false sense of pride in it (as we’re seeing in the US currently).
In Canada we had one teacher go into detail on the kidnapping of indigineous children and the residential schools they were sent to where they were often beaten or raped
That isn’t moralizing dude. That’s just telling facts.
The moralizing/politicizing part is when you tell the kids that it’s their fault and they should feel bad about it. It isn’t, and they shouldn’t.
I was also taught these things in the south, living in North Florida. As part of a 1 semester Florida history class in middle school, we also went into each of the spanish conquistadors and how they murdered their way across the continent.
My AP history teacher gave us copies of Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States as a supplemental to our textbooks. She was an awful teacher overall, but I appreciated her trying to make sure we had multiple perspectives.
Then I went to an elite east-coast private college, where I almost failed US History because I called the professor out for teaching Lost Cause bullshit.
Any academic peddling lost cause bullshit is a complete joke. Just curious, were they from the south?
Of course they were.
He also characterized the 2000 election as “a perfect tie” that could’ve just as easily been decided by a coinflip instead of the more historically agreed upon view of the Supreme Court ratfucking Florida’s recount.
If we didn’t have this lie, people wouldn’t be as mad when they found the parts where it is untrue.
Technically, it was founded on the principles of liberty and quality for all. Just not the practices of liberty and quality for all. it was an aspiration, a goal of our forefathers.
But the way they teach it in school is pretty deceptive— as if it was all accomplished magically on that day in 1776, when, even today, it’s a constant struggle— a goal that we’re much closer to, but still remains elusive. that’s the part they don’t teach.
it was an aspiration, a goal of our forefathers.
I just do not believe this. These are people who regularly raped their slaves, and then enslaved the progeny.
It was an aspiration for white men specifically. It took centuries for the definition of humanity to expand from that perspective.
But the way they teach it in school
Nah, I was taught the latter way in school. They pretty explicitly told us about the 3/5 compromise, the lack of voting rights for women, etc. Really, its pretty hard to avoid the idea that all people were not seen as equal in the eyes of the constitution when ratified, when you know that we have a whole unit on the civil war coming up.
I remember in school learning about the different areas of the tongue tasting different things, and then we had an experiment to try it, and everyone was like “wow it works!” but I told the teacher it didn’t work for me, and I got told I was doing it wrong =w=
Anywho, the entire thing about different tastes being localized to different areas is bullshit, so that’s 1 point to me and 0 to the teacher
Yah you didn’t succumb to confirmation bias. I knew as a kid this was wrong because they said viewer was treated in the back… yeah then explain when i got laundry detergent on my fingers forgot about it and when to clean my fingernails layer and the tip of my tongue is absolutely tasting bitterness.
Was also confirmation bias in action
My daughter and I did this for one of her science projects. I would drop lemon juice or sugar water somewhere on her tongue, and she was able to taste everything everywhere.
It was so long ago I don’t remember, but I hope we got a good grade on that one!
The lesson is to give the authority figure the answer they want to hear so they’ll leave you alone!
This guy works ^
Same experiment I had lol. Had to pat down our tongues with a paper towel and then put sugar/lemon/pepper and whatever else on it :3 and yeah, I very much could taste everything everywhere haha
We “learned” that in 6th grade science.
I remember the same teacher had a test question which was something like “you and a friend are playing at a landfill, and your friend spills sulfuric acid all over themselves, what should you do?” and the ‘correct’ answer was “pour sodium hydroxide on the spill” instead of my answer of “pour water on the spill.”
I had another science teacher who made a huge deal about her chronic Lyme, which is this really weird alternative medicine thing.
East germany being portrailed only as pure evil and horrible. While yes dictatorship and all that, how ever people did life normal lives and there were aspects avout east germany that were, especially for its time, ground breaking good!
Pretty good tools and machines came out of GDR
The bavarian socialist republic was a chaotic murderouse revolutionarny group that had to be crushed by the military because they were murdering people just for the fun of it and it was not supported by the people.
The exact opposite is the case. The people were big in support of it, it would have lead to full pure democracy but the SPD corrupted and destroyed they saw it as a threat to their perfered order of a none direct democracy with still clear societal seperation of wealthy and the rest
In USA I think it’s all the religious stuff deifying the founding enslavers. Let’s be honest these people were genocidal enslavers, rapists, etc. The “revolutionary war” was largely so that they could maintain slavery and their disgusting privilege. These people are idiotic fash, not the geniuses they’re portrayed as. They were fighting for evil.
This understanding of the history of USA almost completely explains most of its history.
The “revolutionary war” was largely so that they could maintain slavery
The civil war obviously was. The revolutionary war was back when the British were still pretty heavily involved in slavery, though. Is there evidence this was a specific driving factor?
Fighting for evil? I know one example is not enough, and ignores completely the plight of native americans from the founders. But to say they were fighting for evil I would say is a mischaracterization.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
How could someone evil write something this cool?
Most likely, everyone dead by 1950 was a total bastard, if you measure them by modern standards. If you go all the way back to the 1700’s, that’s could include tolerating or participating in slavery, and of course colonial atrocities.
The American founding fathers were radical progressives for their day, though.
I also can’t say that for certain; John Brown, comes to mind.
The best president is probably FDR, who was also dead by 1945.
Edit: Because it’s kind of funny for me, I’m leaving the John brown part, but you definitely meant people in power.
There are plenty of bright spots if you look.
The annual lie: Next year isn’t going to be as easy as this year!
Middle School will be harder than Elementary School.
Junior High will be harder than Middle School.
Senior High will be harder than Junior High.
College will be harder than Senior High.
Working a real job will be harder than School.
“They won’t take late work”
Me coming up with excuses for missing work in High School: “Um, my parents both died in a horrible accident, I got cancer, and my dog ate my textbook.”
Me coming up with excuses for missing work in my job: “Yeah, I didn’t do it.”
And at work, you give yourself an A and go for a C.
You don’t want that to go on your permanent record.
I frequently wanted to kill myself, the idea work would be even worse than school really didnt help because school was absolutely awful. So it will only get worse isn’t a great message.
That Custer was ambushed and nobody knows who killed him or why.
He broke ranks and took his troops into an ambush. His arrogant opinion of the fighting abilities of the Lakota and his lust for gold made his defeat elementary. But even though he was a deserter Sherman had to defeat the Indians and so he had to make it a tragic thing
That there are different “learning styles”, and that some people learn better with one over another. (Visual learner, auditory learner etc.) Same for “love languages”
Left brain/right brain BS too. I cringe so hard every time I hear an adult talk about it.
What is the bullshit about that? AFAIK that is true and not everyone learns the same way.
It’s pretty much not. Literally everyone learns best by “doing”, and the other styles (reading, visual, auditory) depend much more on the content (visual graphs are good for geometry, reading is good for history etc) than the student. Also people’s responses on surveys about learning styles are very inconsistent, it’s pretty solidly disproven since about 2008
if you have disabilities that make you unable to learn in one style then of course some styles won’t work for you. Near-sighted people who can’t afford glasses already experience reduced performance in school. People like me who have Auditory Processing Disorder kind of get fucked in the ass if the teachers don’t have any additional resources other than speaking in front of class.
But generally, learning styles was disproven. The difference of retention between ones “preferred learning style” and the control was insignificant, but learning in varied styles is better than only absorbing it in only one way. Relating information to another also helps more.
That homework isn’t discriminatory. Not all kids have lives that allow them to do it. If you can’t cover all the bases in whole ass 8 hours I’m there a day that’s on you, not me. This is only true k - 12, college level courses are voluntary so having some homework could be considered ok.
You do have a valid argument. There are lots of children that don’t have an environment that allows them to do homework or study.
I don’t think this means we should get rid of homework. Homework is essentially practicing what was learned in the classroom. Learning is a constant process, it doesn’t automatically happen after being exposed to a topic during the course of an 8 hour day. Learning anything requires practice. (The neurons that fire together wire together.)
If little Billy did the homework and got a bunch of stuff wrong, that helps the teacher identify and diagnose the skill issue, (in theory.) If little Billy didn’t do his homework at all, the teacher has no idea Billy could be struggling to learn the material until after he has been tested. It’s a tool to help students practice, and a tool to help teachers assess and diagnose. It shouldn’t be used as part of the rubric that determines what a child’s grade for the material is at the end of the term.
My grandmother was a school teacher. She was very clear about homework: kids should not have any. Kids are kids, they simply are not designed to sit still and work on school work all day.
She expected there to be learning time, play time, sports or activity time, family time, and bed time. There is something useful to be learned in all phases of a persons day, its just different.
If a child was struggling, she would stay after school and work with them, or spend more time during the day with them. At worst they may have to finish up something assigned in class they didnt finish in time, but thats it.
But this assigning homework for homeworks sake, she really did not like that idea at all.
She knew if Little Billy didnt know what was going on, not due to homework, but due to classwork and interaction at school.
No, discrimination is discrimination, school is as many hours as a full time job, if an education system can’t teach kids what they need to know in that amount of time it’s failing. Discrimination is wrong.
So give them the time to do the practice work at school, in the classroom? Why in any of that does it have to be done at home?
You also run into the issue of little Billy not doing his homework because he already understands the lesson and doesn’t want to waste his time.
My math teacher would make me take tests sitting next to her because I wouldn’t do homework but aced the tests. Eventually she realized I wasn’t cheating, I was just able to grasp the concept from her lectures alone.
But quizes should be used to determine which students need extra practice on a subject. Since everything is digital now, it wouldn’t be difficult to build the algorithm.
Or clubs for that matter, which are what primarily determines your college and scholarship opportunities in my state.
Both of these are on purpose. Its a filter to keep “a certain kind” (poors) out
Communism and socialism are bad and never worked, as well as the lie that the settlers in the Americas were merely escaping religous prosecution, rather than wanting to kill people for land as already privledged Yeomanry. Also that the slave trade existed in Africa, in reality slavery was not an industry in the African continent and instead Europeans leveraged a small technological gap to trade slightly more advanced technology purely for slaves, which created the slave industry.
France: the French revolution was poor people rioting. We are starting to accept that it was rich people killing each other to replace monarchy, and using poor people as a side-effect, kind of like… what we have right now, what a coincidence!
Thats how they teach it? Even here in germany (atleast in my state bavaria) they teach it that the revolutionaries were from all paths of life. Even some clerty and a few minor nobles were on their side. But the main front were the bourgeoisie (land owning city people)
I think that’s still an oversimplification.
The revolution started after the king called the Estates General in hopes of solving the debt crisis that had come in a large part from funding the American Revolution. The Estates General was a body made up of representatives of the three estates, the aristocrats, the clergy, and everyone else. The representatives of the third estate we’re primarily new money bourgeoisie, but they were elected, unlike the other two, and could therefore claim to represent the people. After failing to come to an agreement, the representatives of the third estate broke away and formed the National Assembly.
How much the National Assembly actually represented the people is debateable, but they did have some claim to that, unlike the other groups. There were also several mass actions like the storming of the Bastille that indicated support for what the representatives were doing, at least in the early years of the revolution.
It was “self-made” rich people (bourgeoisie) vs “birthright” rich people (nobility). We still got some cool side-effects though. Some of those bourgeois legitimately kick started what we call left and progressive politics today (Maximilien Robespierre, Jean-Paul Marat).
A lot of the early (1789) revolutionaries were from the nobility and even the clergy. Many of the reactionaries were up and coming bourgeois who were about to make their way into the nobility. Sorry Marx, you got a few things right, but that one was an oversimplification.
The vast majority of the victims of the reign of terror were commoners. The nobility were underrepresented at the guillotine, besides a few obvious high-profile cases.
It appears as though Robespierre legitimately lost his mind at some point. He attempted to introduce a “cult of the supreme being” with himself as high priest that focused on adhering to his own idea of virtue. Anyone not virtuous enough, which was effectively literally everyone else, was liable to be executed.
Early in the revolutionary wars, the revolutionaries had arrested so many people that the Paris jails were super overcrowded. Some people didn’t want the armies to leave Paris for the front lines because maybe all those jailed people would break out and cause trouble. So Marat proposed that they reduce the incarcerated population… by killing them all. September 1789 was a bad month to have been a petty thief in Paris.
So many of the popular notions about the revolution are distorted or just ass-backwards.
Yes, Marquis de Lafayette was a famous example of a noble going against the privilege system and in favor of democracy.
I think Robespierre is one of the pioneer of both left ideology, and left extremism leading to autoritarism and its crimes as we later saw in communist Russia and China.
is one of the pioneers of both left idiology and left extremism
Thomas Münzer and the peasent revolts with the Memminger Charter and the ditmarscher peasent republic: Hold our beer we’ll join
Thomas Münzer
Thanks for sharing, I didn’t know about how m. It’s quite intriguing that his revolutionary ideas came from his theology according to his wiki page.
If i may, please look into Kurt Eisner as well! And especially the type of democracy he wanted for bavaria and later germany (a council republik where you also elect your workplace leaders and can always unelect them!)
Give someone the power of life and death and they’ll start to equate attacks on them with attacks on the state which deserves death
People seem to forget that it almost immediately led to a military dictatorship
It did definitely did, the Terror and then Napoleon empires were dictatorships. It took a century for a a democratic republic to stabilize with improvements for the common people happening progressively (under early republics but also under the empires).
Drugs are bad.
Yeah, if you do acid you’ll stick a pencil in your eye, or you’ll try to claw your skin off. Turns out the real bad part of acid was that sometimes you might get sad for a bit, and you’ll probably reach a point where you want the trip to be over, but it’s not a big deal.
mmm’kay?
More specifically that all drugs are the same type and intensity of bad.
Except alcohol, we tax that one
“it’s not a drug, it’s a drink!”
“Its not a drug its food! Its bread!” - bavaria
I remember that when I was getting this “lesson“, my first question was “what about medication’s?“ And my teacher replied with “those aren’t drugs“
And I replied “then why do they call it the drugstore?” then my teacher sent me to the principal’s office for being “smart“. I didn’t understand what was wrong with being “smart“.
I see anyone who uses being smart as an insult really saying “Smarter than me.”
To be fair I was frankly amazed as a child that in American tv and media they so openly had shops called “drug stores”
About 100+ years ago, drugstores/pharmacies were referred to as the “Druggist“. In Europe, the term “Chemist” was more popular. I would imagine that would be the etymological origin of the term.
Yeah, I’ve had that same discussion even as an adult. It usually follows like this:
“No, I mean addictive drugs”
“Like tobacco?”
“No, I mean psychoactive drugs”
“Like Coffee?”
“No, recreational drugs”
“Like Alcohol?”
I have never had someone give a description of why weed should be illegal but not tobacco.
no one ever told you? it was to fuck with leftists and racial minorities. the same reason for everything fun being illegal.
Because you can quite easily grow your own weed avoiding them sweet sweet tax money you’re forced to pay when buying tobacco products. That’s the only logical explanation I could craft and I’ve been thinking about the same question for a long time.
That war is the connective tissue of human history, rather than the holes in the tissue.
Wow that is a really great way of putting it
Ouh, i recently learned that war is likely a product of humans abandoning their nomadic lifestyle for settlements and agriculture.
Yes, there was certainly violence between humans before, but since tribes were always on the move, resources at their current location weren’t as valuabe/ worthy of defence. No berries here? Guess we’ll move on. Another tribe fishes here already? What is increasing your survival chances? Moving along the shore, looking for a different fishing spot or violently take the occupied one?
If you grew crops on fields it absoluetly made sense to defend your location. You can’t take these plants with you, but they’ll yield a lot of food you wouldn’t want, or could affort to lose.
There is a lot more peaceful trade and cooperation in history than war, but because war is so disruptive and notable it makes the history books.
Routine trade doesn’t have many ‘important’ events likewards because running smoothly is just normal life. Only one instance of merchants trading poor quality copper is noteworthy, because it didn’t change the trajectory of a violent conflict.
This reminds me. You often hear it said “history is written by the victors,” and while there’s truth to that, I much prefer “history is written by those who wrote it down.”
Because writing was, for most of history, an expensive and time-consuming process that only a few had access to, there are some big implications from that. One of which being that nobody was very inclined to write down the mundane day-to-day because it just wasn’t worth it and few had any interest in preserving it.
That, and war makes for better narratives.
