Pretty much. It's a basic story of teaching kids about unfairness and how to play nicely with each other. The hysteria in some of these comments is baffling.

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 replaced by the mechanics of a political governance system.

I think most conservatives take to the individual responsibility for this reason. One I personally subscribe to.

(Edit: not sure why the downvotes? Sorry if I'm incorrect, just trying to feel out ideas)

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?

> But isn't this about the teachers intervening? How are kids to fight against the teachers?

The teachers intervened in the situation (essentially issued an injunction) while organizing a forum to mediate a solution.

Also, just to be clear, adults must be tyrants where children are concerned - you can't logically bargain with emotionally immature humans. Occasionally somebody is going to get sent to the car or a time out.

> adults must be tyrants where children are concerned - you can't logically bargain with emotionally immature humans. Occasionally somebody is going to get sent to the car or a time out.

Yes you're right. Perhaps my whole take is "it's not how i would have done it" & "is not the lessons I would be trying to teach."

As someone who had to punch upwards to climb out of poverty, I'm trying to think how a young me would take this lesson. I probably wouldn't even really get it, I probably wouldn't have been able to be in this class. But if I were..

I just find it conflicting. I'd be interested in seeing where the kids are now and/ where they came from.

> would teach

that's... what they did teach.

> How are kids to fight against the teachers?

why would the kids need to fight the teachers???

> why would the kids need to fight the teachers???

Because humans aren't perfect and even children need to be able to be able to assert and stand up for themselves.

Kid v adult would always lose, not sensible to do, yes. more of a chance if it's other kids.

Hard to stand up against bullies if the bullies are 30 years your senior

For Pete’s sake these are children. You can’t just let the big ones walk all over the little ones.

That's what I'm saying!

The children who are being walked on should be supported and given the ability to survive in their mini lego-world.

If they're being walked on, but receive no help because "the system allows it" - what chance do they have?

I think the issue is that, as an adult we can (sorta, financial necessities might make this infeasible) always choose to remove ourselves from a situation. In school yall folks are stuck with each other - and some of the kids literally can walk all other the others.

Teaching bargaining will pay off dividends in these children's lives.

So teach them tools to use against the bigger stonger kids to get a bigger share. Those are the skills that are most valuable

The kids came up with the rules, not the teachers, which seems like a pretty important distinction here.

The kids had their own rules they came up with entirely on their own which resulted in the Lego being taken away.

Then they continued to have to figure out what to say to get the Lego back.

> Then they continued to have to figure out what to say to get the Lego back.

No, they were made to write new rules together this time. Nothing in the article stood out to me as coercive. The teachers made the kids actually think about what they were doing and discuss openly, instead of each kid blindly indulging their own self-interest.

the kids who had control of the Lego had a set of rules. other kids didn't have a say. the Lego was taken away so it wouldn't distract from the discussion, and then all the children developed rules they were happy with.

Teachers seized the means of production and no one was allowed to produce anything again.

"manufactured consent"

the exercise would continue until the answers were acceptable

According to the article the teachers banned the Legos because the kids had (to paraphrase) "developed a system of power and privilege which is bad because it's like capitalism."

The teachers are all trained socialists. They then spent months training the kids in collectivism.

More than likely the teachers have no idea of the link between this ideology and marxism/socialism. They're going along with the cultural pressure, their jobs are on the line, they don't want to be perceived as contrarian, and buy all the excuses made for why a plain reading of the language isn't actually racist (again, jobs on the line so strongly incentivized to STFU).

Not all teachers go along with it, but like any ideology with the force of population, psychological leverage of guilt, and the threat to destroy careers, most people in any group would comply in a manner that doesn't require deep consideration - in fact, quite the opposite! They need to turn off certain alarms and knowledge to get on the bandwagon.

Why do you say they weren't paying attention?