So the adults banned Legos because they didn't understand how Legos and children work, and temporary prohibition was the only solution that allowed them to restore their utopian play model.
Why We Banned Legos (2006)
131–140 of 440 posts
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
imagine living in this mindset constantly and being unable to turn it off, even when talking about kids playing with legos
You mean it’s not relevant to mention economics in a discussion about children who invented an economy?
not everything has to be an analogy to your geopolitical worldview especially with regards to children playing with legos
"mom can I have some more spaghetti?"
"oh sure, let me just call up the Federal Spaghetti Reserve and ask it to print up some more Spaghetti Dollars, thus only further increasing this nation's Spaghetti Inflation far past manageable limits—great idea, if you want to usher in complete economic collapse!!"
like come on
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point the evidence is pretty clear that is the case.. well maybe not "indoctrination" but for sure many many school systems do not share the value system of the parents sending their kids to the schools The question then becomes who's value system should "win", IMO it should be the parents, the parents should have the final say in their child's upbringing not the schools or "community".
I would rather my children go to a school that challenges our beliefs, because they may be wrong. I don't want the growing up parroting what I believe just because I believe it, they should come to their own conclusions.
I don't think the goal of these teachers is to challenge their beliefs, unless they start enforcing right wing libertarianism on the left leaning kids
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really want to know what you see the difference to be.
Sharing and taking turns is interpersonal generosity which works very well in the real world. Socialism and collectivism is enforced resource allocation typically requiring authoritarian rule which typically becomes oppressive when manifest in the real world.
[deleted]
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I think the issue is the reliance on "the system" to correct that for you. You can't build the best structure if the system doesn't like it You just wait for hand outs, the system will make it correct for you. In a non-ironic way, this sort of regulation came from ethic systems like a sense of community it the dreaded religion system (help the poor, tithe 10% gains for God) but are now being trained to be replace…
except the children made the system. they decided on the rules that would apply to them. there is no "system" beyond their own agreement!
That's fine and would teach the kids about tyranny and how to overcome it.
But isn't this about the teachers intervening? How are kids to fight against the teachers?
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#136The Howard Roark in me is furious. Let each kid build to his own ability.
> All structures will be standard sizes
Way to promote mediocrity. These people shouldn't be teaching our children.
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#137I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…
> the builders began excluding other children. Occasionally, Legotown leaders explicitly rebuffed children, telling them that they couldn’t play. Typically the exclusion was more subtle, growing from a climate in which Legotown was seen as the turf of particular kids. [...] These negotiations gave rise to heated conflict [...] Kendra suggested a big cleanup of the loose Legos on the floor. The Legotown builders were fierce in their opposition. They explained that particular children “owned” those pieces and it would be unfair to put them back in the bins where other children might use them.
Or to paraphrase: “A few of the kids were being jerks and it was making the other kids feel bad, and despite teachers repeatedly asking them to stop, they wouldn’t, so we decided (edit: after a lot of thought and discussion with the class) to take away the toy causing the trouble.”
This is hardly “indoctrination” any more than it is indoctrination to break up kids’ physical fights or stop kids from taking/breaking each-others’ stuff.
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you had actually read the article, you would know that this is a private after-school program whose participants are "upper-middle class and socially liberal." Your comment sounds like "MY values aren't being taught so this is child abuse!" Maybe some parents don't agree with your values? Maybe they want their children to learn about cooperation and empathy instead of blindly accepting hierarchical power structure…
> Maybe they want their children to learn about cooperation and empathy instead of blindly accepting hierarchical power structures and divisions that emphasize the individual over community Okay, after weeks of this, they all agreed that now everyone owns the legos together. Which is ironic given that they had power over their legos. Then the teachers took it away. Then the teachers gave it back. It sounds like the l…
You should really read the article. A hierarchy formed where children were actively being regulated and excluded by other children. The teachers guided a conversation that allowed for everyone to participate equitably.
Your last sentence says a lot. It's sad to expect your children to performatively participate in community but return to selfish behavior when it no longer benefits them.
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intervening when some of the kids are hogging all the pieces doesn't seem all that unreasonable, especially since, in this case, the adults noticed it was mostly older kids not letting any of the younger kids play with any of the pieces. That's not a healthy environment. That's literally the big man screwing over the little man.
I don't have a problem with telling kids they have to share if they can't work it out. I do have a problem with the 90% of the article that was about the teachers pushing their ideological beliefs on the children who defenseless against the adults indoctrinating them.
They were able to take a situation with an easy way out, and instead took the hard way out and were able to get a bunch of elementary school kids to mutually agree to a set of rules for fair lego play.
I'm actually impressed. Those are people that care about their job.
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Says you. Some of us believe that sharing and taking turns is a social obligation -- not a generosity -- necessary to living in a functioning society. Even more of us believe that a small minority should not be allowed to hoard all resources for themselves while others have nothing.
Social obligation enforced by what? The sword?
Cooperation, empathy, and a sense of duty.