Problem-posing education does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor. No oppressive order could permit the oppressed to begin to question: Why?

Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them”; for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated.

Implicit in the banking concept [of education] is the assumption of a dichotomy between human beings and the world: a person is merely in the world, not with the world or with others…In this view, the person is not a conscious being (corpo consciente); he or she is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty “mind” passively open to the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside.

https://envs.ucsc.edu/internships/internship-readings/freire-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed.pdf

  • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    If antinatalists were sincere you would not be hearing from them owing to their permanent inability to post. Or do anything.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      owing to their permanent inability to post. Or do anything.

      I’m not sure I’m following what you mean by that.

      Lots of affluent and probably-single people around my current locale sincerely despise children and give them dirty looks just for existing in public, especially on roads at school crossings. I got to make eye contact with lots of them when volunteering as a crossing guard before and daring to slow down their commute slightly.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          They do, they do.

          No wonder so many of them want to escape into some ostensibly-better “simulation” promised by some nerd-rapture in the future and/or see the lived reality around them as some “simulation” already as an excuse to dehumanize other people and living things as “NPCs.”

          • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In this case yes, but it can be more widespread.

            I would use the analogy of redditors addicted to gore. They’ll write entire essays waxing poetic about how they like to watch gore because it philosophically reminds them of the fragility of the human condition or some other bullshit to cover for the fact that they’re just sad basement dwellers who’ve substituted cartel torture videos for porn.

            And with the whole “men’s rights” circlejerk, hatred of children is almost always a proxy for their hatred of the evil seductress women entrapping them with an anchor baby. Just like with their gore addiction, they must pretend that their positions are something deeply philosophical instead of impotent MRA rage.

    • Pili [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We can be anti-natalist without being anti-living. We see preventing a birth as something different than

      (CW: self harm)

      killing someone or oneself. It’s like saying pro-choice people should kill themselves because they would have liked to be aborted anyway.