POLL: Is this in the best interests of our young people, or is it not?

[Mac1958]

The Regressives have hit new lows in this thread.

Anything to deflect from the fact that they're against true freedom of expression.

Cowards.
.

 

[koshergrl]

Explain "enable".

I am all for free speech.

But when people say dumb things, I'm certainly not going to enable their stupidity. Free speech doesn't mean that every word spoken is worthy of adulation and defense.

 

[Mac1958]

Explain "enable".

I am all for free speech.

But when people say dumb things, I'm certainly not going to enable their stupidity. Free speech doesn't mean that every word spoken is worthy of adulation and defense.

Get out of the way, don't interfere, let people speak.

Unlike the Regressives here.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Bernie would have voted Yes to my poll. He's not a coward, he's the real deal:

Bernie Sanders RIPS Millennials Trying To Shut Up Ann Coulter

The 2016 presidential candidate shamed the millennials trying to shut up Coulter further, explaining that this was "a sign of intellectual weakness."

"To me, it’s a sign of intellectual weakness," he stated. "If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?"
.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[usmbguest5318]

The issue isn't that colleges and universities don't do exactly what's described in the OP. They do, but one must look for it, usually in the classroom. Believe it or not, pretty much all college courses present multiple points of view for the subject matter they cover. Indeed, doing just that is the whole point of introductory and/or survey courses in a given discipline.

The problem is that many individuals who get into such institutions aren't ready to perform the critical thinking that being so exposed demands one be capable of doing.

How could they? Young people often these days seem challenged to express any idea that requires one do so in more than 140 characters. I'm sorry, but the world's weighty issues cannot be effectively considered, expressed and discussed in 140 characters. 140 Characters is a slogan, not an exposition of critical thought. Perhaps we are creating a generation of ad copywriters and other advertising workers?

Currently paying for two kids to go thru a large university, both are in the business school, and I can tell you that it is more about indoctrination than the free exchange of diverse opinions. At least that is the impression my kids share with me. Not sure what you base your assertion on, but it does not sync with what my kids experience.

I cannot speak to what your kids tell you vs. what is taught in business school. I can give you some of the many examples of what I know is taught in B-school and that is illustrative of there being different approaches to achieving a given outcome.

• Business Management -- I'm sure your kids have been presented with the content you'll find here. What else can one call that but differing approaches to managing the operations of a firm?
• Accounting -- Accounting is filled with alternative approaches to measuring the nature, timing and extent of business events. The whole of accounting, as contrasted with bookkeeping, and auditing is about applying one's critical judgment in choosing the best approach given the business' goals and needs. (See also: Use of judgement in financial reporting and Where are the judgements?)
  • There are five methods for measuring depreciation.
  • There are there are two ways to structure a lease -- capitalize it or expense it.
  • The very fact that there are three documents used to report a firm's operations -- balance sheet, income statement and statement of cash flows -- is a reflection of there being multiple ways to assess the health and performance of a company.
• Marketing -- Marketing is a highly matrixed discipline wherein one is taught "too many to count" approaches for achieving marketing objectives. [1] For example,
  • The 4P Marketing Matrix, of which marketing students are taught that depending on the situation, one must structure one's marketing strategy with varying degrees of emphasis on the four elements of product, promotion, price and place.
  • Pricing Strategy -- Marketing students in the basic survey course, Principles of Marketing, are taught that there are multiple approaches to pricing ones goods/services such as premium pricing, penetration pricing, economy pricing, skim pricing, and psychological pricing. Later, if one takes a class on pricing strategy itself, one learns about how to apply, mix and match those strategies, but one isn't told that any one or combination of them is always the right strategy to use.

So, though I cannot say whether your kids aren't telling you what they are studying, whether they are misrepresenting -- for whatever reason -- what they are being taught, or whether you aren't grasping what they're telling you. What goes on in B-school classrooms is not indoctrination; it's imparting information. B-school instruction is all about teaching students what and about the various options that exist [2] for achieving business goals so they can, when the rise high enough in an organization, they can use their judgment to apply those techniques to achieve the specific goal they are tasked to achieve.

Notes:

1. I found the study of marketing largely boring as could be in that it often merely "repackages" the same ideas -- theorems, theories, and practices drawn from a variety of social sciences and mathematics -- over and over, giving them new names as befits the specific marketing application, but that's just me knowing I don't need to be shown how to apply the same concept "sixteen ways to the wind" every time the theme for the application changes slightly. For instance, in Principles, one learns of the "marketing communication process." Take consumer business and the same thing is called the "consumer communication process." Well, duh. We got it the first time round. Just because one is communicating with "end consumers" rather than, say, business consumers doesn't make the process any different, even though there will be differences in how any stage of the process is performed.
   
2. The level of detail any given course reaches depends on the course. At the baccalaureate and master's level, all courses primarily focus on building the student's knowledge and understanding of the existing body of business management, operations, finance and accounting knowledge. At the doctoral level, one is required to add to that body of knowledge by answering "questions" that have not previously been explored, perhaps not even asked, and in turn producing original findings and thought of one's own.

 

[ricechickie]

No, I mean college-age kids, people who have reached a point of development at which they can make reasonably mature analyses and judgements.

Yeah, I wouldn't see much positive value in this for younger kids, although obviously everyone is different.
.

what's the value of a bigot like Ann Coulter speaking at Berkeley? Do you think that it's valuable to society if in some way some otherwise unbigoted student adopt her bigotry?

Search me. She is outrageous enough.....kind of a "shock pundit." Maybe this is how the marketplace of ideas works, when you don't have to be the smartest, just the most brash--

Hey, I think I just figured out how Trump won!

Coulter sells rightwing propaganda. It's really no more complicated than that. The idea that it's some sort of free speech issue over whether or not she should be allowed on a campus to sell her commodity is preposterous.

How will those students ever learn to recognize and counter propaganda if they are never given the chance to hear and counter propaganda?

By high school, they should start practicing separating bullshit from fact. It's a dying skill.

Here's the bottom line: Opposing views threaten the sadistic ideological stranglehold that they have on our kids.

They're not worried about what's best for the kids - they just want brainwashed soldiers.

It's a rotten thing to do to our young people.
.

I disagree about the motives. I think schools, already adept at recognizing garbage, and afraid students aren't , want to simply save them the trouble of sifting through the chaff for the precious kernels of wheat. But then they never learn themselves.

 

[Mac1958]

what's the value of a bigot like Ann Coulter speaking at Berkeley? Do you think that it's valuable to society if in some way some otherwise unbigoted student adopt her bigotry?

Search me. She is outrageous enough.....kind of a "shock pundit." Maybe this is how the marketplace of ideas works, when you don't have to be the smartest, just the most brash--

Hey, I think I just figured out how Trump won!

Coulter sells rightwing propaganda. It's really no more complicated than that. The idea that it's some sort of free speech issue over whether or not she should be allowed on a campus to sell her commodity is preposterous.

How will those students ever learn to recognize and counter propaganda if they are never given the chance to hear and counter propaganda?

By high school, they should start practicing separating bullshit from fact. It's a dying skill.

Here's the bottom line: Opposing views threaten the sadistic ideological stranglehold that they have on our kids.

They're not worried about what's best for the kids - they just want brainwashed soldiers.

It's a rotten thing to do to our young people.
.

I disagree about the motives. I think schools, already adept at recognizing garbage, and afraid students aren't , want to simply save them the trouble of sifting through the chaff for the precious kernels of wheat. But then they never learn themselves.

That's just part of the learning and growing process. Sometimes we're misled, or we misunderstand something, or someone opens our eyes to something and changes our minds. It's part of growing up.

All the more important that we help expose our young people to a wide variety of opinions. It helps them to find their own way.

The Regressives want to deny our young people this process.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know what's really funniest about Mac's dementia?

Almost no one opposes peaceful protest, and, almost no one supports violent protest...

...so who is Mac arguing against? A tiny sliver of extremists who believe in breaking the law to violently, destructively protest against Ann Coulter.

I recommend that he go find those people and do his tedious rants against them.

 

[ricechickie]

Search me. She is outrageous enough.....kind of a "shock pundit." Maybe this is how the marketplace of ideas works, when you don't have to be the smartest, just the most brash--

Hey, I think I just figured out how Trump won!

Coulter sells rightwing propaganda. It's really no more complicated than that. The idea that it's some sort of free speech issue over whether or not she should be allowed on a campus to sell her commodity is preposterous.

How will those students ever learn to recognize and counter propaganda if they are never given the chance to hear and counter propaganda?

By high school, they should start practicing separating bullshit from fact. It's a dying skill.

Here's the bottom line: Opposing views threaten the sadistic ideological stranglehold that they have on our kids.

They're not worried about what's best for the kids - they just want brainwashed soldiers.

It's a rotten thing to do to our young people.
.

I disagree about the motives. I think schools, already adept at recognizing garbage, and afraid students aren't , want to simply save them the trouble of sifting through the chaff for the precious kernels of wheat. But then they never learn themselves.

That's just part of the learning and growing process. Sometimes we're misled, or we misunderstand something, or someone opens our eyes to something and changes our minds. It's part of growing up.

All the more important that we help expose our young people to a wide variety of opinions. It helps them to find their own way.

The Regressives want to deny our young people this process.
.

The "regressives"? Have you seen the thread about the bomb shelter assignment? It wasn't liberals throwing a fit about it.

It works both ways, Mac.

 

[Mac1958]

Coulter sells rightwing propaganda. It's really no more complicated than that. The idea that it's some sort of free speech issue over whether or not she should be allowed on a campus to sell her commodity is preposterous.

How will those students ever learn to recognize and counter propaganda if they are never given the chance to hear and counter propaganda?

By high school, they should start practicing separating bullshit from fact. It's a dying skill.

Here's the bottom line: Opposing views threaten the sadistic ideological stranglehold that they have on our kids.

They're not worried about what's best for the kids - they just want brainwashed soldiers.

It's a rotten thing to do to our young people.
.

I disagree about the motives. I think schools, already adept at recognizing garbage, and afraid students aren't , want to simply save them the trouble of sifting through the chaff for the precious kernels of wheat. But then they never learn themselves.

That's just part of the learning and growing process. Sometimes we're misled, or we misunderstand something, or someone opens our eyes to something and changes our minds. It's part of growing up.

All the more important that we help expose our young people to a wide variety of opinions. It helps them to find their own way.

The Regressives want to deny our young people this process.
.

The "regressives"? Have you seen the thread about the bomb shelter assignment? It wasn't liberals throwing a fit about it.

It works both ways, Mac.

It's a term I've taken from an honest liberal named Majiid Nawaz, a British activist, as well as other honest liberals such as Christopher Hitchens (RIP Hitch) and Dave Rubin, below.

These are not liberals, they're authoritarian progressives. I agree with Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders about their behaviors.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here's my position: It's a moral and cultural obligation of ours, as citizens of the United States, to promote and enable our young people to be exposed to contrary, stimulating, challenging, and yes, even controversial opinions at every opportunity. It is in their best interests, and the best interests of our country, to do so.


.

Those protesting Coulter already know her opinions.

I believe in free, open and unencumbered debate of all ideas at every opportunity, in challenging our young people to be open minded and curious and to think for themselves and expand their intellectual horizons.

You're the o p p o s i t e.

Yeah. I'm very comfy with that. But keep trolling, you just keep making my point.
.

You had me on ignore for over a year.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So what are the chances I'll have a "Progressive" weigh in, vote "Yes", and bravely disagree with their ideological brethren about Coulter?

Is that what this is about? Ann Coulter?

Hell, let her speak. I seem to recall conserve-hate-ives going batshit crazy when Iranian Strongman Ahmadenijab was invited to speak at Columbia U.

Columbia U. President: Ahmadinejad Speech 'Extremely Important'

Here is one from a noted Conservative who is now the darling of the Free Speech movement (it appears):

Ann Coulter - September 26, 2007 - TASE HIM, BRO!

Do you support Ms. Coulter’s stance?

I don't like Ann Coulter. While I don't know her stance on several issues, I have no doubt I disagree with many of them.

But I'm consistent. I believe in freedom of expression, whether I agree with it or not, whether I like the person or not.

This shouldn't be difficult to understand.
.

As do I. Why are you not able to understand that?

 

[Mac1958]

Here's my position: It's a moral and cultural obligation of ours, as citizens of the United States, to promote and enable our young people to be exposed to contrary, stimulating, challenging, and yes, even controversial opinions at every opportunity. It is in their best interests, and the best interests of our country, to do so.


.

Those protesting Coulter already know her opinions.

I believe in free, open and unencumbered debate of all ideas at every opportunity, in challenging our young people to be open minded and curious and to think for themselves and expand their intellectual horizons.

You're the o p p o s i t e.

Yeah. I'm very comfy with that. But keep trolling, you just keep making my point.
.

You had me on ignore for over a year.

Yes, and you one time claimed that I was therefore inhibiting your freedom of speech.

So if I choose not to listen to a song, I'm inhibiting that band's freedom of speech.

You Regressives are nuts.
.

 

[ricechickie]

How will those students ever learn to recognize and counter propaganda if they are never given the chance to hear and counter propaganda?

By high school, they should start practicing separating bullshit from fact. It's a dying skill.

Here's the bottom line: Opposing views threaten the sadistic ideological stranglehold that they have on our kids.

They're not worried about what's best for the kids - they just want brainwashed soldiers.

It's a rotten thing to do to our young people.
.

I disagree about the motives. I think schools, already adept at recognizing garbage, and afraid students aren't , want to simply save them the trouble of sifting through the chaff for the precious kernels of wheat. But then they never learn themselves.

That's just part of the learning and growing process. Sometimes we're misled, or we misunderstand something, or someone opens our eyes to something and changes our minds. It's part of growing up.

All the more important that we help expose our young people to a wide variety of opinions. It helps them to find their own way.

The Regressives want to deny our young people this process.
.

The "regressives"? Have you seen the thread about the bomb shelter assignment? It wasn't liberals throwing a fit about it.

It works both ways, Mac.

It's a term I've taken from an honest liberal named Majiid Nawaz, a British activist, as well as other honest liberals such as Christopher Hitchens (RIP Hitch) and Dave Rubin, below.

These are not liberals, they're authoritarian progressives. I agree with Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders about their behaviors.
.

The mindset applies to far right fascists, too.

 

[Mac1958]

Here's the bottom line: Opposing views threaten the sadistic ideological stranglehold that they have on our kids.

They're not worried about what's best for the kids - they just want brainwashed soldiers.

It's a rotten thing to do to our young people.
.

I disagree about the motives. I think schools, already adept at recognizing garbage, and afraid students aren't , want to simply save them the trouble of sifting through the chaff for the precious kernels of wheat. But then they never learn themselves.

That's just part of the learning and growing process. Sometimes we're misled, or we misunderstand something, or someone opens our eyes to something and changes our minds. It's part of growing up.

All the more important that we help expose our young people to a wide variety of opinions. It helps them to find their own way.

The Regressives want to deny our young people this process.
.

The "regressives"? Have you seen the thread about the bomb shelter assignment? It wasn't liberals throwing a fit about it.

It works both ways, Mac.

It's a term I've taken from an honest liberal named Majiid Nawaz, a British activist, as well as other honest liberals such as Christopher Hitchens (RIP Hitch) and Dave Rubin, below.

These are not liberals, they're authoritarian progressives. I agree with Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders about their behaviors.
.

The mindset applies to far right fascists, too.

I wouldn't be at all surprised, considering how similar the behaviors of the ends of the spectrum are to each other.

But I don't see them, as loony as they are, trying to control and shut down opposing speech on a national scale.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here's my position: It's a moral and cultural obligation of ours, as citizens of the United States, to promote and enable our young people to be exposed to contrary, stimulating, challenging, and yes, even controversial opinions at every opportunity. It is in their best interests, and the best interests of our country, to do so.


.

Those protesting Coulter already know her opinions.

I believe in free, open and unencumbered debate of all ideas at every opportunity, in challenging our young people to be open minded and curious and to think for themselves and expand their intellectual horizons.

You're the o p p o s i t e.

Yeah. I'm very comfy with that. But keep trolling, you just keep making my point.
.

You had me on ignore for over a year.

Yes, and you one time claimed that I was therefore inhibiting your freedom of speech.

So if I choose not to listen to a song, I'm inhibiting that band's freedom of speech.

You Regressives are nuts.
.

I claimed no such thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind that the sanctimonious loon Macnugget once said that the peaceful protesters marching in reaction to the police killing of Eric Garner were directly responsible for 2 police officers being ambushed and murdered in NYC,
and Mac went so far as to further blame posters here, including myself, for being responsible for those murders.

 

[Mac1958]

Keep in mind that the sanctimonious loon Macnugget once said that the peaceful protesters marching in reaction to the police killing of Eric Garner were directly responsible for 2 police officers being ambushed and murdered in NYC,
and Mac went so far as to further blame posters here, including myself, for being responsible for those murders.

Wow, you folks are desperate. Still flailing. Still deflecting.

Just admit you don't really believe in true freedom of expression.

You have plenty of fellow regressives here who will defend you.
.

 

[Markle]

You could pass a Fairness Doctrine requiring all media to present both sides.

Progressives would go nuts. They would NEVER give up half their exposure on TV, print and the internet.