Do you seriously think that the Pledge of Allegiance (and other similar things) are not designed to indoctrinate? Let’s go to the writings of the guy who penned the Pledge of Allegiance:
″..the training of citizens in the common knowledge and the common duties of citizenship belongs irrevocably to the State.” (emphasis mine)
The foundational aim of indoctrination is to get people when their minds are sufficiently plastic as to have few critical filters (i.e., in childhood) and to ‘re-wire’ the plastic brain/mind with the indoctrinator’s desired trope at the front. This is done by rote (church liturgies, pledges and so forth).
I am not claiming that it is not indoctrination, by that definition. Nor am I claiming that it is. I am asserting that the term “indoctrination” is counterproductive, as the connotations, particularly the political ones, are likely to interfere with discussion and clear thinking. I also note that this comment section is probably not the place for such discussion.
There’s no requirement for magic (and therefore no requirement for attempts at deploying hackneyed middle-school debating tropes).
Of course not.
If, on the other hand, you have some theory as to how “North-Korea style pledging of allegiance to a piece of coloured cloth” is somehow the cause of all these things, and it is relevant to, y’know, rationality, then I advise you to write a top-level post on the topic.
I stand by this statement.
Thus any device that increases the net level of indoctrination will cause—not by ‘magic’ - an increase in other things associated with reduced critical faculties.
This is usually referred to here as the need to “raise the sanity waterline”—I’m not sure where the term originates—and as I said, I am aware that it’s a problem, but I don’t see why Americans pledging allegiance is an especially vital part of that.
Incidentally, while this does not alter the substance of your post, I note that your writing style seems needlessly rhetorical, which is likely to attract hostility from people pattern-matching to various ideologues. This is a website dedicated to rationality, not politics.
I am not claiming that it is not indoctrination, by that definition. Nor am I claiming that it is. I am asserting that the term “indoctrination” is counterproductive, as the connotations, particularly the political ones, are likely to interfere with discussion and clear thinking. I also note that this comment section is probably not the place for such discussion.
Of course not.
I stand by this statement.
This is usually referred to here as the need to “raise the sanity waterline”—I’m not sure where the term originates—and as I said, I am aware that it’s a problem, but I don’t see why Americans pledging allegiance is an especially vital part of that.
Incidentally, while this does not alter the substance of your post, I note that your writing style seems needlessly rhetorical, which is likely to attract hostility from people pattern-matching to various ideologues. This is a website dedicated to rationality, not politics.