If that's what you think, then you don't really understand real "education" and how it happens. Indoctrination and rote learning is not real education. The difference in that and real learning is immersion of the students into the subject matter to a degree where they begin to think for themselves to reach conclusions.
When I first heard about Q back around the first of the year, there were two quotes that stood out and convinced me to listen to more .....
"Q opened lines of communication without MSM consent or supervision and for awhile - none of the swamp even knew it. From the first posts to the present, people have begun researching the questions he\they ask and it has released a flood of citizen research that has revealed an oceanic swamp of corruption worldwide. He doesn’t tell us what to think, he asks us to think and research. Q has said that if all swamp details were known to the public, it would destabilize the country (civil unrest, trauma) The so-called "elites" lifestyle of lies and perversion is just too much for normal, decent citizens to absorb. So instead, the questions direct people to do their own research, find their own resources and continue until they feel they have enough information upon which to understand what the heck is going on. In this manner, the risk of overwhelming the public with massive downloads of hard to hear news is reduced. People absorb at their own pace. By the time the media is faced with the truth and tries to spin it, the citizens will have their own research to help them decide what’s true.""Q’s style is very much like the age old tradition of the Socratic method. Based on the same principle. A cryptic message forces the audience into active analysis, which leads to the process of finding their own conclusions. One of the most powerful methods of persuasion."
I dispute that using ambiguous and/or vague (which are not the same thing) code-play is the same as the Socratic Method.
A philosophical teacher employs an established, common lexicon in order to convey accurate meaning.
Doing so is not necessarily rote-teaching; it is the means, not the end. As a teacher or tutor, I often employed leading, open-ended questions; I never employed a Gnostic-style, You-Have-To-Be-Shrewd-Enough-To-Guess-What-I-Am-Really-Saying approach, which is demeaning and misleading to the student. Instead, I phrased each question carefully, in language I was confident the student would correctly apprehend.
You and others here are conflating the use of unambiguous terminology with the act of mindless indoctrination.
That is logically fallacious.