• lowleveldata@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s the point of teaching children to deny climate change? So that they won’t go and find a solution? Are they trying to eliminate human beings?

    • Bri Guy @sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let me guess…big oil is now lobbying for changes in our education so they can keep making money and ruining the planet

        • BaconIsAVeg@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The world isn’t going to die overnight, it’s going to happen slowly, and it’s already started. Failed crops, mass migration, water shortages, etc. The rich need to maintain the ability to influence policies like immigration to stretch out their miserable existance.

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The rich think they’ll live in opulent bunkers.

          It doesn’t seem to occur to them that they’ll be killed and eaten by their own security guards, once the collapse of civilization renders their money moot.

          But we will all be dead by then.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fundies often expect the world to end any moment now and for Supply-Side Jesus to further comfort the comforted and to send the afflicted to further affliction.

      Calvinism, in all its spinoffs, is a fuck.

    • M68040 [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      At this point I think there might just be an element of pure reaction and contrarianism involved. Dying’s worth it as long as you own the commie nazi libs or whatever

      • eXAt [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I’m seeing this at the level of my provincial government (Alberta) all green energy projects being indefinitely canceled/ not being approved in favor of oil and gas based power. Ostensibly to protect jobs but the rhetoric used about it clearly just being backlash against the commie libs (and Turdeau of course)

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Logic and critical thinking was a third year course… in college… and was a freaking elective.

      I remember being in the class and thinking that this probably would have been good to know before deciding what college or major to pick.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that there are grains of truth here, but a lot of emotional manipulation, such as:

      • Ania’s friends stop talking to her - is this actually likely to happen?
      • Ania doesn’t feel questions are welcome - every teacher I’ve had will return some days later with answers to relevant questions they couldn’t readily answer

      Poland’s leaders promised to cut all coal production by 2049

      Yet the video focuses on the Russia-Ukraine war. Surely that war won’t last for the next 26 years. I think the world would accept going back to coal (perhaps from non-Russian sources) until natural gas can be sourced elsewhere or replaced by something else. 26 years is a long time, and they could totally build nuclear plants in that time. They have the international agreements in place, so it shouldn’t be a huge issue to roll that out by the stated timeline.

      Had they started rolling it out sooner they would already have a backup plan to Russian natural gas and coal.

      So the main thrust of the videos i completely fine, but it sets up a strawman pitting two all-or-nothing approaches (switch 100% to green energy today or abandon green energy).

      I’m not going to go through the full video as the motherjones article does that already, but I do also want to point out that motherjones is pushing a heavy narrative as well, such as:

      While no school district has announced plans to show any of PragerU’s videos, NPR reports, there’s nothing to stop teachers from independently airing the material

      They’re making a huge deal out of something relatively small. Basically, Florida has stated that schools may use PragerU’s content, not that they have to or should use that content, only that it’s allowed.

      The important thing is how it’s presented. I think this video would be interesting for in-class discussion, especially when shown alongside a video with the opposite perspective. It could raise interesting questions, such as:

      • how quickly should countries/states switch to green energy?
      • how do we balance local needs and global concerns?
      • is going backward when an emergency comes up a bad thing? How long is acceptable for a “temporary” step back?

      I think it’s also interesting from a “how bias can impact the presentation” discussion. So I 100% agree with it being allowed to be used in schools, but I think that should be followed up with some kind of auditing process to make sure it’s being used appropriately, and that process should be as open as possible.

  • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    If anyone has not previously googled for PragerU content, you should. I watched a couple vids and looked at images from a textbook awhile ago. You’ll be sure it’s either satire or fake. Best as I can tell, it’s neither. That makes it scary.

  • OutOfMemory@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is anyone able to find these videos on the Florida list of approved materials? I found statements from state officials that Prager is included, but I don’t see it in any official documents or [teacher resource lists](https://www.flimadoption.org/Bids/Adopted Materials). I’d love some help digging it up so I can get involved.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if other well-known industry groups are also called our for their propganda? For example recycling is pushed by the plastic industry, the notion of “clean coal” is pushed by coal mining, and of course the entire notion of volunteering for charity is just Capitalism ensuring that societal problems will never try to be tackled by a Government.

    This is no different.

    • mrnotoriousman@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What schools are teaching clean coal as part of their curriculum? And yes, even ineffective solutions like recycling are extremely different and far better than teaching kids outright denial.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know any specific school that is teaching clean coal, however there is nothing at any school district that would preclude clean coal from being discussed as an answer to climate change. Much like the PragerU videos. No school district is currently using those videos, but there is nothing stopping any school from using them which is what the whole article is about.

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Florida Department of Education has approved screening videos that deny the Earth’s changing climate to schoolchildren in the state, according to the Guardian.

      Animations from Prager University Foundation, a conservative group that pushes untruths about sustainable energy and the warming of the planet, will now be a part of the public school curriculum in Florida.

      Seems like it says what was being taught right at the start?

      They also quote a researcher at Kansas State University and it’s kind of weird you glossed over that entirely to focus on the reddit user.

      • AssholeDestroyer@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        From Motherjones

        While no school district has announced plans to show any of PragerU’s videos, NPR reports, there’s nothing to stop teachers from independently airing the material. As a Florida Department of Education spokesperson said in a statement, the material aligns with Florida’s revised civics and government standards.

        • grte@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They explicitly state that they are showing PragerU videos as educational material in public school. It’s as plain as day. All their videos are on youtube if you want to go look specifically at what they are showing.

            • TheForkOfDamocles@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think The Guardian is right not to share the actual bullshit. The article would just be another example of TMZ or Entertainment Tonight if they just flung the lies all over. I know where to find P”U” if I want to see it. I don’t think The Guardian needs to submit its readers to more crap in the article.

            • grte@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, you are honestly wilding out over this. The article was fine and you are in a contrarian overdrive in a way that makes me think you aren’t being entirely forthright.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Article sounds stupid, but so is complaining about “fanning the flames of division” in the context of writing criticism of a thinktank-made curriculum