Texas Senate bill drops teaching requirement that Ku Klux Klan is "morally wrong"

[Endus]

The weird aside about these arguments is once people start looking at how this is being approached in schools, they naturally defend the truth and advocacy.

“It’s not being taught in schools, but if it were, it would be just fact-based look at race throughout history, and why do you have a problem with that, you bigot?”

Then back to why the type of authors presenting the evidence against are best ignored instead of analyzed. Ignorance and dismissal of the evidence is a poor defense of claiming there’s no evidence.

CRT isn't taught in schools not because of any ethical or moral failings in the methodology, as is implied by its detractors, but simply because it's too complex and nuanced for the K-12 curriculum. The same way quantum physics would be, or advanced calculus; you might start getting into it in AP classes in K-12, but generally, it's left for post-secondary. It wouldn't be a problem if it were being taught in schools, that it isn't is brought up to demonstrate the fearmongering and lies being used in scapegoating CRT.

And we really haven't had any anti-CRT evidence posted. We've had opinions posted. Not the same thing.

[downnola]

You know it isn’t a good look when people ask for evidence, and then dismiss authors without looking or approaching the evidence.

Opinion pieces aren't evidence.

It's also pathetically lazy to link another person's arguments instead of expressing your opinion in your own voice. Otherwise, you're just a parrot for other people and probably haven't a clue of what you're talking about if you need to rely on other people to explain a concept you disagree with.

[Endus]

what evidence? I read the article, and the guy cries about how Asians are told they are a "model minority" and then goes out of his way to say that Asians "don't riot". on top of that he says Asians are having their lived experiences as a minority ignored all while being the president of a group that wants you to ignore race relations, full stop! wow, just one contradiction after another. I wonder why YOU felt the need to chime in.

Like, here's the problem with "merit", as a measure, which Rochana's source complained was being attacked.

"Merit" is a social construct. Like all social constructs, it has no objective truth to it. It's just what society has decided qualifies as "merit".

If that construct provides differing outcomes for different ethnic groups (as the concept of "merit" clearly does, even the authors admitted as such), then you have essentially three options to explain that discrepancy;

1> That there are fundamental differences between those ethnic groups, and the ones with greater "merit" are legitimately "better" than those with less. This stance is just straight-up racism, so we're clear. Literally the same arguments presented by white slavers to justify enslaving blacks.

2> That there are historical differences which have led to differences in success by various groups, leading to the disparity in "merit". This is, pretty much, what CRT makes the case for.

3> That the concept of "merit" itself was created by a prejudiced status quo, and thus will inherently tend to preserve that prejudice systemically when applied moving forward. This is just a conclusion drawn from #2, really, and I could have trimmed this to "two options", but I feel they provide slightly different focuses on which is the central issue; the historical inequities, or the concept of "merit" itself, though they're different sides of the same coin.

If you're complaining that CRT is "anti-Asian" because it criticizes the idea that Asian-Americans inherently have more merit as a racial group than black Americans, then your position is racially supremacist in nature. You're insisting that Asian-Americans are "better" than black Americans and the differences in outcome are an expression of that natural truth. That's just straight racism.

Edit: And, again, I really fucking dislike this collecting of "Asian-Americans" as one single group, and ignoring the differences between social classes in the various waves of immigration, or by national origin. Bhutanese Americans are not experiencing this "higher merit" that's being claimed on their behalf.

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessary when actual experts already did the research and are providing their findings.

This tactic of argumentation is just pedantics.

What findings? Your source is a book which is making an opinion-based argument. Which I've already pointed out is inherently directly racist, to boot.

Edit: In the interest of playing ball;

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qg9h2
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/101/

[uuuhname]

Like, here's the problem with "merit", as a measure, which Rochana's source complained was being attacked.

"Merit" is a social construct. Like all social constructs, it has no objective truth to it. It's just what society has decided qualifies as "merit".

exactly, it's how you have an entire class of wealthy people telling you they earned their money based on the merits of... being born to the right parents.

[downnola]

Not necessary when actual experts already did the research and are providing their findings.

This tactic of argumentation is just pedantics.

You're not posting their "research," and we have no way of knowing what that research is because it's all paywalled. You're just posting a short summary of their position pulled from Wikipedia entries that applies broad generalizations on loosely affiliated academics across multiple fields (critical race theory, "radical feminism," and "gaylegal" theory, according to the people you're citing). In other words, you're posting hearsay and acting as if it's true because they said so. For all we know their book is one gigantic strawman based on uncharitable readings of people like Derrick Bell and Patricia Williams.

Apparently, it's just too much work to do your own reading to understand a concept and it's much easier to just rely on Google and Wikipedia.

[tehdang]

This thread has nothing to do with CRT, yet this Vol'jin has hikacked and taken over this thread entirely now...

The legislation in question amended a bill passed solely to oppose the teaching of CRT in schools.

[Endus]

You're not posting their "research," and we have no way of knowing what that research is because it's all paywalled. You're just posting a short summary of their position pulled from Wikipedia entries that applies broad generalizations on loosely affiliated academics across multiple fields (critical race theory, "radical feminism," and "gaylegal" theory, according to the people you're citing). In other words, you're posting hearsay and acting as if it's true because they said so. For all we know their book is one gigantic strawman based on uncharitable readings of people like Derrick Bell and Patricia Williams.

Apparently, it's just too much work to do your own reading to understand a concept and it's much easier to just rely on Google and Wikipedia.

Heh, from that page, they take issue with the idea that "Reality [...] is subjective and socially constructed."

Which, y'know. Depends on what you mean by "reality". If we're talking about what frequency of light wave is associated with the color of the sky, that's objective. The experience of it being "blue" is subjective; a blind person can't experience that. For instance. And when it comes to things like "merit", there's no objective truth to them whatsoever. Objective elements, perhaps, but those elements were selected and evaluated and interpreted for subjective reasons, in creation of a social construct. Even concepts like "gender" or "law" or "language" are social constructs. Recognizing that isn't a "weakness".

And because social constructs have come up a bit, a primer, before anyone starts losing their shit over basic concepts in sociology;

[uuuhname]

The legislation in question amended a bill passed solely to oppose the teaching of CRT in schools.

and much like anti-sharia laws it's nothing but a hollow virtue signal to the racists. because we really need to coddle their feelings.

[Draco-Onis]

The legislation in question amended a bill passed solely to oppose the teaching of CRT in schools.

Which isn't taught until grad school once again conservatives are wasting tax payer money on things that are not happening. But the original bill shows what the right's real goals are continue to white wash history.

[beanman12345]

I know it wasn't the goal of the thread, but it sure did get a handful of bigots who aren't smart out themselves as bigots, so well done regardless OP.

[tehdang]

Opinion pieces aren't evidence.

It's also pathetically lazy to link another person's arguments instead of expressing your opinion in your own voice. Otherwise, you're just a parrot for other people and probably haven't a clue of what you're talking about if you need to rely on other people to explain a concept you disagree with.

I’m not going to parrot points brought by other authors as if I was the one compiling the research. I’m indebted to others than have spent more time on the subject. They deserve to be evaluated on the strength of the evidence and argumentation connecting it to the issue at hand.

I’m not driving to Texas, Idaho, Florida, and Colorado to interview parents about what their child brought home from school and how their teacher talked about their skin color in the context of American history and current events.

Furthermore, the gate keeping around news articles vs opinion articles is absurd. Launch into why the author is also awful after examining the piece. You just willingly, and blindly, walk into biases from news departments about what they wish to report and what they don’t.

[Draco-Onis]

I’m not driving to Texas, Idaho, Florida, and Colorado to interview parents about what their child brought home from school and how their teacher talked about their skin color in the context of American history and current events.

Why is that bad again?

[uuuhname]

Why is that bad again?

it's totally fine when their history teacher says it was "manifest destiny" that the US spread to the pacific ocean without any examination of where that saying comes from and what it really means.

[Endus]

Furthermore, the gate keeping around news articles vs opinion articles is absurd. Launch into why the author is also awful after examining the piece. You just willingly, and blindly, walk into biases from news departments about what they wish to report and what they don’t.

And yet, when I break down why their arguments or premises don't hold up, crickets. You're not willing to address the actual issues, you're just hunting for gotchas.

[tehdang]

Which isn't taught until grad school once again conservatives are wasting tax payer money on things that are not happening. But the original bill shows what the right's real goals are continue to white wash history.

Right. Teachers are more likely to teach lessons drawn from CRT to students, while grad students are more likely to engage critically with the academic and legal movement that serves as its foundations. Hell, certain high school classes should engage in for and against on the cluster of teachings to why or how “whiteness” is a useful concept to examine systems of white supremacy. They’re going out into a world where there’s a hot debate surrounding Kendi and DiAngelo approaches to racism in the 21st century.

Neither bill looks like a white washing of history, nor does Texas education standards (TEKS) do the same. I’m willing to entertain arguments that this wastes money and was hurriedly passed. This stuff should be the province of local school boards and legislation should be more restrained like in Idaho’s bill.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is that bad again?

Engage with the rest of the post please.

Or get in your car and do what I’m unable to do. Maybe that would be a good thing for the both of us!

[Bodakane]

Not necessary when actual experts already did the research and are providing their findings.

This tactic of argumentation is just pedantics.

Facts and evidence are pedantic?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

You didn't even show who the fuck these people are or where their research is?

This is straight up horseshit cowardly bad faith posting.

[Shadowferal]

Hmm...Alabama lawmaker facing calls to resign after using N-word in council meeting

During a meeting on Monday evening that was broadcast on Facebook Live, Bryant stood up and referred to Black council member Veronica Freeman by saying, "Do we have a house [N-word] in here? Would she please stand up?"

According to the AP, Bryant's remarks elicited gasps from some in the audience, and Freeman left the meeting crying.

Just over 50 percent of Tarrant, which sits next to Birmingham, is Black, the AP reports, citing U.S. Census statistics.

The Alabama Democratic Party called for Bryant's resignation on Monday shortly after the incident.

"He is a racist and unfit to serve," the party said in a statement. "Alabama still has a long way to go when it comes to race, but cozying up to the KKK and using the N word should make you unfit to serve."

In a statement to NBC, Alabama Republican Party Chairman John Wahl said the state GOP "is deeply troubled by the racially charged outburst and disrespect shown by Councilman Tommy Bryant."

"Such language is completely unacceptable in any setting, and even more concerning coming from an elected official," Wahl reportedly said.

[Bodakane]

I’m not going to parrot points brought by other authors as if I was the one compiling the research. I’m indebted to others than have spent more time on the subject. They deserve to be evaluated on the strength of the evidence and argumentation connecting it to the issue at hand.

I’m not driving to Texas, Idaho, Florida, and Colorado to interview parents about what their child brought home from school and how their teacher talked about their skin color in the context of American history and current events.

Furthermore, the gate keeping around news articles vs opinion articles is absurd. Launch into why the author is also awful after examining the piece. You just willingly, and blindly, walk into biases from news departments about what they wish to report and what they don’t.

So you have no frame of reference at all whatsoever, but you're going to argue tooth and fucking nail about it. Jesus Christ.

[Rozz]

Besides the wild ride this thread started on, CRT is a topic routinely warned against. The reason why it's even a hot button issue at the moment is part of a debate that can't even be had here. This is closed.