Sure and we have laws to protect them against discrimination.
I donāt think itās whataboutism to point out that this started in universities and they didnāt even bother with the law or due process. Anyone saying whatever was considered unacceptable was in trouble.
Iām glad youāre supporting free speech, though.
Promoting is vague in itself. You can argue by virtue of teaching something you are promoting it. If the teacher spends more time teaching one subject over another that could be considered promoting.
Iām not talking about what is fashionable nor do I have any interest in the culture war aspect. You can be against racial discrimination on any grounds at the same as you are against prohibiting free speech.
Certainly if you create a law around it then yes youāve effectively prohibited the subject of race all together regardless of your intention. Whether or not that law is constitutional is another matter.
Sure you are, apparently you just donāt realise it
I agree with you. However, show white people getting slaughtered by other ethnic groups in a university and see how things pan out.
1 Like
Itās not relevant to the argument at hand.
Sure it is
I would suggest people try that route if they are concerned about it. Like Iāve said before if there is clear evidence of discrimination against white people then try it in a court of law. Civil rights apply to everyone.
Not my argument.
The thread wouldnāt exist were it not for this fashion
No, not at all. In the first case, Iām arguing that the law was incorrectly mischaracterized by extracting one small portion out of context in clear and direct support of the writerās point of view. No one could be charitable enough to call that an accidental error. Itās a fair argument to call it a lie.
As I said about your statement, āin my opinion youāre using it incorrectly to buttress your argument on a specific point.ā Agree or disagree, I donāt understand why you would say this is not āfairā, much less calling your character into question. Again, Iāll ask you to show where the judge said anything supporting the idea that the law prevents āanything that would cause anyone to āfeel guilt, anguish or any form of psychological distress,ā and not for example as CBS says, āteaching or business practices that contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others.ā Iāll be happy to admit I was wrong if that can be shown.
Whether or not it is in fashion is not relevant to the argument that these laws are vaguely written, open to abuse, and effectively prohibit teaching of quote unquote divisive subjects such as race and history. I think that will do nothing to further the cause of respecting everyoneās rights.
The federal judgeās ruling felt the law amounted to muzzling professors, which is the same as prohibiting teaching certain subjects, which is the same as my interpretation. Iām not confident you will see that interpretation so no need to repeat.
1 Like
Iāll agree with you on that 
Interesting talk, ignore the clickbait title.
I donāt agree with everything from this speaker but as always I would point out how the questioner at the end (kudos to her for standing her ground and continuing to make this important point in the face of an unnecessary race card so that it could be refuted) equated an apparent prohibition against teaching that āindividuals are either a member of the oppressor class or the oppressed class on the basis of race or sexā with āteachers can never use the terms oppressor or oppressedā. I wonder how she got an idea like that, such a blatant oversimplification of the actual language of the law that makes it seem ridiculous, vague, and oppressive in itself? The speaker is interesting, I think itās a balanced talk although clearly from the right.
I see heās done more writing on the subject with DI in addition to science stuff
If Africans didnāt sell Africans in Africa whoād ever board the boat? Nobody
Media push CRT because it has high CTR click thru rate.
Divide and conquer - divide USA and conquer market for viewers
Libs sell their country for money
(Blame on both sides: Did conservatives know that trade with China would fund the greatest military expansion and spy network in world history when they piled into China? Yes. They donāt care. They know the next generation will have a devastating war with China but their grandchildren will never see the war except on TV).
Media push lib nonsense because common sense in comparison has low click through.
Why does it seem Libs are criminals coming out with ever more outrageous ideas?
Because to increase clicks more outrageous liberalism is needed.
Accusing people of witchcraft was a way to manipulate. Now Libs call people racist fascist. Itās the same and same as Chinese Culture Revolution threat āyou are against the Revolutionā
Cause and effect
Trumpism is an effect of lib looniness dating at least to Occupy Wall Street which morphed into BLM
Republicans could have controlled the government for 20 years starting in 2016 if theyād chosen a reasonable Republican. 2016 was an opportunity like democrats choosing FDR in 1932. Republicans blew their chance. DeSantis might now be the reasonable Republican
1 Like
And the best of them go on to yell at judges at Stanford
Halfway through, and not knowing those specific discipline systems she refers to, I donāt see a clear relationship to CRT. So, I popped up to the top for something to tie it in
One of the reasons I prefer about teaching adults, I can just kick them out of my classroom
Maybe the 2nd graders should be learning to play nice together instead of exploring the nuances of racism on the Mayflower?