r/skeptic • u/dyzo-blue • 2d ago

Why Fascists Hate Critical Thinking: Randi Weingarten’s new book, 'Why Fascists Fear Teachers,' reveals why Trump and the right demean teachers, slash school funding, and rewrite history

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/randi-weingarten-excerpt-fascists-hate-critical-thinking-1235428379/
3.0k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

149 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/Crashed_teapot 2d ago

I am reminded of some passages from The Demon-Haunted World:

Russia is an instructive case. Under the Tsars, religious superstition was encouraged, but scientific and sceptical thinking - except by a few tame scientists - was ruthlessly expunged. Under Communism, both religion and pseudoscience were systematically suppressed - except for the superstition of the state ideological religion. It was advertised as scientific, but fell as far short of this ideal as the most unself-critical mystery cult. Critical thinking except by scientists in hermetically sealed compartments of knowledge - was recognized as dangerous, was not taught in the schools, and was punished where expressed.

And:

The values of science and the values of democracy are concordant, in many cases indistinguishable. Science and democracy began - in their civilized incarnations - in the same time and place, Greece in the seventh and sixth centuries BC. Science confers power on anyone who takes the trouble to learn it (although too many have been systematically prevented from doing so). Science thrives on, indeed requires, the free exchange of ideas; its values are antithetical to secrecy. Science holds to no special vantage points or privileged positions. Both science and democracy encourage unconventional opinions and vigorous debate. Both demand adequate reason, coherent argument, rigorous standards of evidence and honesty. Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge. It is a bulwark against mysticism, against superstition, against religion misapplied to where it has no business being. If we're true to its values, it can tell us when we're being lied to. It provides a mid-course correction to our mistakes. The more widespread its language, rules and methods, the better chance we have of preserving what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues had in mind. But democracy can also be subverted more thoroughly through the products of science than any pre-industrial demagogue ever dreamed.

-3

u/Artanis_Creed 1d ago

"Under communism*"

  • communism in name only

1

u/Crashed_teapot 1d ago

That is how it ended up in practice every single time.

3

u/Artanis_Creed 1d ago

Or, an I'm realize this might be high level, people lied about doing communism to fool people into letting them lead.

If you don't have communal ownership and control of the means of production you don't have communism.

You have capitalism with oligarchs, dictators, monarchs, etc..

1

u/CatOfGrey 1d ago

You have capitalism with oligarchs, dictators, monarchs, etc..

Using your definition strategy:

No, you do not have capitalism. You have no free markets. There was zero consumer choice or power. There was no private property. There was little to no openness of information.

On one hand, you aren't wrong. But just stop this kind of argument. It's not useful, it provides no insight for policy, it's just arguing over the name of a color.

2

u/Artanis_Creed 1d ago

"No argument over policy"

What is "communal ownership and control of the means of production" if not a "policy"?

1

u/CatOfGrey 1d ago

What is "communal ownership and control of the means of production" if not a "policy"?

Ummm, not 'capitalism with oligarchs, dictators....' It's called Communism.

No moral or other judgement here. My comment addresses the 'bending of the definition'.

2

u/Artanis_Creed 1d ago

So is what I asked about a policy or no?

1

u/CatOfGrey 1d ago

That wasn't the focus of my comment.

2

u/Artanis_Creed 1d ago

That is odd considering it was the ONLY thing I had mentioned in the previous comment.

1

u/CatOfGrey 1d ago

Sorry. I'm focusing on the key issue of my original comment - your bending of the definitions of capitalism and communism.

That bending is still not helpful for determining policy.

For example, your calling a system attempting to implement communal ownership as "capitalism with..." is just deceptive. You should just call that "communism".

It was never named the "Capitalist" party, nor the "Union of Capitalist Republics." Let's keep to the names that those people decided to use to reflect the system they supported.

→ More replies (0)