Nothing better than watching hillary lovers continue to have meltdowns.
Thought Texas was going blue???
Hahahahahaha
Democrats lose again!!!
Nothing better than watching hillary lovers continue to have meltdowns.
Thought Texas was going blue???
Hahahahahaha
Democrats lose again!!!
energeticlotuseater wrote:
[
The problem I have with the criticism of this bill is that the critics immediately jumped to “this is racist!” instead of “well maybe we must pick and choose what we teach because we have some very real time limitations”.
Duh, everyone know there is only so much time (made worse by teaching to standardized tests). But the track record of the texas isn't great, . They seem to find time for plenty of nonsense.
There is a reason texas is importing a bunch of talent from Blue States. They can't keep up
energeticlotuseater wrote:
The problem I have with the criticism of this bill is that the critics immediately jumped to “this is racist!” instead of “well maybe we must pick and choose what we teach because we have some very real time limitations”.
lol...if you don't have time to teach MLK's " I Have a Dream" speech in American History, especially in light of our current events, then you are doing it wrong. That is exactly the purpose of a curriculum, to ensure the critical and necessary parts are taught. You couldn't have illustrated that point any clearer.
I assume you want us to believe that these concerns about 'time constrains' just happen to coincide with the exact timing of the grieved white racial backlash that motivated the legislation in the first place?
Really?
Wuzzle Wuzzle wrote:
energeticlotuseater wrote:
[
The problem I have with the criticism of this bill is that the critics immediately jumped to “this is racist!” instead of “well maybe we must pick and choose what we teach because we have some very real time limitations”.
Duh, everyone know there is only so much time (made worse by teaching to standardized tests). But the track record of the texas isn't great, . They seem to find time for plenty of nonsense.
There is a reason texas is importing a bunch of talent from Blue States. They can't keep up
And I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
We can have the discussion of what should be mandated and what should not be mandated. But to purposely misrepresent this bill as banning the teaching of the civil rights movement does make me really question the “good faith” of those starting this thread and those at Bloomberg writing this article (I’ve seen it interpreted like this in other media sources as well).
Just a side note- The Civil Rights Act of1964 is mandated in this bill. Any teacher worth his or her weight would include MLK, his works and his activities when discussing the Civil Rights Act.
Texans don’t really like brown people. Unless they are cleaning their house or mowing their lawn.
energeticlotuseater wrote:
We can have the discussion of what should be mandated and what should not be mandated. But to purposely misrepresent this bill as banning the teaching of the civil rights movement does make me really question the “good faith” of those starting this thread and those at Bloomberg writing this article...
OP here.....this is the second or third time you've falsely claimed I've called this bill a 'banning' of teaching the Civil Rights Movement. .
I've posted a dozen times in this thread, please cite once where I've referred to this as explicitly 'banning teaching Civil Rights.'
I said they removed parts of the curriculum.....why do you insist on repeatedly twisting my words to fit your agenda? Are you doing it out of ignorance or as a blatant liar?
read much? wrote:
energeticlotuseater wrote:
We can have the discussion of what should be mandated and what should not be mandated. But to purposely misrepresent this bill as banning the teaching of the civil rights movement does make me really question the “good faith” of those starting this thread and those at Bloomberg writing this article...
OP here.....this is the second or third time you've falsely claimed I've called this bill a 'banning' of teaching the Civil Rights Movement. .
I've posted a dozen times in this thread, please cite once where I've referred to this as explicitly 'banning teaching Civil Rights.'
I said they removed parts of the curriculum.....why do you insist on repeatedly twisting my words to fit your agenda? Are you doing it out of ignorance or as a blatant liar?
Sorry, the title of the thread is “Texas cancels the teaching of Civil Rights”.
Texas is not cancelling the teaching of Civil Rights. In fact the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 is mandated in this specific bill.
please show me where I said they banned the teaching of Civil Rights
you've claimed it 3 times now, put up or shut up
read much? wrote:
please show me where I said they banned the teaching of Civil Rights
you've claimed it 3 times now, put up or shut up
I associated the words cancelling with the word banning. However, I’m glad I was apparently mistaken and we agree that Texas is not banning the teaching of Civil Rights. Nor, I add, is it cancelling the teaching of Civil Rights.
read much? wrote:
please show me where I said they banned the teaching of Civil Rights
you've claimed it 3 times now, put up or shut up
The title of the thread implies you think Texas is canceling the teaching of civil rights or the civil rights movement.
When these pedantic semantics games begin it’s pretty much a clue you’ve lost a debate and are now just clutching at straws.
You are an ideologue who tried to do a bit of race baiting , were called out by people that actually read the bill and now you’re back tracking into mindnumbing semantics .
Tatar.... wrote:
A teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that an individual's moral character, standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual's race or sex;
But it is reasonable to say non-whites suffer from discrimination. And now apparently banned from class because it says we can't articulate someone's standing or worth in society is necessarily determined by the individual's race. *We don't want to be the case* but merely teaching society routinely fails to treat black people equally is included by this.
may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's race or sex;
Nobody was teaching this, existing laws cover racial and sex discrimination
that an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex;
Completely vague. Obviously nobody should suffer psychological distress. History isn't always a comfortable. Can I say it was white slave-owners and black slaves or is that going to make someone feel anguish?
A teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;
may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality
This is just straight up bizarre. All countries that exist or have existed consider their principals to include liberty and equality.
Yes, that last part is the piece that bothers me. Any nuance could subject the teacher to discipline.. I mean, to whom do you think the founding fathers thought their principles applied?
Honestly, the me too/cancel culture types are forcing the Longhorns to give up their school song on very shaky grounds. What you see is the pendulum slipping the other direction and how can that be unexpected when true Texas traditions are being attacked.
trashcan wrote:
Tatar.... wrote:
A teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that an individual's moral character, standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual's race or sex;
But it is reasonable to say non-whites suffer from discrimination. And now apparently banned from class because it says we can't articulate someone's standing or worth in society is necessarily determined by the individual's race. *We don't want to be the case* but merely teaching society routinely fails to treat black people equally is included by this.
may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's race or sex;
Nobody was teaching this, existing laws cover racial and sex discrimination
that an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex;
Completely vague. Obviously nobody should suffer psychological distress. History isn't always a comfortable. Can I say it was white slave-owners and black slaves or is that going to make someone feel anguish?
A teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;
may not require or make part of a course inculcation in the concept that the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality
This is just straight up bizarre. All countries that exist or have existed consider their principals to include liberty and equality.
Yes, that last part is the piece that bothers me. Any nuance could subject the teacher to discipline.. I mean, to whom do you think the founding fathers thought their principles applied?
All teachers might be subject to discipline for “wrong think” unfortunately.
In “woke school districts” I’m sure if teachers tried to make “The Bell Curve” by Charles Murray (which is an objectively well researched academic study) required reading I’m sure they may get some some angry phone calls.
Soon Republicans will want to ban videos
of Olympic men 100m finals because it makes
white men feel bad.
There is a historical precedent.Consevatives
banned films of Jack Johnson knocking out
Tommy Burns in 1908 because they believed
it hurt white men's feelings.
energeticlotuseater wrote:
Here’s a segment from the actual piece of legislation in question-
(4) a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a
state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school
may not:
(A) require or make part of a course inculcation
in the concept that:
(i) one race or sex is inherently superior
to another race or sex;
(ii) an individual, by virtue of the
individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(iii) an individual should be discriminated
against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of
the individual's race or sex;
(iv) an individual's moral character,
standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual's
race or sex;
(v) an individual, by virtue of the
individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions
committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(vi) an individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of the individual's race or sex;
(vii) meritocracy or traits such as a hard
work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a
particular race to oppress members of another race;
(viii) the advent of slavery in the
territory that is now the United States constituted the true
founding of the United States; or
(ix) with respect to their relationship to
American values, slavery and racism are anything other than
deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the
authentic founding principles of the United States, which include
liberty and equality
Sounds like an absolutely great bill. Texas FTW again.
energeticlotuseater wrote:
read much? wrote:
please show me where I said they banned the teaching of Civil Rights
you've claimed it 3 times now, put up or shut up
I associated the words cancelling with the word banning. However, I’m glad I was apparently mistaken and we agree that Texas is not banning the teaching of Civil Rights. Nor, I add, is it cancelling the teaching of Civil Rights.
In context, "cancel" is enough of a synonym to "ban" - everyone knows what the OP was trying to pretend. You are letting she or he off way too easily. They're just backtracking on their own thread, because they never bothered to read about the bill and/or he assumed no one else would. In any case, they were wrong no matter which word they chose.
Ihatejoe wrote:
Honestly, the me too/cancel culture types are forcing the Longhorns to give up their school song on very shaky grounds. What you see is the pendulum slipping the other direction and how can that be unexpected when true Texas traditions are being attacked.
Couldn't have said I better my self.
100% truth right here, finally a conservative that isn't shaking in his boots to just say what he really thinks.
True Texas traditions are under attack, and to defend that, to swing the pendulum back the other way, to take one from the other side to even the score, they must remove MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech from the school curriculum.
Thanks for having the nuts to use straight admit that your side views MLK's "I Have Dream" speech as something that belongs to the 'other side', a thing that you are fighting against.
You've illustrated my point more clearly than I ever could have hoped to.
I think CRT is a travesty as it diminishes agency and assumes that there is a homogeneous group of people who all have the same current circumstances-the same mistake we made in the first place by assuming that minorities have a group characteristic.
I also think that not teaching Civil Rights history is a horrible idea. Those who dislike CRT say that it is based on Marxist principles and inserts race in terms of class.
Way to go Texas. Act just like Marxists and whitewash history.
It's easy to be independent in this country as often we have the choice between dumb and dumber.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=FvS5woMg&id=C4B240CF37828C74B7AD245B2061F79F40F922D4&thid=OIP.FvS5woMgsvcrKviWTqvfVgHaFI&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2ftalksport.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2fsites%2f5%2f2020%2f02%2fGettyImages-1208082090.jpg%3fstrip%3dall%26w%3d960%26quality%3d100&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.16f4b9c28320b2f72b2af8964eabdf56%3frik%3d1CL5QJ%252f3YSBbJA%26pid%3dImgRaw&exph=665&expw=960&q=fury+knocks+out+wilder&simid=608013145552668547&FORM=IRPRST&ck=C88B8DBEA0CB3D9D6F4F987BF5319097&selectedIndex=0&idpp=overlayview&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0Ain't 1857 wrote:
There is a historical precedent.Consevatives
banned films of Jack Johnson knocking out
Tommy Burns in 1908 because they believed
it hurt white men's feelings.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
