The Don't Say Gay bill

Thing is, by the standards these assholes invariably apply whenever they get the ability, fucking Little House on the Prairie would count as "instruction on sexual orientation." Ma and Pa Ingalls are married, Laura is courted by Almanzo ...

That is, it would count as "instruction on sexual orientation" if the standards were applied equally, which we know they won't be.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bu...s-lgbtq-pledge-gay-youth-camp-viral-video.amp

That's brilliant.

You know they're trolling you, right?

If they're acting as a teacher, then they're breaking the law.

If they're acting as a regular citizen, they're behaving inappropriately with a child.

Say you had a first grade son or daughter. Would you be comfortable with them having a discussion about sex with someone without your knowledge or consent?

If the message is "all white people are racist," that's not making someone uncomfortable. That's shaming them on account of their race, which, since it must--by definition--be applied on a racially discriminatory basis, is likely a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause. And it's based on a highly politicized interpretation, not a fact.

You can acknowledge that same-sex couples exist without it being "a discussion about sex." Or did I miss the page in Heather Has Two Mommies where the author details how Heather's mommies get out their vibrators and lick each other's clits until they're squirming and moaning with delight?

It's not.

If the message is "American society is full of institutionalized racism," on the other hand, that's not an agenda. It's a fact.

It's a fact that hurts conservative white people's delicate baby feelings, but it's a fact nonetheless. And you know what your fellow travelers love to say about facts and feelings ...

If my child felt more comfortable approaching his or her teacher with questions than me, I'd be more pissed at myself than the teacher.

I agree I agree. Whoever teaches that in K-12 should be fired, but what does it have to do with CRT, which is an advanced college course?

Yeah but...

No, it isn't. It's an interpretation. And that's saying that white people are racist and support racist institutions.

It's an attempt to indoctrinate the youth with a political viewpoint. But parents are on to it.

How about an adult approaching your child?

That's kindof a semantic point. The belief that white Americans and American institutions are inherently racist is a core element of CRT. In the Venn diagram of CRT and the "if it's white, it's racist" message has the latter completely inside the former.

Indeed. And there are a lot of shitty parents out there ... and their children's teachers are often the only supportive adults in those children's lives.

Naturally, the shitty parents find this threatening.

It depends. If a teacher approached my child for no reason and started talking about homosexuality, that would be inappropriate and, to be honest, a red flag IMHO. If a teacher approached my child who was being bullied for being or acting gay, then I think it might be fine.

I honestly don't see how saying that the system is racist = All white people are racist. A white person could benefit from a system/law/cultural norm that is biased towards them without having a racist bone in their body. If someone says the system is racist, and I ask, "Are you calling me a racist?", then I'm pretty sure I've missed the point.

But that's not what I asked. I asked what teaching "all white people are racist" K-12 (which would be awful) have to do with CRT?

Nothing. But in today's US, where discourse is modeled after right-wing talk radio the golden rule is never to admit another person might have a good point and change the subject when a strawman is exposed.

Perhaps. But shouldn't you still be notified?

If the system is racist to benefit white people and white people support it, then white people are...?

The problem, of course, is that systems aren't racist. People are. Systems have no beliefs, no will, and no reality apart from the people that run them.

And if they continue to support a system that is claimed to be racist? Does that make them racist?

You have to say yes, if you believe racism is embodied in systems and not people.

Who decides whether the system is racist? If you say the system is racist because it produces disparities, but I say it is not because it is open to everyone, which is of us is correct?

I told you: that belief is at the core of CRT. Intersectionalism requires whites be the oppressors, never the oppressed (racially speaking, anyway). The belief that systems are racist in favor of whites--regardless of the intentions of the people who run and support them--requires that whites either disavow those systems (i.e., favor radical leftist leftist political change) or be labelled racist.

No, children aren't being taught the finer philosophical points of CRT. But they are being inculcated with the beliefs that are the foundation of CRT. If the schools were teaching, say, that capitalism was evil, you could say that, no, they aren't actually teaching socialism. But it would be clear that the purpose is to steer them in that direction. Same thing.

You sure are afraid of a lot of things.

Afraid? No. Just vigilant.

That's what people who wear tinfoil hats say...

Probably.

Maybe "racist" isn't the right word, but systems can certainly be set up as an uneven playing field.

What do you mean by "support"? If someone supports the parts of the system that that make the system biased, then probably, but not necessarily. They might just be opportunistic sons of bitches.

I don't see it that way. I see it as a way of identifying that it's happening, and then maybe acting in ways to mitigate it. That doesn't necessarily mean disavowing or tearing down the system. i.e. "Hey, black people are disproportionately put in prison compared to white people. Maybe we should look into that." as opposed to, "Let's abolish the criminal justice system... It's the not racist thing to do."

How, and when did this start happening?

Definitely. Significant things should not be going on with your child in school without your knowledge or consent.

Lots of things are "uneven," because among people--even among identifiable groups of people--there are differences of all sorts. There is no system where everything is exactly even. Even if such a system could be instituted, it would have to change from moment to moment.

I said "claimed," but see how judgmental your tone is there?

Who is the authority on whether a system is racist or not? Who decides that for your child? What would you as a parent be allowed to veto?

Answer?

Although these are valid social and political stances, they are stances. They're also of a complexity that is not suitable for children. You're naive if you don't think this can be taught without political viewpoints or value judgments about social matters being part of it.

It's been going on for quite awhile now. As for how, I've explained it.

I don't know. I never went to law school, so I never took any CRT courses....but maybe that's why it's called a theory?

Sorry. I may have missed it. Or I read it while alcohol was involved. But if a school board says, "According to CRT, African American 4th graders have more trouble with such and such subject than other children, maybe we should pay extra attention to African American children while teaching such and such subject. Or recognizing that African American children are more likely to come from a single parent household than other children, maybe we should pay closer attention to them for problems that might arise from that. That's not teaching CRT, that's applying CRT.

Then you're saying the state should dispense and withhold benefits on the basis of skin color.

You're not making any of this contingent on individual need, you're making it solely about race.

And guess what? That's racist.

There are other problems, too. Do mixed-race kids get 50% additional attention? Are white kids who come from single parent households eligible for anything, or is it tough luck for them? What if someone identifies as black, do they get the extra help, too? Should you heap additional resources on the black A student while the white D student falls further behind?

I said "pay extra attention" and "pay closer attention". I didn't say take resources away from white children to give then to black children. CRT, in this case, would inform the teacher that a problem is more likely to arise in this student as opposed to that student.

If we know that this group of children tend to be more likely to have problems with something than that group of children, should teachers be forced to just ignore it completely? We don't have enough teachers to customize a curriculum to each individual student. It's a numbers game. In 4th grade, my school figured out I couldn't math my way out of a wet paper bag. When they evaluated me for the "special" classes in the trailers out back, they found out I read at a post grad level, so they considered it a wash and kept me in the normal kids class. Guess who can't do long division to this day (but can subnet in his head for some damn reason).

FTFY

I'm completely unsurprised that Federal Farmer, Uncle Albert, and Paladin are equivocating, playing semantics, and playing whataboutism to unconvincingly distract from their support of this bill and their general disregard for LGBTQ acceptance.

I mean, I get where Paladin's coming from, I just don't agree with it. Additionally, what he thinks should be handled by making more laws, I think should be handled by the PTA. It doesn't matter what I think though, since I don't have any kids.

I agree that it shouldn't be handled by making more laws. My point was more that the three of them are usually arguing against more laws except in situations like this where it either doesn't impact them or targets a minority demographic. They pretend to be libertarian but they take very un-libertarian positions.

They're libertarian about stuff that gives them personally more freedom, when it comes to other stuff that doesn't effect them they're very authoritarian.

Well except for FF, he just seems to be operating on some parallel hallucinatory plane of his own creation.

"Don't tread on me" usually means "I want to tread on other people, and if you stop me from doing that, I'll whine about how you're oppressing me."

Paladin and UA in 1962 arguing about how teachers mentioning that childrens interracial parents are fine and normal is violating their parents rights to bring them up that segregation is the way of the Lord.

FF pretty much just saying the same things about communism.

It is so evident in their projection that they need to define how others feel. On the actual liberal side there is really only the social contract of not hurting others. You can have your thoughts, but hurting others is going to cause conflict and pushback and it is certainly not not your birthright to harm others without risk to yourself as people like @Federal Farmer , @Paladin , and uncle pathetic seem to want.

Do either Paladin or UA have children? Because they seem awfully concerned with other peoples children.