A “think tank” and Prager U should never be confused. There is no thinking going on at Prager U.
deleted by creator
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.
Citizens who can logically assess information in a systematic manner are less easy to control.
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?
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.
Let me guess…big oil is now lobbying for changes in our education so they can keep making money and ruining the planet
what good is money for if we all die
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.
Teach 'em young to get more votes. Republicans have been playing the long game for generations now.
For those that want to be informed, here’s the animation produced by PragerU and enforced for the Florida school’s curriculum:
https://www.prageru.com/video/poland-anias-energy-crisis
And here’s a more thorough article with facts and details, that does beyond calling a Reddit user and expert for a clickbait headline:
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/08/prageru-climate-skeptic-science-florida-education/
Review the details and draw your own conclusions, don’t listen to Reddit (or Lemmy) users. Because knowing is half the battle.
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.
Just a reminder that PragerU made a video defending racism and slavery.
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.
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.
Zoe Bee did a great video recently where she broke down some of the PragerU teaching materials from a teaching materials. They’re worse than I expected.
Thanos was right. Some greater-being should just snap some part of humanity out of existence. Just not the random half, but those who actively try to ruin it for the others.
Stink tank
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.
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.
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.
The “expert” quoted was an unidentified Reddit user! Nowhere in the article was it stated what was being taught. This isn’t an article for information, it’s just an attempt to fan the flames of division.
Not saying I agree or not with what’s happening in (surprise) Florida. Just saying nothing in this article provides for discussion or critical thinking about the topic.
“It’s evil more than it is stupid,” said a Reddit user discussing the Guardian article, while another lamented the forces enabling this and anti-environmental policy planning like Project 2025 as “doing the bidding of oil companies.”
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?
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.
Not glossing over it. The first sentence is “according to the Guardian,” but doesn’t actually share what was being taught. Are they properly evaluating the material? Can’t know, they didn’t state what was being shared.
Second sentence is not clarifying what is being shown, just that it comes from an organization that has an agenda.
All I’m saying here is this article is very heavy in divisiveness and absent with specific details. That should raise concern.
I click on the article to see what craziness Florida is doing now. I didn’t learn that from the article. There are plenty of links available from Prager U on the internet. I’d like to have seen exactly what are in those animations being shown to the kids. At best this is sloppy reporting not sharing those links.
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.
All I’m saying is if someone says to me “kids are being shown bad stuff” I’d like to be able to see for myself what they are being shown to make my own decision. Just saying “it’s stuff that’s made by these people who have an agenda” isn’t sufficient, in my opinion. Because it is so easy to link to the stuff as you rightfully point out, that it wasn’t makes me question the integrity of the reporting.
I don’t have an agenda. In fact, I suspect we’re on the same side of the debate. I’m in favor of critical thinking and I’m certainly not denying global warming/climate change or whatever we are calling it. To be clear: if these kids are being taught it is a hoax, that’s bad in my opinion.
But news should be informing us. And this article fails to provide us the information we need to arm ourselves against climate change deniers. All it does is say “Florida bad” and “Prager U bad.” It doesn’t give us the details to educate us and arm us with facts. That approach to persuasion, on either side of the topic, should concern all of us.
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.
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.
There is more info about the content of the videos in the Guardian article.
But no links, even though the Guardian article has a ton of links to tangential subjects mentioned in the article.
The video in question is directly embedded in the guardian article, which Yahoo links to in the very first sentence. What are you on about?
Article sounds stupid, but so is complaining about “fanning the flames of division” in the context of writing criticism of a thinktank-made curriculum
