Lefties have swung so far to the extreme that basic liberal notions of a generation ago are considered conservative.
Yeah, they're barely to the right of that commie extremist Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Lefties have swung so far to the extreme that basic liberal notions of a generation ago are considered conservative.
Yeah, they're barely to the right of that commie extremist Dwight D. Eisenhower.
What the hell does that have to do with history instruction?
The categorization of Emily as a conservative. Lefties have swung so far to the extreme that basic liberal notions of a generation ago are considered conservative. Like, for example, judging people as individuals and not based on their racial group.
Isn't it crazy, Biden is considered a socialist now. Meanwhile the GOP has people that believe an anonymous web site poster that talks about conspiracies. The Democrats have become so radicalized that they pushed through a centralized private health care insurance market system. Just like the Soviets!Lefties have swung so far to the extreme that basic liberal notions of a generation ago are considered conservative.
Yeah, they're barely to the right of that commie extremist Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Lol, okay. How exactly are you defining "conservative"? I hope it's not "disagrees with me on at least one hyper-progressive position".
![]()
I have to be right, this black guy agrees with me!Lol, okay. How exactly are you defining "conservative"? I hope it's not "disagrees with me on at least one hyper-progressive position".
![]()
Thomas Sowell also claims that Oama was a "race hustler" and that Joe Biden's election means that America's at a "point of no return" for economics and freedoms.
(Never mind that most people continue to say, despite SOwell's nonsense, that people *should* be evaluated equally - but that they are decidedly are not)
I have to be right, this black guy agrees with me!Thomas Sowell also claims that Oama was a "race hustler" and that Joe Biden's election means that America's at a "point of no return" for economics and freedoms.
(Never mind that most people continue to say, despite SOwell's nonsense, that people *should* be evaluated equally - but that they are decidedly are not)
So the General who defeated Nazism would be okay with teaching racial collective guilt?
So the General who defeated Nazism would be okay with teaching racial collective guilt?
Teaching what happened in history is not "teaching racial collective guilt".
So the General who defeated Nazism would be okay with teaching racial collective guilt?
Teaching what happened in history is not "teaching racial collective guilt".
So we agree schools should not teach history that "blames a specific race for a societal issue."
No, we don't. That's way too subjective, and moreover pedagogically flawed. The basis of history education should be history, not emotional reactions to history. If an event occurred, then it can't be swept under the rug to protect the feelings of someone in the present, whoever they are. If you aren't teaching that white nationalist ideology has heavily influenced the construction of American law from founding to present, then you are teaching a mythology class, not a history class. But this bill could conceviably make teaching about the subject at all illegal, since white nationalism is by definition a "divisive concept" and therefore prohibiited to discuss in a Rhode island classroom were this legislation to pass.So the General who defeated Nazism would be okay with teaching racial collective guilt?
Teaching what happened in history is not "teaching racial collective guilt".
So we agree schools should not teach history that "blames a specific race for a societal issue."
Short version of this is that Critical Theory is utter bollocks as soon as it leaves the lab.
LMAO at your assumption that social so-called "scientists" have anything akin to a lab.
Lol, okay. How exactly are you defining "conservative"? I hope it's not "disagrees with me on at least one hyper-progressive position".
I don't particularly care about your preferred "label" on way or the other. You can call youself whatever you like, if you think you can convince anyne. But trying to defend the historiographical propoganda of the 1960s is a conservative, not liberal, political project. So if I'm supposed to infer from this conversation that you are a "liberal", I don't see how or why I would come to that conclusion.
Lol, okay. How exactly are you defining "conservative"? I hope it's not "disagrees with me on at least one hyper-progressive position".
I don't particularly care about your preferred "label" on way or the other. You can call youself whatever you like, if you think you can convince anyne. But trying to defend the historiographical propoganda of the 1960s is a conservative, not liberal, political project. So if I'm supposed to infer from this conversation that you are a "liberal", I don't see how or why I would come to that conclusion.
Apparently critical thinking isn't included in your academic background. I'd really love to see an actual explanation of what I've done, that you think qualifies as "defend the historiographical propoganda of the 1960s".
I'm seriously baffled by that insinuation, so far as I can tell it has no truth to it, it's nothing more than a petty and shallow attempt to poison the well and "shame" me into adopting a perverted, mutated, and completely asinine version of critical theory.
Teaching what happened in history is not "teaching racial collective guilt".
Yeah, and it's folly for history to blame one nation for a global geopolitical struggle like, say, WWII. After all, it arose from conditions created by the actions of numerous nations, right?
Teaching what happened in history is not "teaching racial collective guilt".
Jesus christ, Poli. Teaching history should NOT include insinuating that children TODAY are bad people and guilty for what SOMEONE ELSE did before they were even fucking born! WTF is wrong with you that you think reality and progress are served by blaming the children for the sins of the fathers sever fucking generations ago?