Anti-CRT Hysteria

[Metaphor]

To concede something means I have to have held a position that I then later reverse. I have never held the position that individuals cannot be and do racist things.

I didn't say you held or hold the position. If anything I said you seem too hold that position. The reason you seem that way to me is on this forum you have yet to take up the position that a black man encountered racism in America (in your lifetime to be generous) when given the opportunity.

"Take up the position"?

Whether somebody has experienced racism in a particular incident is a question particular to the incident. I am not obligated to call out every racist incident I read about or obligated to comment on a thread if I simply generally agree.

But I do call out people I think are wrong, and I especially do it selectively on this board, because this board is heavily left-leaning and people tend not to call out their own. And someone needs to set them right.

The closest you've got is implying that democrats think black people are stupid. However (again it seems) that is an attack on a political party that can arguably be called a defense of black people and not exclusively in their defense..

My sincere apologies for not seeing a side of you you've yet to show.

I do not simply listen and believe people when they tell me they experienced an '-ism'. I want the details of the incident.

As for Democrats and what they believe: I think their policies show lower behavioural expectations from black people as a group, and it is easy for them to take black votes for granted, as 85-90% of black people in America vote Democrat.

 

[Gospel]

I respect that.

 

[Bomb#20]

You have proved your own point about the right being better propagandists since you have swallowed their nonsense hook, line, sinker on this issue.

By all means, post a link to Fox News, or whichever source of right-wing nonsense you have in mind, calling out the CRT peddlers for their pious fraud and their equivocation fallacies, calling out the left for its blatant double standards, and arguing that teachers telling children to confess their privileges is a bad thing for the same reason school prayer is a bad thing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

... Why on earth should inappropriate activities have to be "systemic curricula" or "taught en masse" before the legislature takes action to prevent their recurrence? What's wrong with saying "Don't anybody do that again." after one person does what he ought not have done? ...

It has historically been true that when laws are made to solve a general “problem” that only applies to a very small number of instances that are typically handled through other means that those laws ten to be wielded in a broader sense to do more harm than good. This is actually why most conservatives and libertarians are against exactly these kinds of laws, at least when it is in their political interests to be so even if they are hypocritical otherwise.

So, I’m actually surprised when more conservative folks think the answer to a very small problem is a wide spread government response. That’s seem anathema to their viewpoints.

That’s why I asked if there is a systemic problem. Because in that case it may make more sense, and conservatives may agree, to address the problem at the governmental level, especially at a high level like the State.

Is that more responsive to your question?

Hey, now that I answered your question do you have any comment on it?

Are all you guys retired? Am I the only one here who still has non-IIDB demands on his time? Yes, that is much more responsive to my question, thank you.

So my comment is, do you take that same attitude toward the coach who leads student prayer sessions on the fifty-yard line after games? The school fought that all the way to the Supreme Court, even though there was nothing in the school system's systemic curriculum telling coaches to pray with students after games, and coaches weren't praying with children in public on school grounds en masse. It was just this one coach. So do you think the school district should have just backed off and let him go on encouraging schoolchildren to pray with him?

I’m not quite sure I understand the comparison. Did the state pass a law against all kinds of coach/student interactions to address this problem? I would need more detail on the government response to this action, under the assumption that praying after games isn’t a widespread problem, to make the comparison to the subject to which I was originally responding.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course that's not what systemic racism is. Duh! The problem is, that's what the left-wing propagandists call "systemic racism". They call the fact that white people are on average richer than black people systemic racism even when it isn't ethnic hostility or a stereotype on the part of "the system" that is causing J. Random Blackguy to have less money than K. Random Whiteguy. Actual systemic racism is Jim Crow laws, <more examples snipped> But the fact that some things really are systemic racism doesn't magically make every statistical difference between races systemic racism.

First you poisoned the well by recklessly insulting

The reckless insult was the disinformation you wrote about me in post #241.

the motivations of people using the term "systemic racism"

The motivation of most of the people using it is they absorbed it from their ideological echo chamber and now they're reciting it like good little meme-war foot soldiers without applying any critical thought to it.

As for the propagandists who came up with the rhetoric in the first place, if you feel my attribution of motive was reckless, then by all means, propose some plausible alternative motive. Propose some hypothetical honorable reason a left-winger would contemplate an action he has to know perfectly well does not satisfy the criteria for what the word "racism" means in common usage, and decide to apply the word "racism" to it. And while you're at it, why don't you also propose some hypothetical honorable reason a right-winger would contemplate a teacher mentioning he has a husband, and decide to apply the word "grooming" to it.

and now you are goal post shifting.

You accuse me of that without bothering to mention what the heck "goal post" you're even talking about.

 

[Bomb#20]

So my comment is, do you take that same attitude toward the coach who leads student prayer sessions on the fifty-yard line after games? The school fought that all the way to the Supreme Court, even though there was nothing in the school system's systemic curriculum telling coaches to pray with students after games, and coaches weren't praying with children in public on school grounds en masse. It was just this one coach. So do you think the school district should have just backed off and let him go on encouraging schoolchildren to pray with him?

I’m not quite sure I understand the comparison. Did the state pass a law against all kinds of coach/student interactions to address this problem?

There was already a law against it: the First Amendment. But trying to enforce the Constitution against a determined opponent is a huge production. Relative to the powers and resources of the agents involved, it's probably less effort for a legislature to pass a new law than it is for a school district to take a lawsuit through multiple levels of appeal.

I would need more detail on the government response to this action, under the assumption that praying after games isn’t a widespread problem, to make the comparison to the subject to which I was originally responding.

There was a long discussion of it several months ago in the "How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools" thread.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is anybody here Ok with prayer in schools? Despite Matthew 6:5-6 forbidding public prayer? If Jesus commands Christians not to pray in public, Christians mandating public prayer in schol might as well be mandating prayer to Satan.

 

[laughing dog]

You have proved your own point about the right being better propagandists since you have swallowed their nonsense hook, line, sinker on this issue.

By all means, post a link to Fox News, or whichever source of right-wing nonsense you have in mind, calling out the CRT peddlers for their pious fraud and their equivocation fallacies, calling out the left for its blatant double standards, and arguing that teachers telling children to confess their privileges is a bad thing for the same reason school prayer is a bad thing.

I guess you never learned to old adage of "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".

 

[Bomb#20]

You have proved your own point about the right being better propagandists since you have swallowed their nonsense hook, line, sinker on this issue.

By all means, post a link to Fox News, or whichever source of right-wing nonsense you have in mind, calling out the CRT peddlers for their pious fraud and their equivocation fallacies, calling out the left for its blatant double standards, and arguing that teachers telling children to confess their privileges is a bad thing for the same reason school prayer is a bad thing.

I guess you never learned to old adage of "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".

The point of the Turing Test is for a computer to try to be mistaken for a human.

 

[laughing dog]

You have proved your own point about the right being better propagandists since you have swallowed their nonsense hook, line, sinker on this issue.

By all means, post a link to Fox News, or whichever source of right-wing nonsense you have in mind, calling out the CRT peddlers for their pious fraud and their equivocation fallacies, calling out the left for its blatant double standards, and arguing that teachers telling children to confess their privileges is a bad thing for the same reason school prayer is a bad thing.

I guess you never learned to old adage of "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".

The point of the Turing Test is for a computer to try to be mistaken for a human.

If you are not going to bother to read your posts, why should anyone else?

 

[Shadowy Man]

So my comment is, do you take that same attitude toward the coach who leads student prayer sessions on the fifty-yard line after games? The school fought that all the way to the Supreme Court, even though there was nothing in the school system's systemic curriculum telling coaches to pray with students after games, and coaches weren't praying with children in public on school grounds en masse. It was just this one coach. So do you think the school district should have just backed off and let him go on encouraging schoolchildren to pray with him?

I’m not quite sure I understand the comparison. Did the state pass a law against all kinds of coach/student interactions to address this problem?

There was already a law against it: the First Amendment. But trying to enforce the Constitution against a determined opponent is a huge production. Relative to the powers and resources of the agents involved, it's probably less effort for a legislature to pass a new law than it is for a school district to take a lawsuit through multiple levels of appeal.

I would need more detail on the government response to this action, under the assumption that praying after games isn’t a widespread problem, to make the comparison to the subject to which I was originally responding.

There was a long discussion of it several months ago in the "How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools" thread.

I don’t see the comparison then. It’s a very different situation.

Maybe you are saying that this is a situation where a statewide law against his actions would be better than dealing with it on and individual basis?

And a law that prohibits possibly protected first amendment activity would end up being challenged on court anyway, also likely heading to the Supreme Court.

 

[Bomb#20]

I would need more detail on the government response to this action, under the assumption that praying after games isn’t a widespread problem, to make the comparison to the subject to which I was originally responding.

There was a long discussion of it several months ago in the "How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools" thread.

I don’t see the comparison then. It’s a very different situation.

What's so different about it? State employees are using their government jobs as bully-pulpits to try to get children to agree with their own faith-based opinions, and higher-ups in the government are trying to get them to cut it out and do their jobs like professionals.

Maybe you are saying that this is a situation where a statewide law against his actions would be better than dealing with it on and individual basis?

You keep talking about dealing with it on an individual basis. Who is it you think will do that?

The overall attitude of most posters in this thread, and school administrators, and legislators, and Supreme Court justices, and Americans in general, appears to be "Freedom for me, not for thee". To a typical American, the teachers' freedom to preach trumps the kids' freedom from being preached at, or vice versa, depending on whether it's the teacher or the kids who he thinks of as "us". Nobody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they agree with; everybody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they disagree with. And the schools are staffed by typical Americans. So if the school administrators agree with whichever opinions a teacher is teaching, what will motivate them to deal with it on an individual basis? They'll just ignore it, and they'll blow off parents who complain. The reason a statewide law (or the federal law we had until last June) is better than dealing with it on an individual basis is because it's better than nothing.

And a law that prohibits possibly protected first amendment activity would end up being challenged on court anyway, also likely heading to the Supreme Court.

True. But since the SCOTUS is also currently staffed mainly by "Freedom for me, not for thee" mentalities, it's a good bet that the same justices who backed Kennedy's "right" to use a public school as his own personal Christian church will rule that it's okay to prohibit teachers from telling kids whites are oppressors.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I would need more detail on the government response to this action, under the assumption that praying after games isn’t a widespread problem, to make the comparison to the subject to which I was originally responding.

There was a long discussion of it several months ago in the "How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools" thread.

I don’t see the comparison then. It’s a very different situation.

What's so different about it? State employees are using their government jobs as bully-pulpits to try to get children to agree with their own faith-based opinions, and higher-ups in the government are trying to get them to cut it out and do their jobs like professionals.

Maybe you are saying that this is a situation where a statewide law against his actions would be better than dealing with it on and individual basis?

You keep talking about dealing with it on an individual basis. Who is it you think will do that?

The overall attitude of most posters in this thread, and school administrators, and legislators, and Supreme Court justices, and Americans in general, appears to be "Freedom for me, not for thee". To a typical American, the teachers' freedom to preach trumps the kids' freedom from being preached at, or vice versa, depending on whether it's the teacher or the kids who he thinks of as "us". Nobody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they agree with; everybody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they disagree with. And the schools are staffed by typical Americans. So if the school administrators agree with whichever opinions a teacher is teaching, what will motivate them to deal with it on an individual basis? They'll just ignore it, and they'll blow off parents who complain. The reason a statewide law (or the federal law we had until last June) is better than dealing with it on an individual basis is because it's better than nothing.

And a law that prohibits possibly protected first amendment activity would end up being challenged on court anyway, also likely heading to the Supreme Court.

True. But since the SCOTUS is also currently staffed mainly by "Freedom for me, not for thee" mentalities, it's a good bet that the same justices who backed Kennedy's "right" to use a public school as his own personal Christian church will rule that it's okay to prohibit teachers from telling kids whites are oppressors.

I guess you just aren’t understanding my position. I’m sorry for not articulating it better. What you describe (“freedoms for me, not for thee”) does not reflect my opinion at all.

My primary comment was that conservatives are usually against laws that have broad scope being used to address actions being performed by a very few. They usually whinge about it being an attack on freedom and that it’s a few “bad apples” spoiling it for the whole bunch.

So I was just surprised when these conservatives would back a law when there doesn’t appear to be a widespread problem that isn’t being solved in other ways.

 

[Gospel]

I would need more detail on the government response to this action, under the assumption that praying after games isn’t a widespread problem, to make the comparison to the subject to which I was originally responding.

There was a long discussion of it several months ago in the "How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools" thread.

I don’t see the comparison then. It’s a very different situation.

What's so different about it? State employees are using their government jobs as bully-pulpits to try to get children to agree with their own faith-based opinions, and higher-ups in the government are trying to get them to cut it out and do their jobs like professionals.

Maybe you are saying that this is a situation where a statewide law against his actions would be better than dealing with it on and individual basis?

You keep talking about dealing with it on an individual basis. Who is it you think will do that?

The overall attitude of most posters in this thread, and school administrators, and legislators, and Supreme Court justices, and Americans in general, appears to be "Freedom for me, not for thee". To a typical American, the teachers' freedom to preach trumps the kids' freedom from being preached at, or vice versa, depending on whether it's the teacher or the kids who he thinks of as "us". Nobody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they agree with; everybody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they disagree with. And the schools are staffed by typical Americans. So if the school administrators agree with whichever opinions a teacher is teaching, what will motivate them to deal with it on an individual basis? They'll just ignore it, and they'll blow off parents who complain. The reason a statewide law (or the federal law we had until last June) is better than dealing with it on an individual basis is because it's better than nothing.

And a law that prohibits possibly protected first amendment activity would end up being challenged on court anyway, also likely heading to the Supreme Court.

True. But since the SCOTUS is also currently staffed mainly by "Freedom for me, not for thee" mentalities, it's a good bet that the same justices who backed Kennedy's "right" to use a public school as his own personal Christian church will rule that it's okay to prohibit teachers from telling kids whites are oppressors.

I guess you just aren’t understanding my position. I’m sorry for not articulating it better. What you describe (“freedoms for me, not for thee”) does not reflect my opinion at all.

My primary comment was that conservatives are usually against laws that have broad scope being used to address actions being performed by a very few. They usually whinge about it being an attack on freedom and that it’s a few “bad apples” spoiling it for the whole bunch.

So I was just surprised when these conservatives would back a law when there doesn’t appear to be a widespread problem that isn’t being solved in other ways.

The same reason they are for this law is the same reason they are ok with our prison system not being used to reform but to punish. Lots of black folks get tossed in prison because that's the only place slavery is still legal. .That might just be a coincidenced but its an ugly coincidence I'd think they'd want to avoid.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The overall attitude of most posters in this thread, and school administrators, and legislators, and Supreme Court justices, and Americans in general, appears to be "Freedom for me, not for thee". To a typical American, the teachers' freedom to preach trumps the kids' freedom from being preached at, or vice versa, depending on whether it's the teacher or the kids who he thinks of as "us". Nobody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they agree with; everybody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they disagree with. And the schools are staffed by typical Americans. So if the school administrators agree with whichever opinions a teacher is teaching, what will motivate them to deal with it on an individual basis? They'll just ignore it, and they'll blow off parents who complain. The reason a statewide law (or the federal law we had until last June) is better than dealing with it on an individual basis is because it's better than nothing.

Hi kids. Today we go over argumentative nonsense. Can you look atop to see some examples of this? I'll give you a minute.

• "overall attitude of most posters in this thread, and school administrators, and legislators, and Supreme Court justices, and Americans in general"
  • Yeah, this is a doozy. Good ole fashioned broad brush / false equivalence / strawman all in one. Notice the attempt to draw everybody into it. This is a rhetorical device used in order to help produce a false sense of standing outside the issue and appearing to not judge people by any partisan basis. Of course, it is complete nonsense though. Whenever someone wants to equate a flaw they aren't guilty of ... on almost the entire country... you can put out the palm.
• "the teachers' freedom to preach"
  • Yup, this is argumentative nonsense. Using the word preach implies emotion, irrational thought, and lack of any bias control. The word is used here to immediately vilify the target, in this case "teachers", regardless what they are doing. Teaching math = preaching. Teaching history = preaching. Checking Attendence = preaching.
  • Additionally, this also implies that the "typical American" (read most people, but not me!) is for preaching of a particular kind, which again, a broadbrushed strawman. Yes, some parents want partisan aspects taught in school, like slavery was just one of the many reasons the South rebelled against a fairly held election, but the poster isn't speaking of such a thing. They are broadbrushing that bullshit on all Americans. Why? Great question!
• "Nobody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they agree with; everybody seems to have a problem with a class getting preached opinions they disagree with"
  • This ignores the fact that most school isn't opinions. Math isn't opinion, grammar isn't opinion, science isn't opinion. gym isn't opinion, literature has some opinion but the teachers usually are caring more about following themes and events. So much talking about preaching and opinions, when grade school and high school doesn't contain a lot of opinion. Forget about "preaching" it.
  • And I'm giving the poster a pass for using that damned hermaphrodite punctuation (<-- that is an opinion).
• "And the schools are staffed by typical Americans."
  • Yes, check out this classic bullshit. The term nonsense just didn't seem to be appropriate for how awful it is. The "typical American" isn't a 4 yr college graduate who got a masters into order to become a teacher. The average American didn't train in the profession while in school. The typical American didn't become extraordinarily familiar with literature, chemistry, biology, history. The "typical American" isn't a teacher. A teacher isn't perfect, but they've trained and studied hard to get to this position of being relentlessly criticized for how they teach by people who don't know them or what they teach or what values they hold.
• "The reason a statewide law (or the federal law we had until last June) is better than dealing with it on an individual basis is because it's better than nothing."
  • Yup, the grand conclusion. This is utter nonsense, because it concludes a paragraph of text that allegedly supports this pre-ordained conclusion. When it doesn't. It just unfairly treats teachers as a common denominator who don't know nothin' and preach propaganda to their students. In math or something. It uses a number of statements that make false claims to justify false judgements to help support a false conclusion. I suppose it is poetic, but it is really just nonsense.

Yes, this will be on the test.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If you don’t like the idea that it has to be a widespread problem to justify a state level law then please just give a specific example of an instance of a teacher teaching something in the classroom that would now be banned by this law that couldn’t be stopped by any action other than this law?

Is there any? Do schools or school boards have no power over the curricula their teachers present? Maybe teacher unions are so strong that rogue teachers can’t be fired or otherwise forced to stay on an approved curriculum.

Do you not feel that a state law could be used too broadly if wielded by ideological officials?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is that you can't make "things work now" without figuring out the past.

We can't just point to the passage of the Civil Rights Act over 50 years ago or the election of Obama 14 years ago and say "this whole institutional racism problem is solved!!!"

The problem has not gone away.

Your position seems to be that if you are black (or Hispanic, or Asian, or Jewish, or any other racial or ethnic minority), there are no barriers to your success and no level of lingering institutional racism at work in your life. Bootstraps and what not. What's more, teaching the children of any of these groups that they were discriminated against in the past is wrong, and teaching the descendants of anyone who might have visited the discrimination upon them about the past is superdy duperty wrong because it might make them feel bad.

Sure there are barriers. There are barriers for everybody. Life involves overcoming barriers. What we don't have is any appreciable evidence of barriers sufficient to block people for being black.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm saying what I saw locally and since they were making an issue out of it I think they didn't have better data elsewhere.

There is a socioeconomic difference, sticking your head in the sand won't make it go away.

Yes, of course there is a socioeconomic difference between White and Black communities in the United States. Not only is that not a secret, it's exactly what "institutional racism" is meant to refer to.

Then institutional racism can go fuck a cholla.

You don't solve poverty with anti-racism efforts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I'm expecting them to do the best they reasonably can rather than play elephant in the room with possible socioeconomic effects.

Many studies do include socioeconomic effects but you still routinely dismiss any results as indicative of possible discrimination. I suspect what you demand as possible is impossible.

No. Studies either show a socioeconomic effect and claim that's evidence of racism, or they show some other effect and ignore whether what they saw was actually socioeconomic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It seems to me that there's no evidence that George Floyd's murder was racist, let alone systemically so.

Agreed. Floyd looks like a case of the police administering a bit of field "justice" and doing far more than they intended to. Wrong, but I see no indication they did it because of race as opposed to behavior. Floyd is a perfect example of the actual problems with the police, but it's not an example of racism.