Public schools aren't teaching Critical Race Theory.

[Politesse]

Public schools aren't teaching Critical Race Theory.​

... they are now! Here's what they're teaching -

"Critical Race Theory is a very very baaaad thing the libruls want to cram down your little throats to make all you little white snowflakes feel bad about yourselves."

That... kind of makes me feel embarrassed to be a White, actually. Does this mean I can sue them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You Can’t Win Elections by Telling Voters Their Concerns Are Imaginary - The Atlantic

"For anybody who cares about making sure that Donald Trump does not become the 47th president of the United States, it is crucial that Democrats avoid repeating the mistakes that just put a Republican in Virginia’s governor’s mansion."

Certainly is harder when the GOP and their propaganda wing keep saying their lies are true.

If we can’t deny the accusation and we can’t ask for evidence of their claims, we are pretty much boned to having the liars win one way or the other.

Just please stop with the bullshit that it is our fault.

 

[fromderinside]

I've always considered lies as the equivalent of teeth in a bigot. Bigots should be muzzled. They are easy to identify and expose (muzzle). Just keep pointing out they never justify what they say.

Example:
This is caused by that.
You can't say this.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Well, with $65 billion allocated for broadband, this can only get worse.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[braces_for_impact]

CRT is merely a stand-in for anything that doesn't teach the wholesome and unmarred reputation of the United States of America that conservatives have come to expect not just from their own party, but from the rest of the country as well. By God, if they can't get everyone marching in lockstep to their propaganda, then they will bitch and moan and make it yet another culture war issue. The bonus is those engineering the lies get to make a big profit out of lying to eager idiots that want to hear what they already agree with.

That is the bottom line to ALL of this. Lies created at the top to be spread to make loads and loads of cash from gullible fools that need their dose of hourly outrage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CRT is merely a stand-in for anything that doesn't teach the wholesome and unmarred reputation of the United States of America that conservatives have come to expect not just from their own party, but from the rest of the country as well. By God, if they can't get everyone marching in lockstep to their propaganda, then they will bitch and moan and make it yet another culture war issue. The bonus is those engineering the lies get to make a big profit out of lying to eager idiots that want to hear what they already agree with.

That is the bottom line to ALL of this. Lies created at the top to be spread to make loads and loads of cash from gullible fools that need their dose of hourly outrage.

This. CRT is seriously flawed but it's being used as a bogeyman far more than as a real issue.

 

[Ford]

CRT is merely a stand-in for anything that doesn't teach the wholesome and unmarred reputation of the United States of America that conservatives have come to expect not just from their own party, but from the rest of the country as well.

Good old fashioned American Exceptionalism.

The Pilgrims showed up on these shores, "tamed the savages." and built the foundation for 'Murica.

Sure, some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, but they were all Christians and tried to make a Christian country!

The American West? It was largely uninhabited until white people "claimed" the land, and there sure as heck-fire weren't any remnants of the Spanish "conquest" of this real estate at work!

Those natives wanted to move to reservations, and the Chinese Exclusion Acts were totally not racist! (p.s. delete any reference to them from history books).

Fast forward to the 20th, and maybe...just maybe teach the kiddos about the Japanese Internment Summer Camps, but for white Christian God's sake don't let them know that we turned away Jews fleeing Hitler!

Yep. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[ZiprHead]

NEW YORK, July 15 (Reuters) - Critical race theory, a once-obscure academic concept that has sparked school board protests and classroom bans in some states, is largely misunderstood among the general public, even by those who say they are familiar with what it teaches about racism in America, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The national opinion survey taken on Monday and Tuesday found that 57% of adults said they were not familiar with the term, also known by its shorthand, CRT, which asserts that racism is woven into the U.S. legal system and ingrained in its primary institutions.

Many of those who said they were familiar with it answered follow-up questions that showed they embraced a variety of misconceptions about critical race theory that have been largely circulating among conservative media outlets.

For example, 22% of those who said they were familiar with critical race theory also think it is taught in most public high schools. It is not.


Thirty-three percent believe it “says that white people are inherently bad or evil” or that “discriminating against white people is the only way to achieve equality.” It does not.

Among respondents who said they were familiar with CRT, only 5% correctly answered all seven true-false questions that the poll asked about the history and teachings of critical race theory. Only 32% correctly answered more than four of the seven questions.

The poll showed that a bipartisan majority of Americans say that high school students should learn about slavery and racism in America. Yet respondents were more opposed to teaching critical race theory, which maintains that the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow racial segregation laws continues to create an uneven playing field for nonwhite Americans.


Still, 36% of Americans said they would support a ban on CRT in public schools. The responses were divided along party lines: a majority of Democrats – 51% - opposed a school ban, while a majority of Republicans – 54% - supported one.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ma...ehoods-about-critical-race-theory-2021-07-15/

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, the Republican stance is that it should be up to the parents to decide what is taught in the schools but that the government should ban critical race theory? Hmm…

 

[Politesse]

It's no use trying to point out that they don't know what they're talking about, they just accuse you of lying. Because if you're not lying, the TV must have been lying. And the TV would never lie... would it?

 

[Elixir]

CRT :
“Caravans for Republicans of the Twenty-twenties”

 

[Bomb#20]

View attachment 35952

People whose parents didn't throw rocks at Ruby Bridges are upset their children are being taught by people who think like a racist twitter imbecile who claims their parents threw rocks at Ruby Bridges because their parents are the same color as some third party who threw rocks at Ruby Bridges.

 

[Politesse]

View attachment 35952

People whose parents didn't throw rocks at Ruby Bridges are upset their children are being taught by people who think like a racist twitter imbecile who claims their parents threw rocks at Ruby Bridges because their parents are the same color as some third party who threw rocks at Ruby Bridges.

Color isn't the issue. If you feel "guilty" (and defensively angry) whenever you hear about this country's oppression of Blacks, it's not just because you sunburn easily.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 35952

People whose parents didn't throw rocks at Ruby Bridges are upset their children are being taught by people who think like a racist twitter imbecile who claims their parents threw rocks at Ruby Bridges because their parents are the same color as some third party who threw rocks at Ruby Bridges.*

* - claim unsupported

 

[Bomb#20]

... by legitimizing this nonsense ... whenever Fox News makes up a story,... justifying censorship.... if McAuliffe was like "Oh man, you caught us! We were indoctrinating your children ... pandering to them...

That is not a good-faith counterargument. Preventing Trump's reelection is evidently less important to you than feeling smugly superior to the voters who may well reelect him.

I don't know why you say that this isn't in good faith. That is my opinion.

So what? "legitimizing this nonsense" is begging the question. You do not have a good-faith reason to believe the parents whose concerns you're dismissing got their concerns from Fox News; "whenever Fox News makes up a story" was just an ad hominem motivated by your prejudice against them. You do not have a good-faith reason to believe stopping public schools from teaching something to a captive audience constitutes "censorship"; you're using that word as propaganda to trump up a false charge against your opponents as anti-First-Amendment. You do not have a good-faith reason to believe "Oh man, you caught us! We were indoctrinating your children to believe that all Whites are evil and Sharia law is better than democracy! But we're totes McGoats sorry about it, and promise never to do it again" is what Professor Mounk was advocating McAuliffe should have said instead of "I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.". You set up a strawman. And you have no grounds to believe public schools teaching children the way parents want is any more "pandering" than teaching children the way your ideological soulmates want. You came by your opinion as honestly as the shipowner in Clifford's fable came by his opinion that his ship was seaworthy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... by legitimizing this nonsense ... whenever Fox News makes up a story,... justifying censorship.... if McAuliffe was like "Oh man, you caught us! We were indoctrinating your children ... pandering to them...

That is not a good-faith counterargument. Preventing Trump's reelection is evidently less important to you than feeling smugly superior to the voters who may well reelect him.

I don't know why you say that this isn't in good faith. That is my opinion.

So what? "legitimizing this nonsense" is begging the question. You do not have a good-faith reason to believe the parents whose concerns you're dismissing got their concerns from Fox News; "whenever Fox News makes up a story" was just an ad hominem motivated by your prejudice against them. You do not have a good-faith reason to believe stopping public schools from teaching something to a captive audience constitutes "censorship"; you're using that word as propaganda to trump up a false charge against your opponents as anti-First-Amendment. You do not have a good-faith reason to believe "Oh man, you caught us! We were indoctrinating your children to believe that all Whites are evil and Sharia law is better than democracy! But we're totes McGoats sorry about it, and promise never to do it again" is what Professor Mounk was advocating McAuliffe should have said instead of "I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.". You set up a strawman. And you have no grounds to believe public schools teaching children the way parents want is any more "pandering" than teaching children the way your ideological soulmates want. You came by your opinion as honestly as the shipowner in Clifford's fable came by his opinion that his ship was seaworthy.

I can't believe what I'm reading. The argument being presented is that we aren't taking these people's unwarranted and unestablished concerns seriously enough. When we ask for evidence to support such claims, we get nothing, expect condemnation that somehow, this is all our fault because the AM Radio, Fox News, and the alt-right media is telling these people lies.

This is some sort of CS Lewis nightmare.

 

[laughing dog]

... by legitimizing this nonsense ... whenever Fox News makes up a story,... justifying censorship.... if McAuliffe was like "Oh man, you caught us! We were indoctrinating your children ... pandering to them...

That is not a good-faith counterargument. Preventing Trump's reelection is evidently less important to you than feeling smugly superior to the voters who may well reelect him.

I don't know why you say that this isn't in good faith. That is my opinion.

So what? "legitimizing this nonsense" is begging the question. You do not have a good-faith reason to believe the parents whose concerns you're dismissing got their concerns from Fox News; "whenever Fox News makes up a story" was just an ad hominem motivated by your prejudice against them. You do not have a good-faith reason to believe stopping public schools from teaching something to a captive audience constitutes "censorship"; you're using that word as propaganda to trump up a false charge against your opponents as anti-First-Amendment. You do not have a good-faith reason to believe "Oh man, you caught us! We were indoctrinating your children to believe that all Whites are evil and Sharia law is better than democracy! But we're totes McGoats sorry about it, and promise never to do it again" is what Professor Mounk was advocating McAuliffe should have said instead of "I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.". You set up a strawman. And you have no grounds to believe public schools teaching children the way parents want is any more "pandering" than teaching children the way your ideological soulmates want. You came by your opinion as honestly as the shipowner in Clifford's fable came by his opinion that his ship was seaworthy.

Who is the arbiter of this "good faith reason"? From what I can tell, I could say you have no good faith reason for your objections.

 

[Bomb#20]

* - claim unsupported

Chris Evans' claim, that four people endorsed here? Yes, it was.

Color isn't the issue. If you feel "guilty" (and defensively angry) whenever you hear about this country's oppression of Blacks, it's not just because you sunburn easily.

If you aren't on the side of the Witchfinder General it must be because you're a witch.