I’m trying to figure out if Trausti is saying that police departments refused to adequately do their jobs if they were going to be scrutinized for the occasional murder of unarmed black people.
What does that mean (in relation to this discussion) lower the standards to meet the quota?
As an example, there is a current obsession in Australia with firefighting organisations having as many females as possible. To enable this, they have lowered physical fitness and strength standards and gone to quota systems, among other degradations, all because it is somehow important that women make up exactly half of every industry and job role in Australia. Except the unprestigious roles, obviously.
I do not know, but that's not a case of some teaching the law bans.Loren Pechtel said:
Maybe, but I think it's clear enough for the courts to quickly resolve the matter. What it says is that an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, etc., on account of his or her race.Loren Pechtel said:
What do you mean by "the controversial stuff"? Can you give me an example of the things that teachers will stop teaching?Loren Pechtel said:
I see LP is living up to the thread title.
Seriously, if you need to ask this question, maybe it should have been your first post.
It is a bullshit law. It is meant to be written poorly.
Different posters have different beliefs, so I ask on a poster-by-poster basis.Jimmy Higgins said:
Why do you think they would stop teaching any of the above? It seems unrelated to what the law bans. It does not ban the teaching of history at all.Jimmy Higgins said:
Actually, it would be irrational to feel guilty about the wrongdoings of other people. For that matter, some students might feel guilty if they learn the are likely descendants of Gengis Khan, because of his crimes (or any other sort of nonsense). But that is irrelevant, because the law does not say anything about teaching stuff that people irrationally might feel guilt about.Jimmy Higgins said:
Great, so why do you even suspect they would stop teaching them?Jimmy Higgins said:
You asked a question, these are the answers. Accept it and move on. These are all cases of egregious white Christian Male violations of rights of other people. They are uncomfortable to read about because they were wrong. And all of these things can be viewed as problematic by whatever meddlers are given the keys to review curricula as well as parents who take partisanship very seriously when it comes to teaching history. Heck, evolution is still an issue for teaching in school.
The law establishes no standard. Which makes it viable for irrational claims to be taken seriously. That is why the law is written the way it is.
Only to someone who doesn't live in the United States and has zero exposure to any of this.
The standard of "uncomfortable" strongly suggests irrationality is expected to play an important role in the determination of the violation of law. Hence, one wonders why you are even bringing up the standard of rationality.
I'm having trouble imagining a Black person who even has those credentials; "trust fund millionaire turned con game billionaire with the help of a reality tv show, then into politics via close friendships with the gutter press" is a pretty specific career pattern, and I can't think of any Blacks off the top of my head who fit the bill.
I mean, "rap millionaire turned con game (much wealthier), with the help of reality TV and media amplification via close relationships to gutter press" is entirely accessible these days, and I can absolutely see anyone on the right of the aisle (and the left of the aisle) having a problem with such qualifications.
Oh? What rap star has anything like Trump's game? Kanye, I suppose... and they were, unsurprisingly, friends. Is Jay Z in the Billionaire club yet? I would consider either of those men to be better qualified for a managerial position like the presidency, though, since both of them built their own wealth on the basis of their own talents, as opposed to "the best architects Daddy can buy". Importantly, both have helmed a string of successful businesses. Actually, I really like Jay Z a lot, even as a political commentator. He once said that he would never vote Republican because if you don't have people there's no point in being rich. Tell it. But would I vote him into the Oval Office? No. That job really should require being more than just charisma and a camera.
Kanye was the one I was thinking of, specifically.
Yes; then again, Cain's campaign never truly got off the ground. Much like the brief "campaign" waged by Kanye himself. They don't mind scoring a cheap point here and there about supposed liberal hypocrisy, but their own social biases often end up internally torpedoing any "disreputables" who make it onto a significant Republican ticket. Conservative whites will not vote a racial minority into the highest office in the land just to prove a point, and frankly if they did, I would actually see that as something of a mixed curse. I opposed the recent attempted recall of my state's governor, and will not be voting for Larry Elder for that position in any future election, but some part of me would still have been happy to see a Black governor in Sacramento, not least because of what it would have indicated about changes in the Republican Party. If I'm going to be tormented by radical conservatives, I'd rather it be by radical conservatives who have evolved enough to see past a person's skin color at least occasionally. But they didn't actually bring those votes, did they?
I guess my point was that, let's face it, they won't, and for exactly the reasons you state. It puts the obviousness of the lie to the bad faith.
