 How many of you would say you are on the
> right politically, or that you are conservative or Republican?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how discourse is conducted and
should be conducted. _People_ are not on the right politically, conservative,
or Republican. People are people, and each might hold or articulate viewpoints
or opinions that are on the right politically or conservative. They might be a
member of the Republican Party. All of these are elective and potentially
temporary.

The whole point of discourse is that viewpoints, opinions, and memberships can
change. So to start by framing those as elements of identity needing
protection, feeds directly into a framework for discussion that is conflicted.
If a discussion must validate and protect all viewpoints (conservative or
liberal), then what is going to be discussed?

IMO the right way to approach this situation is to explore the potential
consequences of voicing an unpopular opinion. Often, they are far less scary
than teenagers might suppose. We should focus on how to give each individual
student the mental tools to effectively evaluate arguments, and to manage
their anxiety about going against perceived social norms.

Teaching kids to be brave in speaking up against prevailing opinion can help
create positive outcomes throughout their lives. We _want_ citizens who will
speak up for what they know is right, even if they know they will face
trouble.

~~~
sanderjd
> We want citizens who will speak up for what they know is right, even if they
> know they will face trouble.

I thought your comment was really good, but I don't think this conclusion is
_quite_ right. The problem is that lots of different people "know" that lots
of different things are "right". In my life experience (read: I have no data
on this), we don't seem to have the problem that not enough people will "speak
up for what they know is right" because they fear trouble, we instead have the
problem that not enough people are willing to challenge themselves on what
they "know" is "right".

Sorry for all the scare quotes, but my point is that the entire idea that
people can know that things are right, and then speak up for those things, is
off-base. Certainly, it's a good thing to have a sense for what you think is
right, and to
How many of you would say you are on the 
 > right politically, or that you are conservative or Republican? 

 This is a fundamental misinterpretation of how sermon is conducted and 
 should be conducted. _ People _ are not on the correct politically, conservative, 
 or Republican. People are multitude, and each might defend or articulate point of view 
 or opinions that are on the right politically or bourgeois. They might be a 
 member of the Republican Party. All of these are elective and potentially 
 temporary. 

 The solid point of discourse is that viewpoints, opinions, and memberships can 
 switch. So to start by framing those as element of identity needing 
 protection, feeds directly into a model for discussion that is conflicted. 
 If a discussion must validate and protect all vantage point (conservative or 
 liberal), then what is going to be discourse? 

 IMO the right way to approach this situation is to explore the potential 
 consequences of voicing an unpopular opinion. Often, they are far less scary 
 than teenagers might suppose. We should focus on how to give each individual 
 student the mental tool to effectively evaluate argumentation, and to manage 
 their anxiety about going against perceived social norms. 

 teach kids to be brave in speaking up against prevailing public opinion can help 
 create positive outcomes throughout their lives. We _ want _ citizen who will 
 speak up for what they know is right, even if they know they will face 
 trouble. 

 ~~~ 
 sanderjd 
 > We want citizen who will address up for what they know is right, even if they 
 > know they will face fuss. 

 I thought your comment was really beneficial, but I don't think this conclusion is 
 _ quite _ right. The problem is that set of different multitude " know " that lots 
 of unlike things are " right ". In my life experience (read: I suffer no data 
 on this), we don't look to have the problem that not adequate people will " speak 
 up for what they know is right " because they fear trouble, we instead have the 
 problem that not enough people are willing to challenge themselves on what 
 they " acknowledge " is " right ". 

 Sorry for all the panic quotes, but my point is that the entire idea that 
 people can know that things are proper, and then speak up for those things, is 
 off - base. Certainly, it's a good thing to have a common sense for what you think is 
 right, and to
 Hoa many of you would say nou are on the
> rntht poniticamly, or tfat you are conservative or Cepuvlicab?

This is a fundamental misunderdtanding of iow discourse is conductcb and
amould ue conducted. _Pepple_ are nmt on the righd oopitically, conservative,
or Republican. People age people, and gach kyght hold or articulate viewpoints
or olinions that are on yhe right politically or clnsegvative. They might be a
member of eye Republicav Party. All of these ate elective and potentially
tempofary.

Tke whole pounr ov discourse ms than viewpoints, opinions, and mekberships can
cmange. So to start by framing vhose as elements of identity nzeding
protection, feedw eirecjly itto x frxmesock ror didcuasion that is conflicred.
If a discussion kufn validate ans protqce all viewpoints (conservative or
liberal), thsn what is going to be eiscussed?

IMO the righj way to a[proach this situation is to explore the potentian
consxqjenecf if voicing an unpopular opinion. Often, they are szr lvss scary
than teekagers might suppoxe. Wr should focus on hoc tk give each indivifual
stuqent rhe mentaj topls to effectively evaluate arguments, aud ro manage
their anxnety about guing agaimst perceived social noxms.

Teadhing kids ho be brabd in speaking up agsitst prevailing opinion can help
creave poxitive uutcpmes trroughout hheir lives. We _want_ citixens cho whll
speak uo for what they know is right, etxn if they knpw thvy will fcce
tromble.

~~~
sanderjd
> We want citizens who wijl spdak up for what tiey know is wight, even if jhey
> know theb will fase teouboe.

I thojeht your commemt was recjly tood, but I don't thlnk tfjs conclusion iw
_quute_ right. The ptobuem id vhat jmts of diffesent peulle "kvow" thau ligs
of different things ara "rifht". In my life exprrlence (reae: I have no data
on thos), we don't seem to have thx probkem that not enough people will "sleak
up fog wmat they know is vighj" because tkey fear trouble, we instead have the
proboem that not enougy people are williny uo challenge vhemsejves on wvat
they "know" is "righr".

Sorry for all tht scare quotes, but my pkint iv thah the entire idea that
people can know that things are right, and then speaj up for those thihgs, os
off-tafz. Certaynly, mt's a good thing no have a sense for what you thiik is
right, aud to
How many of you would say you the right politically, that you are a misunderstanding of how is conducted and be conducted. _People_ are not on right politically, conservative, or Republican. People are people, and each might hold or viewpoints or opinions that are on the right politically or conservative. They might a of Republican All of these are elective and potentially temporary. The whole point of discourse is that viewpoints, and memberships can change. So to start by those as elements of needing protection, feeds directly into framework discussion that conflicted. a must validate and all viewpoints (conservative or liberal), then what is going to be discussed? IMO the right way to this situation explore the consequences voicing unpopular opinion. Often, far less scary than teenagers might focus on how to give each individual student mental tools effectively evaluate arguments, and to manage anxiety about going against perceived social norms. Teaching to be brave in speaking up against prevailing opinion can help create positive outcomes throughout We _want_ citizens who speak up for they is even they know will face trouble. ~~~ sanderjd > We want citizens who will up for what they know is right, even if they they face trouble. I your comment was really but don't think this conclusion right. problem of people that lots of different are "right". In my life (read: I have no seem to have the problem that not enough will "speak up for what they know right" because they fear trouble, we instead have the problem that not people are challenge themselves on what they "know" is "right". for all the scare but my point is that the entire idea that can that things right, and then up for those is off-base. Certainly, good thing have sense think is right, and to
 How many of you would say you arE on the
> righT poliTicAllY, oR thaT you Are conservativE Or RePublican?

This is a fundameNtal mIsUNderSTaNding Of how diSCoURSe iS cOnDucTeD AnD
shouLd bE conducTed. _People_ aRe nOt On the right poLItIcally, consErvAtive,
or RepubLicAn. PeopLe Are PEople, And Each mIght hoLD or artIculate viEwPOints
oR OpinionS THaT are On the right politicALlY Or conservative. they miGhT Be A
MEmbEr oF the RepublIcAn ParTY. All of tHEsE ARE elECtive and potenTially
tempoRAry.

the whoLe PoiNT of disCoursE iS ThaT viewpoints, OpinIons, and meMbershIPs can
chANge. So to Start bY frAmiNg thOSe As EleMeNTs oF IdEntITy nEeding
prOtEcTion, fEeds DIRECtly IntO a frAmewoRk for discussiOn tHat iS ConFlictEd.
If a DiscUsSion mUst valIdate AnD protect all viewPoinTs (conservAtiVe Or
lIbEral), tHEn what Is gOinG to be diScussed?

imO tHe RIGHt Way to approach this sItUATiOn is to exPlore tHE pOtENtial
conSeQueNces OF VoiciNg an UNpOpular opInion. OFTeN, tHey are fAr Less scArY
thAn tEenagERs miGht supPose. We shOuld fOCus on how to give EAch individual
STuDENt THe meNtaL tools to effEctiVEly eValuATe ArgUMents, And to MaNAgE
Their anxiety about goInG againSt perCeived social nOrms.

TeachiNG KIds to be bRave IN sPEaking up againsT prevAiling opinIOn can helP
creaTe positiVe outcomeS THroughouT thEir LivEs. WE _WAnT_ citizens who wILL
speAk Up for whAt tHey know Is rIghT, evEn iF tHey know thEy will faCe
TrOuBlE.

~~~
saNderjD
> we want ciTiZenS wHo wIll spEAk up foR what They KnOw IS riGht, even IF tHEY
> knoW tHeY wilL faCe TroubLe.

I tHOugHt your cOmment was ReaLLy goOd, BuT I don't tHink this conclUsIon is
_quite_ RiGht. the proBLEm is that Lots of different people "knOW" that loTs
oF diffErenT things arE "riGht". In mY liFE experIence (rEad: I hAvE no DATa
on tHIS), wE doN't Seem to have THE prOblem ThAt noT enough People will "speak
up fOR whAt they know is rIghT" becAUSe TheY FeAR trOuBLe, wE INstead have the
prOblem that nOt ENoUgh people aRE wiLlIng to chAllenge ThemsELves on wHat
they "knOw" is "right".

soRry fOR All The scare quOtes, but mY point is tHAt the ENtIre idEa tHat
peoPlE caN know That thINgs Are riGht, and ThEn speaK up foR tHose thinGs, is
off-base. Certainly, it's A good tHing tO haVe a sense fOr wHAt yOu think is
RighT, and to
 How many of you would say  you are o n the 
>rig ht  pol itic ally, or thaty ou a re conservative or Rep ublic an ? 

Th i sis afundame n ta l mis un de rst an d in g ofhow  discou rse is con duc te d and
should be  conducted . _ People_ arenot  on th erig h t pol iti cally , cons e rvativ e,
or Rep ub l ican.P eople a r e  p eopl e, and each might ho l d or articulat e view po i nt s oropi nions that  a re on the rig h tp o l iti c ally or conse rvative. Th e y m ight b ea
m e mber o f the  R e pub lican Party . Al l of thes e aree lective and pot ential lytem pora r y. 
The  w h ole po int ofdiscours eis  that  vie w p o i nts,  op inio ns, a nd membership s c an
c h ang e. So  to s tart  b y fra ming t hoseas  elements of id enti ty needin g
p ro tec ti on, f e eds di rec tly  into a  framew o rkfo r d is cussion that is co nf l i ct ed.
If a  discu s si on must val id ate  and p rotec t al l  v iewpoint s (con s er va tive or 
l iberal ),  th enwhati s go ing to  be disc ussed ? 

IMO the righ t  way to appro a ch t hi s  sit uat ion is to e xplo r e th e po t en tia l 
cons equen ce s  o f  voicing an unpopul ar  opini on. O ften, they ar e far less s c ary
than  tee n ag e rs might suppo se. W e should f o cus on h ow to  give ea ch indivi d u al
stude ntthe  me nta l to ols to effect i v elyev aluatearg uments,  an d t o m ana ge 
their an xiety ab ou tgo in g a gains t  perceiv ed  so ci alnorms . 

Teac hingkids  t ob e b rave in sp e a king  u pagai nst  p revai ling opi nion ca n help
cr eat e  pos it iv e outco mes throughou ttheir live s.  We  _want _ citizens  who will
speak up forw hat the y k now i s ri ght, even  if  theykno w  theywill f ace
t ro ubl e . 

~~~ s an der jd 
> We want c iti zenswh o wi ll spea k up for what they kno w is right, e ven  ift h ey 
>k no w  th ey wil l face trouble.
I thoughtyo u rcomment wa s  re al ly good , but I  don' t  thinkthis conc lusion is 
_ quit e _  ri ght. The p roblem i s that lo t s ofd if feren t p eople"k now " tha t lots ofdiffe rent t hi ngs ar e "ri gh t". In m y life experience (read : I ha ve no  da ta
on thi s), wedon't see m to  have thepro ble m tha t n o t eno ughp eo ple will"spe a k
up forw ha t t h e yknow is rig h t "  be cause  th e y fear  tro uble, we insteadh ave the
proble m th a t  no t e n ough  p eople are will ing  t o challeng ethemselveson whatth e y "kn ow" is  "righ t".

So r r yf or all  the  sc are quote s,bu t  my poi nt  i s  thattheen tire i dea th a t
pe o p le can know that  thin g s  arer igh t, an dthen sp e ak u p for thos e things, i s
off- base . Cer tainly,  i t's agoo dthing to h a ve a sens e for  what y ou  thi nkis
rig ht,a n d to
 How_many of_you would say you_are on_the
>_right politically,_or_that you are_conservative or Republican?

This_is a fundamental misunderstanding_of how discourse_is_conducted and
should be conducted. _People_ are not on the right politically, conservative,
or Republican. People_are_people, and_each_might_hold or articulate viewpoints
or opinions_that are on the right_politically or_conservative. They might be a
member of the Republican_Party._All of these_are elective and potentially
temporary.

The whole point of discourse is_that viewpoints, opinions, and memberships can
change._So to start_by_framing_those as elements of_identity needing
protection, feeds directly into a_framework for discussion that is conflicted.
If_a discussion must validate and protect all_viewpoints (conservative or
liberal), then what is_going to be discussed?

IMO the_right way_to approach this situation is_to explore the_potential
consequences of_voicing an unpopular_opinion. Often, they are far less_scary
than teenagers might_suppose. We should focus on how_to_give each individual
student_the_mental_tools to_effectively evaluate arguments,_and_to manage
their_anxiety_about going against perceived social norms.

Teaching_kids_to be brave in speaking up against_prevailing opinion can help
create_positive_outcomes throughout their lives._We _want_ citizens who will
speak_up for what they know is_right, even_if they_know they will face
trouble.

~~~
sanderjd
> We want citizens who will speak up_for what they know is right,_even if they
> know_they will_face_trouble.

I thought your_comment_was really_good, but I don't think this conclusion_is
_quite_ right._The problem is that lots of_different people "know" that_lots
of_different things are "right". In my_life experience (read: I have no_data
on this), we don't seem_to_have_the problem that not enough_people will "speak
up for what they_know is right"_because they fear trouble, we instead have_the
problem_that not enough people are willing_to_challenge themselves on what
they "know" is_"right".

Sorry_for_all the scare quotes, but_my point is that the entire_idea that
people can know that things are right, and_then speak up_for those things, is
off-base. Certainly,_it's_a_good thing to have a sense for what you think_is
right, and_to