Because its not a bad faith argument to point out that even people who are obviously wrong think of themselves as the sources of truth. I actually thought it would be a little aggressive to point out that "telling people the truth and warning them about false truths" is not what education is. Education is a lot more complicated than that. What that is is a literal description of propaganda from the perspective of the true-believer propagandist.

No, the bad faith part was using an infamous pseudo-religion as a thought-terminating cliché instead of just saying what you said much more clearly and eloquently in this reply. :-)

Propaganda isn’t “telling people the truth and warning them about false truths”. Propaganda is spreading a message, even if it’s known to be false, in order to induce a desired behaviour. It does not care about the truth, it does not care about the wrong decision, it cares only for a specific outcome and uses any message possible to achieve that outcome.

If the point of education is not to tell people the truth and warn them about false truths so they don’t make wrong decisions, what is the point of education?

> No, the bad faith part was using an infamous pseudo-religion as a thought-terminating cliché instead of just saying what you said much more clearly and eloquently in this reply. :-)

This is not a compliment, this is doubling down on saying I was arguing in bad faith. Scientology is an excellent baseline for nonsense, not a thought-terminating cliché. I also use flat-earthers: if your argument would work just as well for flat-earthers, it's an empty argument.

In school, I was taught the tools to get my computer to do what I said and how to read. Not the truth, and what to ignore, except in history or social studies class. Needless to say, what I was taught in history and social studies in the 80s was propaganda, even the true parts.