Florida could shield whites from ‘discomfort’ of racist past

Who is blaming them for it? Multiple posters have asked for proof that teachers are blaming white children for slavery, but no one has been able to provide any. proof I don't expect you to provide any proof given the fact that you are from another country.

 

Just to be clear though - if white children WERE being blamed for slavery and discrimination, then it's totally reasonable that they would have hurt feelings?

 

Who is blaming them for it???

Let's start with any person who has ever called for slavery reparations from any other person who never was a slave holder. Next up would be people who blame persons who have never been in law enforcement for the actions of rogue police officers. (Or even officers, such as the one sentenced just yesterday, who aren't rogue, but who made an honest mistake.) Then we can go on to those who like the idea of removing statues that have stood for over a century because they represent CSA figures. Talk about erasing history.

Then there is those, like the ex-members of the San Francisco school board who voters just kicked out of office for being more concerned about renaming buildings and other woke leftist nonsense (and these were voters from San Fran who did this!!) than properly educating kids! You think they wouldn't endorse such teachings? Maybe even perpetrate them when behind closed doors?

Then we can get to teachers who have been caught using violence as card carrying members of BLM (who just got delisted as a charity by Amazon) and/or antifa?

Then, when I suggest something that will solve ALL your concerns, and will provide the proof you so desperately seek (while sounding like a broken record, because you have nothing more to contribute to the conversation), you reject it out of hand (after ignoring it completely 4 or 5 or more times) because it somehow invades the privacy of teachers, as though they HAVE or should be entitled to privacy when behind closed doors with a bunch of children who are not their own.

But, OK. People like I described don't become teachers in the first place, right? And if they DO, they certainly don't stray from approved textbooks or lesson plans to impart their own racist biases on kids who aren't even old enough to understand that the lessons they're being taught might be inappropriate or even illegal, right? (Which damn sure explains why my 3rd grade teacher lined up our entire class to deliver a xtian prayer before lunchtime...)

This whole THING is just Ron Desantis being stupid, right? It's a solution in search of a non-existent problem, right? No teacher has ever or will ever taught lessons like his crazy racist right-wing Republican Trumpster paranoid ass thinks, right??

Then what's with all the fear and objections? Why all the ado over a non-existent problem? If no teacher, in Florida or anywhere else for that matter, would EVER teach such things to 7-year-olds who don't know any better, who cares what a crazy Trumpster Governor thinks, right? After all, nobody is ever even going to go to jail over this, because it doesn't happen, so who cares if Desantis and the FL Legislature wants to waste a bit of their time on, right?

In closing, if none of the above has moved you, if nothing I wrote caused you to even wonder if I might have a point, indeed, if you even bothered to read and comprehend any of it at all, I have a gift for you. A present you've been asking for like a talking parrot mimicking words he doesn't understand throughout this whole thread.

The proof you've been so desperately searching for: https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1292511233967620096?s=20

 

Haven't we posted multiple examples of dip **** teachers in various progressive deep states teaching inappropriate and devisive nonsense that's down stream from CRT for your curiosity to be filled?

Instead you are trying to play gotcha at a specific reference and you think if we can't produce one that makes all of that nonsense "ok"?

It doesn't. Just to spare you the suspense

 

Cameras in the classroom is equal to body cams on police.

 

Looks like you're done.

 

Funny way to say that you have no answer for my question.

 

Uh, what question?

 

For starters, I must say that you write exceptionally well, for a 3rd Grader.

All kidding aside, what's wrong with a Xtian prayer?
(And what does it's time, relative to lunch, have to do with it?) Would you likewise have a problem with your kid learning about Kwanzaa?

What you provided (from Twitter) was no such proof, as you apparently think. This was the smoking gun entry:

And while "conservative" parents are my chief concern - I know that the damage can come from the left too. If we are engaged in the messy work of destabilizing a kids racism or homophobia or transphobia - how much do we want their classmates' parents piling on?

All that says is that they try to change racist, homophobic, or transphobic ideas, among the kids. Do I take it, then, that you are against this? Which of the three prejudices, are you in favor of leaving unchanged? You understand, getting someone to lose their fear of homo- or transexuals, is not the same as making the kids want to be one, or feel "not special," if they aren't, right. It is just that ignorance of a group that is different from ones' own group, leads naturally to distrust, fear, and, for some, violence.

If it is not a matter of your misunderstanding something, your voting of this tweet as proof of the problem, is tantamount to claiming that parents have a right to teach their kids to discriminate against others, & it's not the school's, or society's business to contradict or in any way interfere with that. Is that your feeling, on the matter?

Now I'm going to do you a favor, by explaining what your post shows that you are confused over, or do not grasp. The problem, from the perspective of discussing the situation, is the insistence of some, on calling anti-racism lessons, CRT (Critical Race Theory) which is a college-level course, not taught in primary level education. That does NOT mean that no grade school curriculum, deals with the topic of racism, or bigotry, only that it is NOT CRT! So that is the first step in any productive conversation on this issue: recognizing that the options are not just either 1) the schools are teaching CRT (& those who think so, probably having a very inaccurate & stilted idea of what that is), or 2) they're teaching nothing whatsoever about racial, ethnic, and other minorities (who are often victimized, when it comes to trans & homosexuals, for example).

@chris155au - if you wish to discuss this further, what I just wrote, is the starting point of any kind of communication.

 

- Xtian seems to me to be a short hand form to say the word "Christian"? I thought we wanted to remove religion from the classroom? Why should we want it back in?

- we've always taught "anti racism, anti homophobia, anti sexism" in schools when I grew up. We just were able to do it in a way that wasn't divisive and played the blame game by teaching whites they are oppressor's and blacks the victims. So we really didn't need to change anything. Unless the goal is to create more hate and division as that's what all this CRT **** in our public schools is doing. Is that the goal?

- And that brings me to the last bulls **** point that people love to try and bring up as a means to deflect and minimize the problem.

"it's not the college level program bro, so it's not CRT"

CRT is a theory. The T part? Ya? The theory is based around the principle of looking at things/outcomes through the lens of race. It's never meant to be a guide in how to base laws or teach kids about race. It's meant to be an exercise and to be honest? Even the college level program is kind of a dead end dumb exercise. But all this race theory **** pushed in our public schools is most certainly downstream of the CRT principles.

**** like that privilege bingo game. Had nothing to do with actual social privilege and was entirely about race and sexism. So like CRT in college, it was looking at social privilege through the lens of race and gender identity and not much else. Didn't address height, beauty, intelligence, athleticism. It was looking at social privilege through the lens of race. CRT. That's why 3 of it's privilege cards were...drumroll! "straight" "white" "male".

That's just one example.

There are many more. The argument "it's not CRT" is a dead argument. It's a sad attempt at diverting attention from the problem. It holds no truth or logic nor does it address the issues because even if you DON'T want to call this style of teaching "CRT" I still call it a problem. A socially divisive problem of which no racial bridges are going to be built and instead will only cast further divide on racial lines down the road.

The outcomes of this nonsense will set our society back decades. Hell. Progressives have already managed to rediscover segregation for blacks, and it's only been a few short years really pushing this nonsense.

Anyways...

 

Why, in this case, would you immediately ask for me to spoon feed you the answer, when you are an adult, with (presumably) two good eyes? Where might you think that this question, that I say that I've asked, might be?

In my post, to you, maybe? But instead of going back to look my post, which you'd just answered, you ask me to tell you again, because you're too lazy, yourself, to check? I mean, really, Chris. There's no excuse for your expecting me to have to do this for you; for that matter, it's hard to understand how you would not know the question to which I refer, which my entire post is built around and, with which, my post concludes.

I'm re-posting it. Look at it, a little less unconsciously, & I think you'll be able to find the question.

 

It seems that you may have some cognitive dissonance, interfering with your ability to read my words, because you seem to be taking the fact that whatever they do actually teach about race & the like (in K-12), is NOT the same as that(CRT). That's all I said, and yet you seem to have heard something else. You are not passing my minimum threshold, for having a reality-based discussion on this subject. You seem to acknowledge that you are aware of the college class. So perhaps you understand that what is being taught in lower grades, differs from the college material (it is not clear, from your post)? So it is just plain confusing to refer to 2 different things, both as CRT. What is being taught in grade school, it only makes sense, to give its own name-- no? I am not trying to "divert," anything: I am trying to be ACCURATE.
Do you see factual accuracy, as a diversion?

 

Ignoring all your long winded ad Homs. CRT principles...the THEORY is being used in examples that I had mentioned and I detailed both how and why.

That's the reality. And that's the problem. Address that.

And while you are at it, explain why you think we should have prayers in schools again?

 

Well, for starters, a teacher doing such a thing is illegal. But if you're an adult, outside of a public school environment doing so, I suppose there's nothing "wrong" with it. Aside from the fact that it's a sign of mental illness to believe in talking snakes, floods that didn't happen, and a deity who needs money.

I don't know, maybe because that's when it happened?

I would have a problem with my child being indoctrinated into any cult.

The problem starts when it's assumed that such prejudices exist, especially in children that young. It is increased by several orders of magnitude (how's that for a third grader phrase?) whenever a teacher even thinks, much less says out loud, that he/she doesn't want the parents of the children in their charge knowing what they're saying or doing. The minute they say or do something with nothing but children present that they wouldn't say or do with parents or administrators present, you know there is a problem. Or you should. Besides, it's not the role of a school to be dealing with such topics. Their job is to teach. Leave the preaching, regardless of what kind, to others.

Ignoring the fact that the proposed law at the root of this thread is unrelated to CRT in the first place, if teaching guilt (which is what the law IS about) to young children is simply something that has never, and will never happen, then there is nothing for you, or anyone else, to worry or complain about.

As for me, anytime a teacher is frightened of their actions being exposed in public, seems to me they're not only doing something they shouldn't be doing, but they damn well know it.

I repeat my call for cameras in every public-school classroom, and I could not possibly care less if teachers think their privacy is being invaded, because in that situation, they have no right to privacy. Given how easy and inexpensive it is to do now, I'm shocked that anyone would allow their children to be left alone with a teacher who is not being observed, at least potentially, at all times.

 

I am asking if the claim is true, and I have asked repeatedly for someone to provide proof of it and no one has been able to do that, so the obvious conclusion is that the claim is made up, and you fell for it. It was used as an excuse to push for State mandated censorship.

 

Of course. Investigating potential wrongful death is exactly the same as investigating someone having felt uncomfortable in a classroom.

You couldn't get any more snowflake if you tried.

Pseudo-Conservative populists used to wear T-Shirts that said "F Your Feelings", but since that is not popular anymore, they'll have to start wearing "Shield My Delicate Feelings" shirts.

F*** your feelings shirts came in many styles and colors. It was a re....el hip thing to say.
https://www.amazon.com/JustTextTees...-Shirt/dp/B08RTRG3PF?customId=B0752XJYNL&th=1

 

If you are under the opinion that teachers do not hold a very powerful position as they guide our children....I dunno what to tell you?

But I know damn well you would be on board if there was a wave of teachers trying to teach white nationalist principles through devious means in our school.

Which is why I ignore your hot takes and memes.



Bottom line; teaching stupid **** can lead to disastrous social outcomes. And the trust is currently gone which is why we need cameras in the classrooms to insure they stick to the curriculum parents approved of.

 

Heh-heh. You don't read too well, do you.

 

Answer the question;

If there were a pattern of school teachers teaching white nationalist doctrine in the guise of innocent exercises...would you then be in favor of cameras in the classroom?



This is a test to see if you have the ability to be consistent. I know, I know...it's a toughy. Do you say "yes" and thus look like a hypocrite? Or do you say know and look like the fool?

 

I think putting cameras in the classroom is an idiotic idea.

 

And why is that?

Let's break down this failed logic. So in an effort to weed out and snuff out white nationalist teachings in our school you would opt away from cameras in the classroom because ...why exactly? I mean...it would be effective as there would be absolutely proof to either defend the teacher or punish the teacher. And the class is a public space. If there were an assault on the teacher or one student to the other...again...the camera would catch it for courts to view.

There's no nudity. I'm honestly at a loss as to your logic here.

Is your answer just "I think it's an idiotic idea"?

Is that it?

 

Yes, you got it. I wish Little Mike read as well as you.

 

You are aware that the body cams on police are there to both defend and help keep the police officer respectable ya? That if they act or handle a situation to the best of their ability, the camera is there to back that claim up? It's not just there to weed out police who wish to abuse the law.

You are aware of this reality? So a camera in the classroom wouldn't just hurt teachers, it would also protect them as well.

But...Pro Line FL thinks it's an "idiotic" idea even though it would be effective.

Great argument. Stellar! Would read again.

 

Its simple: you want censorship, spy-cameras and all the other Orwellian stuff, and I don't want it. Why can't you just accept the fact that we have different view about this?

 

I don't. I did not recognize Xtian as an abbreviation for Christian; thanks for explaining that. I did not get to this or other ideas on your post because, as I'd said in the post that you originally answered, then again in my last reply, agreeing upon terminology that reflects the facts, to my mind, is the starting point, for any discussion, & we had yet to reach that.

Irony alert: your quoted line, is an ad hom.

Referring to someone's not "hearing" what you are saying, as cognitive dissonance, FYI, is NOT an ad hom. Look it up. It is a psychological phenomenon, which is extremely common; we essentially all may, at times, experience it. Part of the reason I believed this was your case-- if you can handle my being honest without charging me with attacking you (which is what an ad hominem, effectively, is)-- was because, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding, I did not feel that you expressed yourself clearly, in your first post. By comparison, your second post was clearer, because it was more concise, with less rambling, about things that I had no idea what you were talking about:

versus this (talk about "long-winded"):

Your main point is buried in there, amidst talk of a "privilege bingo game," whatever the hell that is, & so forth. The more effective way to express your point would have been from the end of the first paragraph, without the *****s. You could have just said you felt that the theories from the college CRT, are what is informing the teaching in lower education, or something to that effect. I still say that, "CRT-inspired" does not make it the same as CRT. Additionally, this is only your theory, not necessarily the fact-- to be clear, I am not saying that there is not SOME truth to that. But to consider them identical, is already starting with a variance from reality. I see this as a particular problem, because so many have a less sophisticated understanding, than yourself, and have a very warped idea of what is generally taught.

So this is where I stand: I don't believe I have a comprehensive idea of all that is taught, under the auspices of whatever we decide to call this. Nor do I think most people have a very accurate conception of it. I have been opened to the fact that at least some of this instruction, is inappropriate. However, I would be shocked if there was none of it, that was very worthwhile. Personally, what I would be happiest with, would be a strict focus on actual historical events and patterns, without much fiction, in which it is an author, who is choosing the messages. Now, I'm assuming a mixture, of good, bad, and perhaps other constituents (like mediocre, or indifferent) and that those who claim to know "the truth about CRT in our schools," know probably less of the facts than l do.



Yeah dude, BTW, you have lost that "long-winded" card, to be used against me. When I am long-winded, it is usually because I am explaining something in detail, in an organized, easily-followed, logical way, for the purpose of clarity. A lot of what you wrote was only semi-comprehensible, certainly not following a discernable line of thought, and made your main idea less clear. But you were even more long-winded than me. So how about we agree not to bandy about that straight-up insult, which contributes nothing to the conversation?