GOP 'protecting' our schools

[Elixir]

You explicitly endorsed teaching history by blaming a specific race.

<expletive deleted>. The fact that redlining was done by people who were all (mostly? - not specified) of the same race, is not an indictment of all people of that race (or races).
It is an indictment of those people, if in fact it is an indictment at all. Not their progeny or their progeny's progeny.
Painting it as such is merely an excuse for the revisionist history that is part and parcel of the New Republican Way. "Invent your own reality - it's YOUR free-dumb!"

Why did you write that? Did you not read the exchange I quoted? Did you just skim it and assume you got the gist of it from 15% of the words in it? Or are you just so accustomed to judging who's right by whether they agree with you that you felt entitled to ignore the plain meaning of what I wrote and invent a position to ascribe to me that would justify you in believing I'm wrong and cursing at me over it? What is wrong with you?

Sorry to be Captain Obvious here, but I'm going to have to, because what you wrote was painfully obtuse. I did not in any way, shape or form suggest that pointing out that redlining was done by people who were of the same race is an indictment of all people of that race. The fact that Politesse pointed it out, and the fact that subsequently I accused him of blaming a specific race, does not entitle you to take for granted that that's why I accused him. He's said a lot of things. You picked out one of the things he's said and you decided, on your own initiative, that that was the one that prompted the accusation. That's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Moreover, to reach that conclusion, you had to skip over something else I quoted him writing, something that came between the remark you fastened onto and my response to him. Why would you do that? Why would you assume the more recent remark I quoted was irrelevant to the accusation?

Politesse said redlining was a white segregationist social project and history should be taught that way.

Then Trausti agreed with him, but pointed out we can do that without blaming a specific race.

Then Politesse said --> "How?" <--.

Those two remarks in combination are an endorsement of teaching history by blaming a specific race. Politesse advocated teaching that redlining was a white segregationist social project even though he did not believe that could be taught without blaming a specific race.

So get off my case.

Ok - sorry. I should not have called categorical bs if that's all the case you were trying to represent.
I read the most recent exchange, am not going to read back so far as to verify or quibble about what you said.
I'm not "on your case" in any event. I think that redlining WAS "a white segregationist social project" and most certainly don't see that as 'blaming' white people or any contemporary people at all. I don't care if it was space aliens who instigated redlining. But if it was, the history should reflect that fact if we to ever hope to learn from it.

 

[laughing dog]

You explicitly endorsed teaching history by blaming a specific race.

<expletive deleted>. The fact that redlining was done by people who were all (mostly? - not specified) of the same race, is not an indictment of all people of that race (or races).
It is an indictment of those people, if in fact it is an indictment at all. Not their progeny or their progeny's progeny.
Painting it as such is merely an excuse for the revisionist history that is part and parcel of the New Republican Way. "Invent your own reality - it's YOUR free-dumb!"

Why did you write that? Did you not read the exchange I quoted? Did you just skim it and assume you got the gist of it from 15% of the words in it? Or are you just so accustomed to judging who's right by whether they agree with you that you felt entitled to ignore the plain meaning of what I wrote and invent a position to ascribe to me that would justify you in believing I'm wrong and cursing at me over it? What is wrong with you?

Sorry to be Captain Obvious here, but I'm going to have to, because what you wrote was painfully obtuse. I did not in any way, shape or form suggest that pointing out that redlining was done by people who were of the same race is an indictment of all people of that race. The fact that Politesse pointed it out, and the fact that subsequently I accused him of blaming a specific race, does not entitle you to take for granted that that's why I accused him. He's said a lot of things. You picked out one of the things he's said and you decided, on your own initiative, that that was the one that prompted the accusation. That's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Moreover, to reach that conclusion, you had to skip over something else I quoted him writing, something that came between the remark you fastened onto and my response to him. Why would you do that? Why would you assume the more recent remark I quoted was irrelevant to the accusation?

Politesse said redlining was a white segregationist social project and history should be taught that way.

Then Trausti agreed with him, but pointed out we can do that without blaming a specific race.

Then Politesse said --> "How?" <--.

Those two remarks in combination are an endorsement of teaching history by blaming a specific race. Politesse advocated teaching that redlining was a white segregationist social project even though he did not believe that could be taught without blaming a specific race.

So get off my case.

Accurately assigning responsibility (which is a meaning of blame) is not a moral judgment.

However, many conservative snowflakes do conflate accurately assigning responsibility as making a moral judgment. Which is why there are these efforts to censure the teaching of history.

 

[laughing dog]

Accurately assigning responsibility (i.e. to blame) for actions and policy is one of the goals of teaching history well. It is delusional to think otherwise.

Now, that does not mean that people of race ____ (you fill in the blank) today are to blame for the policies and actions of people of that race in the past.

I agree with that - conceptually. The difficulty is that in many cases, what is being applied in schools actually *is* laying blame on an entire group of people today on the basis of their skin color. And not blame for something *they* did, but something that other people with the same skin color did in the past. That's the problem.

And that's specifically a problem with how CRT is being *applied* in the real world, outside of the academic laboratory.

While I am sure that there are examples, but I doubt it is widespread or so pernicious.
But the Rhode Island bill is a problem - from your link

(ii) “Race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to
9 members of a race or sex because of their race or sex and similarly encompasses any claim that any
10 particular race or sex is responsible for society’s ills.

is considered a divisive concept according to the bill. Teaching that redlining or Jim Crow laws were white segregationist polices could easily be interpreted as violating that provision.

 

[Emily Lake]

While I am sure that there are examples, but I doubt it is widespread or so pernicious.
But the Rhode Island bill is a problem - from your link

(ii) “Race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to
9 members of a race or sex because of their race or sex and similarly encompasses any claim that any
10 particular race or sex is responsible for society’s ills.

is considered a divisive concept according to the bill. Teaching that redlining or Jim Crow laws were white segregationist polices could easily be interpreted as violating that provision.

Better language might be useful.

That said...

Teaching that redlining and Jim Crow were [white segregationist] policies [of the past] but that not all [people with white skin then] supported those policies or even knew about redlining at the time, and that [most white people today] are not [responsible for] those policies of the past.

FFS, how hard is this? Let me flip your script a moment.

Throughout history, males of the human species have oppressed, exploited, and abused females of the human species. We women have been, and continue to be, treated as a second class throughout a huge amount of the globe. Even in developed countries with hypothetical equality on the basis of sex, women are consistently paid less for the same work, are sexually assaulted and raped at astonishingly high rates, and the males perpetrating those crimes against us are only charged and punished in a fairly small number of cases. It's not at all uncommon for a women to be treated with skepticism and an assumption of having contributed to her own abuse when she's brave enough to make a claim. And this is before we even get into the persistent sexualization and objectification of women, the cat calls, the groping, the voyeur shots, and the constant need to be on guard because men are pigs who are driven by their small heads. Every ill that women have faces through the ages can be blamed on men - it is men who have routinely and persistently mistreated us. And it continues in massive amounts even today. All of you men need to take responsibility for this.

Now, do you think that's a reasonable and compassionate way to teach people - especially children - about sexism throughout history? Is that a reasonable way to address a pervasive and continuing issue faced by women?

Or do you maybe think that "not all men" ought to be emphasized in there somewhere?

Because for as much of a feminist as I am, and as much as I'm inclined to raise my banner for the rights and fair treatment of females across the fucking globe... even I don't think that making ALL men feel like I hate them and they're bad people because of the sex they were born and had no control over is a good idea. In fact, I think it's pretty fucking counterproductive to my objectives.

 

[laughing dog]

While I am sure that there are examples, but I doubt it is widespread or so pernicious.
But the Rhode Island bill is a problem - from your link

(ii) “Race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to
9 members of a race or sex because of their race or sex and similarly encompasses any claim that any
10 particular race or sex is responsible for society’s ills.

is considered a divisive concept according to the bill. Teaching that redlining or Jim Crow laws were white segregationist polices could easily be interpreted as violating that provision.

Better language might be useful.

That said...

Teaching that redlining and Jim Crow were [white segregationist] policies [of the past] but that not all [people with white skin then] supported those policies or even knew about redlining at the time, and that [most white people today] are not [responsible for] those policies of the past.

FFS, how hard is this?

There are plenty of snowflakes who would still think that is attacking white people today.

 

[Emily Lake]

Better language might be useful.

That said...

Teaching that redlining and Jim Crow were [white segregationist] policies [of the past] but that not all [people with white skin then] supported those policies or even knew about redlining at the time, and that [most white people today] are not [responsible for] those policies of the past.

FFS, how hard is this?

There are plenty of snowflakes who would still think that is attacking white people today.

Perhaps... but I would bet there are buttloads fewer of those delicate folks than there are those who are offended by it being implied that ALL WHITE PEOPLE AREIN HERENTLY AND INESCAPABLY RACIST TODAY... which, by the way, is the core assumption of DiAngelo's stupid-beyond-all-reason book... and the core assumption of the "training" that she gives to corporations and their employees.

 

[laughing dog]

Better language might be useful.

That said...

Teaching that redlining and Jim Crow were [white segregationist] policies [of the past] but that not all [people with white skin then] supported those policies or even knew about redlining at the time, and that [most white people today] are not [responsible for] those policies of the past.

FFS, how hard is this?

There are plenty of snowflakes who would still think that is attacking white people today.

Perhaps... but I would bet there are buttloads fewer of those delicate folks than there are those who are offended by it being implied that ALL WHITE PEOPLE AREIN HERENTLY AND INESCAPABLY RACIST TODAY... which, by the way, is the core assumption of DiAngelo's stupid-beyond-all-reason book... and the core assumption of the "training" that she gives to corporations and their employees.

Given the number of aggrieved conservatives, I think you vastly underestimate snowflakes.

 

[Bomb#20]

Accurately assigning responsibility (which is a meaning of blame) is not a moral judgment.

That's a peculiar meta-ethical position; but okay, if you say so.

However, many conservative snowflakes do conflate accurately assigning responsibility as making a moral judgment.

That's a poisoning-the-well fallacy; but whatever.

Which is why there are these efforts to censure the teaching of history.

Show your work.

Teaching history by claiming a specific race "has responsibility" for redlining and Jim Crow, whatever the heck "not a moral judgment" thing you may mean when you blame a specific race for them, such as, for instance, teaching history by claiming a specific race caused redlining and Jim Crow, is not accurate*. Teaching history that way is propaganda. Teaching history that way is lying to children. And any teacher who teaches history that way and tries to justify it with a story about how he's saying it in a moral-judgment-free sense is disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that reciting to himself that he has an unjudgy meaning in mind is not going to stop his pupils from taking it in a judgmental way.

(* Races don't cause events; individuals cause events. To talk of a race causing or otherwise being responsible for anything is a reification fallacy. A race is an abstraction. QED.)

 

[laughing dog]

That's a poisoning-the-well fallacy; but whatever.

So your is your response.

Show your work.

Teaching history by claiming a specific race "has responsibility" for redlining and Jim Crow, whatever the heck "not a moral judgment" thing you may mean when you blame a specific race for them, such as, for instance, teaching history by claiming a specific race caused redlining and Jim Crow, is not accurate*. Teaching history that way is propaganda. Teaching history that way is lying to children. And any teacher who teaches history that way and tries to justify it with a story about how he's saying it in a moral-judgment-free sense is disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that reciting to himself that he has an unjudgy meaning in mind is not going to stop his pupils from taking it in a judgmental way.

(* Races don't cause events; individuals cause events. To talk of a race causing or otherwise being responsible for anything is a reification fallacy. A race is an abstraction. QED.)

If redlining is the result of white supremacists, it is not lying to teach that. So, unless you disputing that redlining is the result of white supremacists, your argument is ridiculous.

 

[Trausti]

That's a poisoning-the-well fallacy; but whatever.

So your is your response.

Show your work.

Teaching history by claiming a specific race "has responsibility" for redlining and Jim Crow, whatever the heck "not a moral judgment" thing you may mean when you blame a specific race for them, such as, for instance, teaching history by claiming a specific race caused redlining and Jim Crow, is not accurate*. Teaching history that way is propaganda. Teaching history that way is lying to children. And any teacher who teaches history that way and tries to justify it with a story about how he's saying it in a moral-judgment-free sense is disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that reciting to himself that he has an unjudgy meaning in mind is not going to stop his pupils from taking it in a judgmental way.

(* Races don't cause events; individuals cause events. To talk of a race causing or otherwise being responsible for anything is a reification fallacy. A race is an abstraction. QED.)

If redlining is the result of white supremacists, it is not lying to teach that. So, unless you disputing that redlining is the result of white supremacists, your argument is ridiculous.

Redlining was done by individuals. School children of today have no responsibility for that, regardless of their skin hue.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's a poisoning-the-well fallacy; but whatever.

So your is your response.

Show your work.

Teaching history by claiming a specific race "has responsibility" for redlining and Jim Crow, whatever the heck "not a moral judgment" thing you may mean when you blame a specific race for them, such as, for instance, teaching history by claiming a specific race caused redlining and Jim Crow, is not accurate*. Teaching history that way is propaganda. Teaching history that way is lying to children. And any teacher who teaches history that way and tries to justify it with a story about how he's saying it in a moral-judgment-free sense is disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that reciting to himself that he has an unjudgy meaning in mind is not going to stop his pupils from taking it in a judgmental way.

(* Races don't cause events; individuals cause events. To talk of a race causing or otherwise being responsible for anything is a reification fallacy. A race is an abstraction. QED.)

If redlining is the result of white supremacists, it is not lying to teach that. So, unless you disputing that redlining is the result of white supremacists, your argument is ridiculous.

Besides, being a white supremacist does not imply that you, yourself, are white, and so calling out white supremacists does not mean "calling out white people", but exactly "Calling out all who believe white people are better than other people who are not white".

You can hold that belief even if you are black. In fact, there are a few skits and even historical examples of self-hating white supremacists.

I hate white supremacists, not white people. Otherwise I would have to hate my husband, my parents, my siblings, and most of my friends. That is silly!

 

[Bomb#20]

But the Rhode Island bill is a problem - from your link

(ii) “Race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to
9 members of a race or sex because of their race or sex and similarly encompasses any claim that any
10 particular race or sex is responsible for society’s ills.

is considered a divisive concept according to the bill.

Why is that a problem? It doesn't matter if it's divisive; what matter is that going by that definition, race or sex scapegoating is wrong. To assign fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex isn't correct. To assign fault, blame, or bias to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex isn't correct. To claim any particular race or sex is responsible for society’s ills isn't correct.

Teaching that redlining or Jim Crow laws were white segregationist polices could easily be interpreted as violating that provision.

And saying somebody is wrong could easily be interpreted as violating his free speech rights -- people seem to draw that inference all the time -- but that doesn't mean the First Amendment "is a problem". There's no limit to what anything could easily be interpreted as when some interpreter abandons logic. It's not a good reason to stop legislating.

But if you have a concrete proposal for how the Rhode Island bill could have been better worded to express the same concept while being less susceptible to misinterpretation, share.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's a poisoning-the-well fallacy; but whatever.

So your is your response.

Thank you for your contribution, Mr. I'm-rubber-you're-glue Champion. You had no grounds to accuse me of poisoning the well; I had grounds to accuse you of it. "Accurately assigning responsibility" in the "meaning of blame" sense is making a moral judgment. "Responsibility" is derived from "respond"; it means "accountable" or "answerable"; it refers to the practice of a person being called to account, made to answer for his deeds, made to offer a justification, and punished if his justification is inadequate. Whenever we talk of responsibility in a non-moral sense, e.g. "the six-foot snow drift on the roof was responsible for the roof collapse", we are speaking metaphorically.

You're free to deny this, of course; but when you label those who disagree with you on this point "conservative snowflakes", that's classic poisoning-the-well.

Teaching history by claiming a specific race "has responsibility" for redlining and Jim Crow, whatever the heck "not a moral judgment" thing you may mean when you blame a specific race for them, such as, for instance, teaching history by claiming a specific race caused redlining and Jim Crow, is not accurate*. Teaching history that way is propaganda. Teaching history that way is lying to children. And any teacher who teaches history that way and tries to justify it with a story about how he's saying it in a moral-judgment-free sense is disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that reciting to himself that he has an unjudgy meaning in mind is not going to stop his pupils from taking it in a judgmental way.

(* Races don't cause events; individuals cause events. To talk of a race causing or otherwise being responsible for anything is a reification fallacy. A race is an abstraction. QED.)

If redlining is the result of white supremacists, it is not lying to teach that. So, unless you disputing that redlining is the result of white supremacists, your argument is ridiculous.

Unless you're claiming "white supremacist" is a race, your argument is ridiculous.

Actually, even if you are claiming white supremacist is a race your argument is ridiculous. I implied teaching children the white race is responsible for redlining is a lie. You are pretending I implied teaching children white supremacists are responsible for redlining is a lie. I said nothing of the sort. Stop misrepresenting me.

 

[laughing dog]

Why is that a problem? It doesn't matter if it's divisive

If you read the bill, it matters because the bill is defines divisive concepts.

And saying somebody is wrong could easily be interpreted as violating his free speech rights -- people seem to draw that inference all the time -- but that doesn't mean the First Amendment "is a problem". There's no limit to what anything could easily be interpreted as when some interpreter abandons logic.

Of course.

It's not a good reason to stop legislating.

It is a good reason to be very careful about what legislation is passed.

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you for your contribution,...

Thank you for your infantile name-calling and unreason. BTW, I did not call anyone who disagrees with me a "conservative snowflake", so you can stop misrepresenting me.

Unless you're claiming "white supremacist" is a race, your argument is ridiculous.

Actually, even if you are claiming white supremacist is a race your argument is ridiculous. I implied teaching children the white race is responsible for redlining is a lie. You are pretending I implied teaching children white supremacists are responsible for redlining is a lie. I said nothing of the sort. Stop misrepresenting me.

I did no such thing. Frankly, if you cannot respond with such mischaracterizations and name-calling, I see no reason to read or respond to them.

 

[Bomb#20]

BTW, I did not call anyone who disagrees with me a "conservative snowflake", so you can stop misrepresenting me.

I didn't say you called "anyone who disagrees with you" a conservative snowflake. Here is who you called conservative snowflakes:

Accurately assigning responsibility (which is a meaning of blame) is not a moral judgment.

However, many conservative snowflakes do conflate accurately assigning responsibility as making a moral judgment.

I implied teaching children the white race is responsible for redlining is a lie. You are pretending I implied teaching children white supremacists are responsible for redlining is a lie. I said nothing of the sort. Stop misrepresenting me.

I did no such thing.

Of course you did. Here's what you wrote:

If redlining is the result of white supremacists, it is not lying to teach that. So, unless you disputing that redlining is the result of white supremacists, your argument is ridiculous.

You clearly implied that my argument was that it's lying to teach that redlining is the result of white supremacists.

Frankly, if you cannot respond with such mischaracterizations and name-calling, I see no reason to read or respond to them.

Sayonara.

 

[Emily Lake]

If redlining is the result of white supremacists, it is not lying to teach that. So, unless you disputing that redlining is the result of white supremacists, your argument is ridiculous.

Okay, fine. How hard is it to make sure that what is being taught is that it was the result of white SUPREMACISTS as opposed to white PEOPLE, and that it happened in the PAST and that people TODAY weren't responsible.

Kind of like how we'd maybe teach that the Holocaust was caused by NAZI party members in Germany, not by GERMANS, and that it was caused by people in the PAST, and that we don't hold Germans TODAY responsible for it. Or how ROMAN MILITARY pretty much took over and subjugated the world a couple of Millenia ago, but that this shouldn't reflect on ITALIANS today?

 

[Trausti]

If redlining is the result of white supremacists, it is not lying to teach that. So, unless you disputing that redlining is the result of white supremacists, your argument is ridiculous.

Okay, fine. How hard is it to make sure that what is being taught is that it was the result of white SUPREMACISTS as opposed to white PEOPLE, and that it happened in the PAST and that people TODAY weren't responsible.

Kind of like how we'd maybe teach that the Holocaust was caused by NAZI party members in Germany, not by GERMANS, and that it was caused by people in the PAST, and that we don't hold Germans TODAY responsible for it. Or how ROMAN MILITARY pretty much took over and subjugated the world a couple of Millenia ago, but that this shouldn't reflect on ITALIANS today?

Marxist theory requires an oppressor and oppressed. CRT forgoes class and uses race. That's why it's such a piece of shit.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How hard is it to make sure that what is being taught is that it was the result of white SUPREMACISTS as opposed to white PEOPLE...

Many things in US history were not the fault of only White supremacists.

..., and that it happened in the PAST...

History class does that but some things also happen in the present or in the recent past.

... and that people TODAY weren't responsible.

That is subjective. Some people today maybe _should_ be responsible for things that happened in the past because they have benefited. For example, entities that existed (Volkswagen et alia) for a long time have been held to account for past incidents. The United States government has also existed a long time and has been held to account over various contracts or treaties with Native Americans ages ago. So nothing either way should be taught in history class like that since that is a moral question about today.