Well,well, Florida got it right...

[Belly Bob]

1 hour ago, Atticus Finch said:

Because some part of one minority group has succeeded greatly in a field or several fields doesn't mean that the system favors them.

I agree.

I think many Asian Americans who feel like they're being unfairly discriminated against by CRT-inspired high school and college admissions policies also agree.

[Atticus Finch]

29 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I never said there was.

So just as I said.

Your previous post made no sense.

[Atticus Finch]

15 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I think many Asian Americans who feel like they're being unfairly discriminated against by CRT-inspired high school and college admissions policies also agree.

But nobody has been able to articulate why they are being discriminated against by it.

[badrouter]

3 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

So they are banned from talking about ideas.

The irony of a supposed free speech warrior pushing the suppression of ideas is rich.

No. Taxpayer funded schools are banned from using taxpayer dollars to pay them to promote certain ideas. The same way taxpayer funded schools are banned from using taxpayer dollars to pay people to promote/preach religious dogma.

[badrouter]

3 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

There's no unjust system in this country that benefits Asians.

Because some part of one minority group has succeeded greatly in a field or several fields doesn't mean that the system favors them.

African-Americans have a unique history in this country that isn't shared by any other minority group. Asians, while experiencing terrible racism when they got here, didn't experience anything close to what African slaves and their ancestors did.

I agree. Ibram Kendi does not agree. And that matters because Kendi has the ear of the United States federal government, and school boards around the country. Kendi, again, asserts (without evidence) that *ANY* dispartity in outcomes based on race is *AUTOMATICALLY AND NECESSARILY* a product of racist discrimination. So, he'd simply spotlight the higher statistical average income, life expectancy and lower incarceration rates and would be DONE. He'd rest his case on that. It is astonishing stupidity, yet it is the ascendant idea permeating discourse today.

The cute trick employed here fails to acknowledge the fact that such a statement can be used to describe EVERY SINGLE POPULATION GROUP IN THE WORLD. 

There are poor whites; incarcerated whites; whites who died from Covid etc. The disparities referenced daily are *statistical* disparities. *Statistically*, those of Asian descent make more money and live longer on average than white Americans. This should not conceal the fact that some Asians are very poor or die at a young age. But, we shouldn't conceal the fact that some whites are poor or die at a young age, either. 

What we need, more than anything else, is an HONEST CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE. The troubling part of our present reality is that there are people expressing that very thought...who do not ever actually engage honestly about race.

[badrouter]

2 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

But nobody has been able to articulate why they are being discriminated against by it.

The key issue here is the matter of merit. Universities and high schools have a finite number of spots available to offer incoming freshman. They can not accommodate every single student who applies to attend: there is a scarcity of open spots. How do we deal with this while maintaining connection with reality on Earth? The idea has been to leave the spots available to those who have demonstrated the greatest desire and/or ability (yes, there have been egregious violations of this with dirty money etc). Asian students, on average, have demonstrated that greater desire and/or ability at a much higher rate than students of other categories. Yet, Asian students get admitted at a much lower rate. This has been/will be revealed in the famous Harvard lawsuit headed for the Supreme Court. This is textbook evidence of racism...UNLESS YOU ADOPT KENDI'S DEFINITION OF 'RACIST'. It seems unlikely the Supreme Court-or any other court which is not of the Banana variety- has adopted Henry Rogers's definition. 

[Atticus Finch]

1 hour ago, badrouter said:

No. Taxpayer funded schools are banned from using taxpayer dollars to pay them to promote certain ideas. The same way taxpayer funded schools are banned from using taxpayer dollars to pay people to promote/preach religious dogma.

Again, I read the text. At some point you have to understand that you can't lie about something that is written down and public.

This is what the bill says.

They are not allowed to engage with anybody who advocates certain ideas.

It's the suppression of ideas and certain speech. Full stop.

[Atticus Finch]

1 hour ago, badrouter said:

Ibram Kendi does not agree.

I don't care since he's neither a founder of CRT or one of its current scholars.

You've changed this subject so much that the horse is begging for mercy.

[Troll]

26 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

I don't care since he's neither a founder of CRT or one of its current scholars.

You've changed this subject so much that the horse is begging for mercy.

Well then we can keep it simple for you....

1. It's racist.

2. It's now illegal.

🤓

any other questions ???

💩

[badrouter]

1 hour ago, Atticus Finch said:

Again, I read the text. At some point you have to understand that you can't lie about something that is written down and public.

This is what the bill says.

They are not allowed to engage with anybody who advocates certain ideas.

It's the suppression of ideas and certain speech. Full stop.

Yes, “engaging” is sufficiently vague so as to require further clarification.

[badrouter]

1 hour ago, Atticus Finch said:

I don't care since he's neither a founder of CRT or one of its current scholars.

You've changed this subject so much that the horse is begging for mercy.

By now it should be clear that “the subject” is much bigger- if not entirely separate from- CRT specifically. It should also be clear that narrowing the discussion to simply defining CRT is as much a part of the dishonest leftist approach as it may be for Chris Rufo. Both sides are trying to diminish the other so as to gain “advantage”. Of course, we all pay the price for the selfish, dishonest tact used by all of these folks.

The bigger problem is the urge from so many people to force their ideas on others. The Christian Right has been pushing this forever, and is still at it as we see with DeSantis’ “moment of silence” bullshit. The only way we get past this is to break away from any/all tribal thinking.

 

[Belly Bob]

1 hour ago, badrouter said:

The bigger problem is the urge from so many people to force their ideas on others. The Christian Right has been pushing this forever, and is still at it as we see with DeSantis’ “moment of silence” bullshit. The only way we get past this is to break away from any/all tribal thinking.

What's "tribal thinking"?

I'm not sure how to better characterize legislation than the attempt to force ideas on people. According to the going political theory, it's supposed to be justified on the grounds that the law expresses the will of the people, owing to the fact that the people elected the legislators. That's what justifies the "force" of the law. 

Legislating against CRT is itself an attempt to force ideas on others, most obviously the idea that CRT is not to be taught at public schools. 

And if you want to take God entirely out of the picture, then you'll have to find some other basis for the entire project of liberal democracy, since the basic idea is that the state's job is to protect human rights, rights which all people have owing to their relationship to God. 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

[badrouter]

5 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

What's "tribal thinking"?

I'm not sure how to better characterize legislation than the attempt to force ideas on people. According to the going political theory, it's supposed to be justified on the grounds that the law expresses the will of the people, owing to the fact that the people elected the legislators. That's what justifies the "force" of the law. 

Legislating against CRT is itself an attempt to force ideas on others, most obviously the idea that CRT is not to be taught at public schools. 

And if you want to take God entirely out of the picture, then you'll have to find some other basis for the entire project of liberal democracy, since the basic idea is that the state's job is to protect the basic human rights, rights which all people have owing to their relationship to God. 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Choosing and maintaining viewpoints based, not on sound reasoning, but on what others in your self-identified group think. Tell me how someone feels abouT abortion and I can be certain how they feel about taxes, or climate change. Even though those are entirely separate issues, they end up looped together because of tribal thinking. 
 

Again, it depends on the language used. You can teach about Christianity or Islam, but you can not promote either. You can’t present them as facts that students are compelled to believe. Same should be the case with CRT etc. But, we do run into problems with both when dealing with younger kids. Eight year-olds shouldn’t be expected to have a debate about the merits of Christianity or CRT, for example.

 

The freedom of religion enshrined in the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment also means freedom from religion. 

[badrouter]

The latest from McWhorter: https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/you-are-not-a-racist-to-criticize

[Belly Bob]

44 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Choosing and maintaining viewpoints based, not on sound reasoning, but on what others in your self-identified group think. Tell me how someone feels abouT abortion and I can be certain how they feel about taxes, or climate change. Even though those are entirely separate issues, they end up looped together because of tribal thinking. 

I don't disagree that human beings tend to adopt beliefs based on what others in their self-identified group think, but I don't see how your proposed solution--choosing and maintaining viewports based on sound reasoning--is supposed to solve any of the basic problems we're discussing.

What does sound reasoning say about abortion, taxes, climate change, and CRT?

[badrouter]

1 hour ago, Belly Bob said:

I don't disagree that human beings tend to adopt beliefs based on what others in their self-identified group think, but I don't see how your proposed solution--choosing and maintaining viewports based on sound reasoning--is supposed to solve any of the basic problems we're discussing.

What does sound reasoning say about abortion, taxes, climate change, and CRT?

Sound reasoning can produce differing or opposing conclusions on all of those issues. Problem is, it isn't often sound reasoning producing the conclusions shared in the mainstream.

All pf which is why it is important to allow a free exchange of ideas. Many on the right, and clearly many on the left, want no such exchange of ideas. It's their way or the highway. On the right, that often means saying others are destined to burn in hell. On the left, it often means tarring others as reprehensible racists who should no longer be free to say anything of consequence.

[World Citizen]

7 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

But nobody has been able to articulate why they are being discriminated against by it.

IMO, it comes down to that it makes white people uncomfortable and they will do most anything to muddy, misrepresent, lie or whatever in order to not face it.  Fear seems to be the driving force behind those most vocal in opposition.  It's the governing principle of the Republican party these past several years, if not decades.  There are some on the left who are just as uncomfortable.  If CRT was about some alien people from another planet we had to learn about, it would not be a problem.  But, it's about this country and the white people dominant in it so here we are.  

That some feel that CRT says that white people are evil and bad is simply a choice they made on how to feel about it.  It's not based in reason but fear.  There are many who have been saying there is a war on white people for years now and this is more of the same bs.  

[Belly Bob]

19 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

IMO, it comes down to that it makes white people uncomfortable and they will do most anything to muddy, misrepresent, lie or whatever in order to not face it.  

Don't forget about the Asians.

http://www.cacagny.org

They must be scared too.

[badrouter]

8 hours ago, World Citizen said:

IMO, it comes down to that it makes white people uncomfortable and they will do most anything to muddy, misrepresent, lie or whatever in order to not face it.  Fear seems to be the driving force behind those most vocal in opposition.  It's the governing principle of the Republican party these past several years, if not decades.  There are some on the left who are just as uncomfortable.  If CRT was about some alien people from another planet we had to learn about, it would not be a problem.  But, it's about this country and the white people dominant in it so here we are.  

That some feel that CRT says that white people are evil and bad is simply a choice they made on how to feel about it.  It's not based in reason but fear.  There are many who have been saying there is a war on white people for years now and this is more of the same bs.  

Pot meet kettle.

Your description accurately describes...the leftist media narrative. It is an abysmal failure in describing the reasons for opposition from people like myself. And that should matter.

[badrouter]

[badrouter]

“

Rather than taking the opportunity to score cynical points, clear instances of excessive and insane behavior—from mob misconduct at our schools to attempts to legislate away ideas we dislike—should be a chance for honest, well-intentioned people to stand up and call it out, regardless of what side they're on.

The most frustrating aspect of the culture war is that it isn't a real war at all; it's a conversation we are currently terrible at having. And we will continue to be terrible at it as long as we believe the war is real and that our conflict is zero-sum.

If we want to create the fair and just world we say we do, we have to recognize that this is the idea that truly dooms us all.”

https://www.newsweek.com/stop-telling-critical-race-theorys-critics-we-dont-know-what-it-opinion-1600535

[Troll]

5 hours ago, badrouter said:

The most frustrating aspect of the culture war is that it isn't a real war at all; it's a conversation we are currently terrible at having.

War is what you make of it...

...and some people like to make war.

 

[badrouter]

Good column in NY Daily News: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-whats-wrong-with-critical-race-theory-20210622-b32vqc5re5b7nkjrobgu54odia-story.html

[Atticus Finch]

12 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Good column in NY Daily News: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-whats-wrong-with-critical-race-theory-20210622-b32vqc5re5b7nkjrobgu54odia-story.html

Third paragraph in and he does exactly what every other "critic" of CRT does. He talks about "pop" variants and not CRT itself.

Or "CRTish" ideas.

So lazy.

Rinse, repeat.

No wonder you think it's a good column.

[badrouter]

18 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Third paragraph in and he does exactly what every other "critic" of CRT does. He talks about "pop" variants and not CRT itself.

Or "CRTish" ideas.

So lazy.

Rinse, repeat.

No wonder you think it's a good column.

Read the column linked above from McWhorter for more on the linguistic tricks being employed.