Happy Juneteenth one and all!

[Trausti]

Yeah, it just marks the day when the last of the slaves were freed. What's the big deal? We all know the slaves were freed. No controversy there. I do wonder if making it a federal holiday is going to make our current racial divide worse though. People are going to exploit it for their own political ends, so if for some reason you're not 100% on board with it, you're going to be branded a racist. And it you make too big a deal about Juneteenth, you'll come across as just trying to pile on even more white guilt.

Yup, because the only people that exploit the racial divide are people of color or white liberals.

Correct.

What is White racial identity and why is it important?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, it just marks the day when the last of the slaves were freed. What's the big deal? We all know the slaves were freed. No controversy there. I do wonder if making it a federal holiday is going to make our current racial divide worse though. People are going to exploit it for their own political ends, so if for some reason you're not 100% on board with it, you're going to be branded a racist. And it you make too big a deal about Juneteenth, you'll come across as just trying to pile on even more white guilt.

Yup, because the only people that exploit the racial divide are people of color or white liberals.

Correct.

What is White racial identity and why is it important?

Wow. No words, should have sent a poet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the first place, your opinion about whether CRT rejects the idea of an "inferior race" isn't relevant to the question in dispute. My opinion about that isn't relevant either; neither is the CRT authors' opinion; in fact, not even the fact of the matter of whether CRT rejects the idea of an "inferior race" is relevant. We were arguing about the intent of the laws. For establishing the laws' intent, only the opinion of the legislators matters. And it seems painfully obvious that the authors of these laws think that the moral inferiority of the white race is one of the elements of CRT doctrine.

And in the second place, what was even your point? Are you seriously proposing that CRT explicitly rejecting the idea of an "inferior race" has any bearing whatsoever on whether in fact it teaches that white people are inferior? What, do you also think the fact that the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." has any bearing whatsoever on whether in fact the Bible contains an awful lot of verses directing us to kill people? We are not going to uncritically accept the premise that CRT is internally consistent as a shared basis for discussion.

Oh, and the fact that many of these state laws are phrased stupidly is *exactly* the point.

It's A point; but it's not the only point up for discussion.

Yeah, apparently heavily white legislatures are ignorant of what is taught in school. There was no reason for the legislation to be amended in the first place!

 

[Trausti]

What flaming bullshit. It certainly upsets the neo-racists when people are treated as individuals.

You response certainly shows it.

So you feel it's okay for schools to teach that one race is inherently superior to another? Not shocked. Really.

 

[Metaphor]

Moreover, if you even bothered to read your own citations, it should be obvious that

(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

allows any snowflake to stymie fruitful analysis and discussions about slavery and meritocracy or genocides.

How does it allow someone to "stymie" fruitful analysis and discussions? Which of these listed points prevent discussion of these issues? (Hint: none of them--the section binds teachers, not students).

 

[Trausti]

Moreover, if you even bothered to read your own citations, it should be obvious that

(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

allows any snowflake to stymie fruitful analysis and discussions about slavery and meritocracy or genocides.

How does it allow someone to "stymie" fruitful analysis and discussions? Which of these listed points prevent discussion of these issues? (Hint: none of them--the section binds teachers, not students).

You expected the neoracists to be honest? Psst.

 

[Metaphor]

I reserve judgment on the over all desirability of the laws. But I do not think the left should weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard.

But is okay for "the right" to do so?

The right did not weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard, but if they had, it would be wrong for them, too.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, since CRT explicitly rejects the idea of an "inferior race", you'll have to quote that specific part of the law.

The Texas law says:
(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

Yes, we went over that, and why it's such a badly written piece of legislation. Nothing to do with CRT, regardless.

You asked for a quote of the legislation that is about the teaching of "inferior races". If that is what you wanted, I quoted it for you. If that isn't what you wanted, then your request was unclear.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, it appears they are trying to stifle teachers telling children that white people are racists and oppressors and thus a morally inferior race.

More like America has had many moral failings. Repeatedly. We were taught that slavery ended in 1865... then 100 years later something about Jim Crow being done away with. I took AP US History and didn't learn about the white massacres, like I learned about the massacres of Native Americans. Red lining, mortgage covenants, restrictions from voting, the Southern Strategy... there was a lot of bad done between 1865 and the 1980s, but it seems some people only want to talk about Civil War, MLK Jr, and then just say it is a black cultural problem as to why blacks still are dealing with poverty issues.

Some of the ills of today's society come directly from the intentional immoral actions during the 20th century and there appears to be a desperate ploy by some to keep telling kids, all of these troubles just date to the 19th century.

No doubt; but these laws do not appear to be intended to do that. They appear to be intended to allow teachers to talk about all that, and to blame the 20th century white racists who did them, provided those teachers don't also teach children that guilt is collective, and that the white people who didn't do them are also guilty, and that you can tell which people are guilty of other people's wrongdoings by examining their skin color.

Yeah, apparently heavily white legislatures are ignorant of what is taught in school. There was no reason for the legislation to be amended in the first place!

Not following. If you mean there's no need for such laws because the schools already aren't teaching the above disallowed blood-libel, that's a non sequitur. There appear to be influential people who are trying to get schools to teach these opinions; it's okay to pass laws as preventive measures.

The people advocating such views do not have a constitutional right to have the government supply them with captive audiences; and it is clearly within the authority of a democratic legislature to choose not to spend taxpayer money to stump for an ideology the public disagrees with.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm just happy to see that Juneteenth is off to a good start on being a Federal holiday. ThanksGiving, July 4th & Christmas gets just as much love, hate & fence-sitting annually.

*crickets*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No doubt; but these laws do not appear to be intended to do that. They appear to be intended to allow teachers to talk about all that, and to blame the 20th century white racists who did them, provided those teachers don't also teach children that guilt is collective, and that the white people who didn't do them are also guilty, and that you can tell which people are guilty of other people's wrongdoings by examining their skin color.

Yeah, apparently heavily white legislatures are ignorant of what is taught in school. There was no reason for the legislation to be amended in the first place!

Not following. If you mean there's no need for such laws because the schools already aren't teaching the above disallowed blood-libel, that's a non sequitur. There appear to be influential people who are trying to get schools to teach these opinions; it's okay to pass laws as preventive measures.

The people advocating such views do not have a constitutional right to have the government supply them with captive audiences; and it is clearly within the authority of a democratic legislature to choose not to spend taxpayer money to stump for an ideology the public disagrees with.

We are talking about Texas, right? The state that tried to get Thomas Jefferson out of the classroom? Please excuse me for not taking their concern at face value.

Where are these mobs of woke liberals feeding so many lies to children in school the state had to amend laws to deal with it?

 

[Rhea]

Some prominent media figures on the left made a claim that teaching about Juneteenth was 'banned' in states that had passed certain bills aimed at banning some CRT ideas being taught to school children. The idea that this outlaws the teaching of the history of Juneteenth in these states is prima facie absurd.

It is as absurd as a state that, “honest judge, we’re not outlawing abortion! You just have to wait two days, then make a second visit a week later, and you can only go to a doctor who, unlike any other outpatient doctor, can get admitting privileges at the nearby caatholic hospital, such that there only remain 5 clinic in the 900-mile-wide state and, unlike any other outpatient clinic, they have to retrofit their clinic to full operating code inluding gourney-wide hallways, and also we’ll make to listen to a religious speech and stick a wand in your vagina. But show me the law that says we outlawed abortions. I’ll wait.”

Or the ones that say, “we’re not discriminating against black voters, we’re just going to put 1/10 the voting machines per catipa in their district and let armed thugs walk around them, and prohibit voting on the day they usually vote and purge voter rolls only in their neighborhoods. And we’re just going to fine poll workers if we say they did something that they can’t prove we made up. But point to a law that says, “anti-black voting law. I’ll wait.”


Yeah, that state.

They know what they’re doing. We know what they’re doing.

We’ve talked about what their law will do. We’ve showed you how they’ll do it. What it’s doing already (teacher getting calls about law suits). And it’s a common tactic for them to say “oh yeah? Point to the wording in the law that says I did,” because they know damn well they’re doing it by stretching their “law” and getting away with the exact thing they wide-eyed-innocent claim they aren’t doing.

 

[laughing dog]

What flaming bullshit. It certainly upsets the neo-racists when people are treated as individuals.

You response certainly shows it.

So you feel it's okay for schools to teach that one race is inherently superior to another? Not shocked. Really.

Didn’t say it. Not shocked at yet another one of your stupid straw men.

 

[laughing dog]

Moreover, if you even bothered to read your own citations, it should be obvious that

(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

allows any snowflake to stymie fruitful analysis and discussions about slavery and meritocracy or genocides.

How does it allow someone to "stymie" fruitful analysis and discussions? Which of these listed points prevent discussion of these issues? (Hint: none of them--the section binds teachers, not students).

All it would take is just one snowflake to say they feel discomfort and the topic stops.

 

[laughing dog]

How does it allow someone to "stymie" fruitful analysis and discussions? Which of these listed points prevent discussion of these issues? (Hint: none of them--the section binds teachers, not students).

You expected the neoracists to be honest? Psst.

No need for you to self-incriminate.

 

[thebeave]

Yeah, it just marks the day when the last of the slaves were freed. What's the big deal? We all know the slaves were freed. No controversy there. I do wonder if making it a federal holiday is going to make our current racial divide worse though. People are going to exploit it for their own political ends, so if for some reason you're not 100% on board with it, you're going to be branded a racist. And it you make too big a deal about Juneteenth, you'll come across as just trying to pile on even more white guilt.

We all know we liberated ourselves from the British, so what's the big deal about the July 4th federal holiday?
We all know about the pilgrims, so what's the big deal about the Thanksgiving day holiday? We all know people were killed in wars, so what's the big deal about Memorial day?
We all know about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, what's the big deal about President's day?
We all know about MLK, so what's the big deal about MLK day?

The answer to all of the above (along with Juneteenth day) is to honor the memory of that day or accomplishments.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. My original comment was with regard to people lumping in Juneteenth (June 19th) with CRT and The 1619 Project. CRT and The 1619 Project are both controversial and polarizing racial subject matters that are being introduced (or trying to be) in various aspects or our government and educational systems. Juneteenth is memorializing a specific day in our nation's history that happened a very long time ago. There is no controversy about it, like there is with CRT or 1619 Project. That's what I meant when I asked, "What's the big deal?".

 

[Metaphor]

How does it allow someone to "stymie" fruitful analysis and discussions? Which of these listed points prevent discussion of these issues? (Hint: none of them--the section binds teachers, not students).

All it would take is just one snowflake to say they feel discomfort and the topic stops.

Why? The legislation does not forbid conversation based on the perceived or expressed discomfort of students. It forbids the championing of certain concepts by officials in certain teaching contexts.

 

[Metaphor]

We’ve talked about what their law will do. We’ve showed you how they’ll do it.

You haven't shown anything like it.

Some prominent leftists in the media said that teaching Juneteenth is 'illegal' in states that had made moves to ban the compulsory teaching of some ideas to school children. There is no support for the assertion that teaching "Juneteenth" is illegal, because it is not illegal.

 

[Metaphor]

So you feel it's okay for schools to teach that one race is inherently superior to another? Not shocked. Really.

Didn’t say it. Not shocked at yet another one of your stupid straw men.

laughing dog is too busy doling out stupid straw men to be on the receiving end, apparently
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...h-one-and-all!&p=913754&viewfull=1#post913754

 

[laughing dog]

How does it allow someone to "stymie" fruitful analysis and discussions? Which of these listed points prevent discussion of these issues? (Hint: none of them--the section binds teachers, not students).

All it would take is just one snowflake to say they feel discomfort and the topic stops.

Why? The legislation does not forbid conversation based on the perceived or expressed discomfort of students. It forbids the championing of certain concepts by officials in certain teaching contexts.

Given the many examples of white people’s hypersensitivity in discussions of race,it wouldn’t take much for an administrator to use prohibited standard 6 or 7 to step in and do something.