>>11516227sleep tight
>>11516246i'm sure it will be.
it just seems insane to me that a professor could get away with blatantly pushing propaganda without even relating it to the source material.
i've had english professors push feminism before but at least that was through the lens of literary analysis on a book written by very notable feminist authors just like we'd do literary analysis on other books. something like that can be a bit annoying but at the end of the day you can still take it as legitimate instruction of course material that happens to be tailored towards allowing the professor to express their opinion.
in this case the professor is almost abandoning the pretense of relating it to class altogether to ask moral questions about the value of the environment and political questions about policies governing business's rights for a science class. even then when i say "ask questions" i mean show propaganda and make it clear that the easiest path is to agree with it unless you're willing to take on a significantly harder assignment.
i wouldn't mind, for example, if our assignment was to read some material describing the mechanics behind different power plants with some data about their efficiency, input materials, output rate, and byproducts before forming an opinion on which one might be best for widespread use. it'd get the same message across that coal plants have same carbon emissions while nuclear plants produce massive amounts of power for a fraction of the waste but then it would be a conclusion we have to draw ourselves, it would actually represent some chemistry concepts, and we wouldn't be told what we're supposed to think about the implications of this data
