> In fact it is making me judge whether I should defect and not vote for Democrats in the next election.
While I don't think your position on free speech is unreasonable, to overlook the harmful things the right is doing and base your vote on Twitter's moderation policies seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Off the top of my head:
* Don't say gay bill
* Huge restrictions on abortions that have been enacted recently and will undoubtedly be upheld by the SCOTUS. Even in cases of rape and incest.
* Gerrymandering, ensuring the right will stay in control even if they are not supported by the electorate.
* Restrictions placed on voting that target minorities
I also think phrasing this as crushing political dissent is a gross exaggeration. We're talking about very extreme people being suspended from a social media website. No one is getting arrested. If you want to see examples of people being arrested, look at Texas where a woman was recently arrested for suspicion of having an abortion, or Florida where Desantis had a researcher arrested for releasing COVID data.
You should remove this part: " or Florida where Desantis had a researcher arrested for releasing COVID data. "
She wasn't a researcher, she was an admin for the GIS dashboard.
She was arrested because she misused her access credentials, mass-emailed everyone then took 19,000 personnel files and transferred them to her home computer.
She did the classic thing when she was removed from being in charge of the dashboard (not fired, just reassigned) - she crashed the dashboard while her permissions were still active by creating a new admin account and transferring a boatload of data to it. She refused to make the new admin an admin for 'security reasons' and then told the media she was removed from being in charge of the dashboard because they wanted to lie about the data. THAT is what they fired her for.
Florida didn't have her manually falsify data - there is no evidence that they falsified data at all. She's just nuts.
To be honest the latest additional restrictions on abortions are a consequence of political parties advocating for them in a really bad way in my opinion. The common slogan was bodily autonomy of the mothers. Not only in the pandemic did it become clear how opportunistic that position was aside from the fact that there is also a consideration of the bodily autonomy of the child.
I am in favor of abortion rights. Without them they still happen in a far more gruesome way. But I will not deny that there are some problems that might warrant discussion.
In fact I think it was social media that promoted the worst advertisers for the position for abortion and I think that pushed a lot of people away. The topic quickly becomes emotional and self-righteousness often fails to advertise sensibly.
1. This includes teachers mentioning a same-sex spouse. Unless it prevents straight teachers mentioning their other-sexed spouse as well, it is not “preventing sexuality and gender issues”, it’s preventing anything besides “straight” from being seen as existing. Which sure will be fun for, say, a kid with two moms or dads.
2. Your chain of logic is lacking the nuance that when, exactly, a bundle of cells with the potential to become a human being, if it’s supported by a healthy womb for nine months, actually becomes “a human being” is very much up for debate.
> 2. Your chain of logic is lacking the nuance that when, exactly, a bundle of cells with the potential to become a human being, if it’s supported by a healthy womb for nine months, actually becomes “a human being” is very much up for debate.
If "when it becomes a human being" is unknown, we should err on the side of saving the life rather than ending it.
The other commenter addressed this well, but it bears repeating. Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not a human being. Period.
The US is the only country regressing on this issue. This is only temporary, of course. You will join the rest of the world eventually. Even with this regression, 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Eating is the consumption of matter for the continued survival of the organism. Breathing is the consumption of matter for the continued survival of the organism. Ergo, breathing is eating.
The only other "concerning" portion I could find in GP's link was:
> Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate
This seems reasonable given we usually don't teach sex-ed until 5th or 6th grade.
> But that wasn't happening
I can tell you with certainty that this is definitely happening in California schools, no clue about Florida.
Both of my children have or had classmates in their second grade classrooms that are openly transgender. The idea that sexual or gender orientation is or should be a taboo topic at that age is harmful to those children, and that kids that age are too young to talk about it is not, to my knowledge, backed by empirical evidence. Forcing schools to silence these kids' identities is hateful and reactionary.
The idea that second graders have "open" sexual identities should be absolutely horrifying, and is exactly why Florida is trying to pass it's bill to protect kids from this sort of thing.
As others below have pointed out, gender identity is distinct from sexual identities.
But, this does not preclude young children to not have sexual identities! My wife’s best friend knew he was gay when he was 6. He didn’t have the understanding to know this precisely, but he did know he was different from the other boys. This is not an uncommon experience.
If there’s anything this thread indicates, based on demonstrated ignorance of these topics, it’s that clearly schools should in fact be spending more time teaching this subject.
Girl and Boy are not sexual identities and should not be misconstrued as such.
Those terms in this context refer to prepubescent children.
If a girl likes to dress in what is traditionally recognised as boys clothes and play with trucks, that just kids being kids, there's nothing transgendered to be found there.
Transgender is also not a sexual identity, so then what exactly is the parent horrified about? If they misspoke and meant to say open gender identities, then my question still applies.
> If a girl likes to dress in what is traditionally recognised as boys clothes and play with trucks, that just kids being kids, there's nothing transgendered to be found there.
There is nothing *necessarily* transgendered about this. However, the grandparent stated there are openly transgendered kids in a second grade class. Are you saying it’s impossible for a child to know if they’re trans or not? I think we generally accept that some gay people knew they were gay at that age, why can’t the same be true for trans people?
My wife cried when she got her first period because she didn’t want to turn in to a woman. She was a tomboy.
Then, you know, hormones happened. It’s insane to think that kids can be trans because a huge part of what makes us men or women happens during puberty. I didn’t think much about my gender until puberty hit either.
> It’s insane to think that kids can be trans because a huge part of what makes us men or women happens during puberty.
As far as I can tell, nearly all kids are fairly certain about their gender identity by the time they start school. What makes you so certain that those of them who are transgender will have no idea?
Hell, “I knew there were boys and girls from the age of 4, and knew that I was the one of those everyone said I wasn’t” is such a common trans narrative that folks like me who didn’t really start getting complicated gender feelings until around puberty have a lot of trouble with wondering if their feelings are real.
I’m saying that some that might think that they’re transgender could very well be wrong because the hormones - the things that sexually differentiate us - haven’t hit yet. Those hormones don’t just shape the body; they shape the brain.
In this case, we can expand your previous statement to also include:
It’s insane to think that kids can be cis gendered because a huge part of what makes us men or women happens during puberty.
So given both of those positions, exactly what point are you trying to make in relation to this thread besides trying to imply that prepubescent transgendered kids don't exist, when they clearly do by their own accounts as adults?
I mean, I would agree with that statement. Puberty changes people.
My best friend growing up was gay and some people recognized it before puberty, but he either couldn't or wasn't willing to recognize it until after high school. He had a breakdown while drunk on our band trip and said he was asexual. Do you think a little kid that realizes he's different from everyone else might just think he's trans instead of realizing he's just gay? That's kind of hard to sus out until you actually have sexual attraction to people.
For clarification, the children I mentioned changed their names, appearances, and pronouns to match their own gender identities. It’s not just “boys playing with dolls, girls playing with trucks”.
Being trans has very little to do with trucks or dolls or whatever. A trans girl can wear boys' clothes and play with trucks just as well, and a trans woman can be really butch too.
I was never into either dolls or trucks as a kid, nor did I wear girls' clothes. I still experienced gender incongruence.
> The idea that second graders have "open" sexual identities
“Transgender” is not a sexual identity, it is a relationship of gender identity to gender socially ascribed at birth, usually on the basis of the appearance of external genitalia (but possibly on the basis of genetics where that has been previously tested.)
And people usually have an open gender identity by second grade.
(Second grade also isn't particularly early for children to have an established sexual orientation, though it's a bit earlier than the median age for that.)
Let us try a thought experiment. Let’s suppose you have male genitals, and everybody called you a girl in your early elementary years. Would that have caused you to feel confused? angry? depressed? If so, why?
What separates a cis child from a trans child? How could you reliably detect/diagnose such a condition? Timmy doesn't like having a boy's name? Timmy doesn't like playing with male toys or prefers wearing dresses to pants?
Children throw tantrums over all sorts of trivial stuff, how could you possibly diagnose gender dysphoria off the fleeting whims of a preteen child?
What's arguably more dangerous is having an authority figure dictate to an impressionable child that they're "trapped in the wrong body" and setting them up for a lifetime of confusion. I don't think proponents of LGBT in the classroom realize that gender dysphoria is socially infectious, particularly when it is advertised as a solution to the typical confusion and angst that teens feel as they transition into adulthood.
This is utter nonsense. The "social contagion" hypothesis is one researcher (Littman) pushing an agenda, using unrepresentative samples of people recruited from transphobic websites.
As a trans person, I'm not confused about anything. I experienced severe gender incongruence since the moment puberty began. And no one's dictating anything to trans people either -- gender identity is remarkably resistant to external pressure, as seen in all the sexologist reports on trans kids from the 70s through the 90s. That's just not how gender works in our species.
You didn’t answer my question, which suggests your argument is not in good faith.
The authority figure angle is interesting, though, especially in the case of one of the children I mentioned who has a cisgendered twin of the same biological sex. Seems weird the parents would push it on one child and not the other…
…or, it could just be as simple as you being wrong. Maybe even intentionally so. I don’t know. Regardless I’m not interested in responding to you any more after this because I don’t have time for bad faith actors.
>You didn’t answer my question, which suggests your argument is not in good faith.
Well isn't that ironic, considering you didn't answer mine in the GP. I'll tell you what is bad faith though, your shallow accusation as a substitute for an argument. What exactly are you implying with this accusation anyway?
>Seems weird the parents would push it on one child and not the other
It's not necessarily being "pushed" onto them, but excessive encouragement and failure to intervene - and I'm not implying that they've done anything out of selfish reasons (though transgenderism absolutely confers clout in certain circles these days).
To be clear, people don't come out as trans for clout. Trans people are still at a higher risk of suicide and being murdered thanks to people like you.
What I'm alleging is that the condition is overdiagnosed because the symptoms mimic other disorders and people absolutely seek out victimhood for clout given
1. The state of the progressive movement, where underprivilege is used to justify special treatment
2. Specific dynamics of the LGBT and especially trans community, which psychologically incentivises entry and continued participation, in the same way as a gang or cult. Complete with a flavor of excommunication for detransitioners who are accused of bigotry for saying exactly the sort of things I'm saying. What about their lived experiences?
3. The [false] promise that a troubled teen can effectively reinvent himself and become the person they want to be with pills and surgery. It's common for teens to desire to be someone else.
The clout angle isn't unique to gender dysphoria either - teenagers self diagnose with all kinds of trendy disorders in certain circles, and when I was in HS it wasn't transgenderism but bisexuality that people latched onto as a fashionable form of rebellion. Difference being we didn't give them affirmative therapy and HRT.
Sorry, but acknowledging that the incentives are perverse does not make me a bigot, and such accusations only serve to derail the discussion. Perhaps parents wouldn't be up in arms if this wasn't the default response to criticism.
Failure to intervene in what? Any attempt to make a trans kid cis is conversion therapy. Gender identity is part of the core of personhood, and is (a) resistant to external pressure to change, and more importantly (b) ought not be changed.
> What separates a cis child from a trans child? How could you reliably detect/diagnose such a condition?
> how could you possibly diagnose gender dysphoria off the fleeting whims of a preteen child?
I'd recommend you take a look at the diagnostic criteria [0] for what you're talking about. Take note at how much stricter the criteria are for being diagnosed as a child. And then consider that mental health services already tend to discount the lived experiences of their adult clients. I can only imagine the crap young trans people have to go through.
> particularly when it is advertised as a solution to the typical confusion and angst that teens feel as they transition into adulthood.
I'm curious where you've been reading this. I only see people say this stuff in jest, and only if you take it out of context could you think it was serious.
Being a lesbian, I don't have to worry so much about having a partner who refuses to wash their ass or do chores because "that's gay," but that doesn't eliminate homophobia or catcalling or men thinking "I'm not interested, I have a girlfriend" means "I want to have a threesome with you and am playing hard to get, please continue to hit on me." Anyone who thinks about coming out knows that, even if being LGBT solves problem A, it creates problems B, C, and D.
But even if there is an epidemic of people thinking they're LGBT, what's the harm in that? Undergrad psychology students self-diagnose themselves all the time, and then they realize they're being stupid by the end of the semester. Trans people can't just write their own HRT prescriptions, the process is actually quite lengthy if you're a minor, and even for adults it can take awhile (and even then permanent effects take awhile, so if you realize you're not trans, it won't have lifelong consequences).
> gender dysphoria is socially infectious
It's not "socially infectious" like a disease, it's "socially infectious" in the sense of "oh wait, so these feelings I've been dealing with have a name, and I don't have to keep being miserable?" LGBT people tend to find each other and become friends, even while they're all still in the closet, and one coming out tends to have a bit of a chain reaction. It's not a bad thing unless you view being LGBT as a bad thing.
> It's not "socially infectious" like a disease, it's "socially infectious" in the sense of "oh wait, so these feelings I've been dealing with have a name, and I don't have to keep being miserable?" LGBT people tend to find each other and become friends, even while they're all still in the closet, and one coming out tends to have a bit of a chain reaction. It's not a bad thing unless you view being LGBT as a bad thing.
> do you have any evidence this has resulted in a worse mathematics education
Yes. Holding back advanced kids from taking Algebra I or other higher level classes until high school materially harms their progression and ability to learn college level math as teenagers, which in turn harms their ability to learn higher math in college. When I was in middle school I took the equivalent of Algebra I in 6th grade. That's a 3 year gap to taking it in high school.
In China they teach Algebra I in elementary school. How does mandating everyone stick to the same track of mediocrity help America's competitiveness?
> Is it possible that is just your perception as a person who may not support education on gender and race?
Modern woke "education" on race/gender focuses exclusively on black/latino races and LGBT peoples. There is no discussion of other races which have historically been, as woke people say, oppressed, such as Middle Eastern or Asian people. There is a single minded idea that black/latino/LGBT/women must be the only oppressed groups and that anyone else with a dissenting opinion to this is invalid or privileged. That lack of critical thinking and discussion is not what our kids should be learning.
For example, no discussion is given to the fact that Jews were historically discriminated against by Harvard and other prestigious schools, because Jews are mostly white. Similarly no discussion is given to the fact that Asians today are discriminated against by Harvard and other prestigious schools and corporations. There is no discussion on the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese concentration camps of WWII. Why? Because Asians are "overrepresented" and serve as a counterexample to the narrative that systemic discrimination can't be overcome with hard work.
Regarding the first part, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with gender or race. The question was whether gender/race education has been prioritized over math/science, and if so, did it result in worse math/science education.
What you described has been happening long before anyone cared about gender and race.
> Modern woke "education" on race/gender focuses exclusively on black/latino races and LGBT peoples.
Because those are the groups who have historically been most oppressed in North America. I'm sure students will have discussion at some point about Asians being discriminated against by Harvard, but it's clear that slavery and gay bashing has had a much worse effect on black and gay people than being rejected by Harvard has had on Asian people, and I say this as an Asian person.
> The question was whether gender/race education has been prioritized over math/science, and if so, did it result in worse math/science education
The primary motivation for holding back students _was_ gender/race concerns. It's plainly stated in the GP's linked document and in many other documents on the CA education "reforms" that differentiating students into different tracks is supposedly racist.
> What you described has been happening long before anyone cared about gender and race
No, it hasn't. State standardized testing has lowered standards, but individual school districts have always been free to move advanced students onto a faster track. I don't know of any high performing school district that actually cared about standardized testing results, because their students were so overprepared for the state tests it didn't matter.
> being rejected by Harvard has had on Asian people, and I say this as an Asian person
I see you're not familiar with the history of American discrimination towards Asians. Maybe we do need some education in our schools on racism against Asians to teach people like you? You should start with the Wikipedia article on the Chinese Exclusion Act and go from there. I don't see how you can compare gay bashing to literal concentration camps, systemic bans on Chinese immigration, and indentured servitude of Chinese railroad workers.
> I say this as an Asian person
Would you feel the same if you worked your ass off and got rejected but saw people with inferior achievements around you get accepted because of their skin color? If I was your boss and I promoted your black coworker over you because of his skin color wouldn't you be mad? Don't dismiss the hard work of millions of high school students applying to college with a simple "being rejected by Harvard".
> The primary motivation for holding back students _was_ gender/race concerns. It’s plainly stated in the GP’s linked document and in many other documents on the CA education “reforms” that differentiating students into different tracks is supposedly racist.
You say things like “supposedly”. What if it is?
> No, it hasn’t.
Yes, it has. I witnessed parents complaining about the removal of specialized tracks in the 90’s, in nearly 100% white communities. It had nothing to do with race, and everything do with with parents not wanting to accept that their kid didn’t have the same abilities as other kids. Maybe the focus has changed to race now, but this is nothing new.
> I see you’re not familiar with the history of American discrimination towards Asians. Maybe we do need some education in our schools on racism against Asians to teach people like you?
People like me? That’s very rude, and very much in bad faith, which is against the HN guidelines. I’ve tried to avoid that language myself, and would appreciate if you did as well. As for me not being familiar, my father was in an internment camp. I'm likely more familiar than you are.
> I don’t see how you can compare gay bashing to literal concentration camps, systemic bans on Chinese immigration, and indentured servitude of Chinese railroad workers.
Yes, I am comparing the murder and system oppression of gay people. I am also comparing the enslavement and systemic oppression of black people.
It seems that your question is why don’t we focus more on the oppression of Asian people? You answered it in your previous reply:
> Because Asians are “overrepresented”
It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient.
> Would you feel the same if you worked your ass off and got rejected but saw people with inferior achievements around you get accepted because of their skin color? If I was your boss and I promoted your black coworker over you because of his skin color wouldn’t you be mad? Don’t dismiss the hard work of millions of high school students applying to college with a simple “being rejected by Harvard”.
If you believe that differentiating students into classes appropriate for their skill level and knowledge is racist, then there is nothing I can say to convince you that any of my opinions are right.
If you can't see that this topic is far more nuanced than streams=good no_streams=bad, then there's nothing I can say to convince you that any of my opinions are right.
Note that I didn't state an opinion. I said:
> You say things like “supposedly”. What if it is?
Are you are completely closed off to the idea that there may be more to this than you currently think?
The person you're responded to stated: "There is no discussion on the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese concentration camps of WWII." You're making their point by disregarding that bit.
I can’t speak to the CEA, but we do teach kids about Japanese internment. Let’s assume that we focus more on black and gay issues though. The parent answered his own question as to why we might focus more on black and gay issues
> Because Asians are “overrepresented”
It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient.
Forgive me for continuing this thread, but the original poster does not seem to imply that overrepresentation is the reason we don't focus on Asians. They actually use scare quotes when using the word 'overrepresented'. You also disregarded the part of their answer which doesn't seem to include doubt. The full quote is: "Because Asians are "overrepresented" and serve as a counterexample to the narrative that systemic discrimination can't be overcome with hard work."
And if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination, then I agree.
I also don't believe gay people are underrepresented in higher education, relative to their overall population in the United States, so I don't find that part of your argument compelling. I've found this quote with a brief Google search,
"The three surveys of American adults consistently indicated that gay men are far more likely than straight men to have graduated from high school or college, with just over half of gay men having earned a college degree, compared with about 35 percent of straight men. Some 6 percent of gay men have a Ph.D., J.D. or M.D. — a rate 50 percent higher than that of straight men."
> but the original poster does not seem to imply that overrepresentation is the reason we don't focus on Asians
They literally wrote that though:
> For example, no discussion is given to the fact that...Similarly no discussion is given to the fact that...There is no discussion on the...Why? Because Asians are "overrepresented" and serve as a counterexample to the narrative that systemic discrimination can't be overcome with hard work.
> I also don't believe gay people are underrepresented in higher education, relative to their overall population in the United States, so I don't find that part of your argument compelling
I didn't say they were overrepresented in higher education. This thread isn't specifically about the Harvard problem. It's about the parent thinking that "woke" people only care about discrimination against black, latino, and gay people.
I'm saying that the focus is on those groups because they have typically been the most effected by discrimination. If Asian people are overrepresented in what society might call successful careers, then I think it absolutely makes sense to focus on groups that are underrepresented.
It's also not at all true that Asian racism is ignored. There was huge outcries when Asians were being assaulted randomly.
I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement.
You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here, but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem, as you say, so for this reason I assumed higher education was the focus.
> I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement.
Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written.
> You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here
I'm really not.
> but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem,
I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education.
Maybe the part you missed is where I stated
> It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient.
This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education.
> Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written.
> I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education.
I don't think you quite understand here. The purpose of bringing Harvard, is to talk about how Harvard discriminates against jews and asians in their admission process.
This is a common thing that gets brought up. Maybe you weren't aware of the context.
I understand exactly what happened. The parent brought up an example of how Jews and Asians were discriminated against as a means to try and make it seem like "woke" people are ignoring discrimination against Jews and Asians. In reply, I said why I believe we focus more on discrimination against black/latino/gay people. No one is ignoring discrimination against Asians.
> make it seem like "woke" people are ignoring discrimination against Jews and Asians.
So then you agree that the other person was attempting to communicate the following: 'express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'.
That is what they were attempting to express. And you have zero disagreement that this is what they were trying to say.
> So then you agree that the other person was attempting to communicate the following: 'express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'
In that specific sentence, they weren't stating any opinion about the justification. They were stating what their prototype woke person is thinking. Now based on everything else they wrote, it's obvious they disagree, but that wasn't the point of that sentence.
You're not making any substantive points here. Basically just arguing semantics. They made their points, I addressed them. We obviously don't agree, but there was no misunderstanding. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.
It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say, and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason.
The point of all of this, is that you don't have to mis-interpret someone else's statements in order to disagree with them.
You can simply agree with the clarification that someone later gave, agree that this is what they said, and then state you thoughts on that clarification.
> It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say,
I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply.
> and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason.
An interesting reply from someone who is making no substantive arguments at all.
> The point of all of this, is that you don't have to mis-interpret someone else's statements in order to disagree with them.
Agreed. Good thing I didn't.
> You can simply agree with the clarification that someone later gave, agree that this is what they said, and then state you thoughts on that clarification.
They gave no clarification. If you actually look at the thread, someone else jumped in to try and claim the parent wrote something they didn't. The parent has not been part of this at all. Now you've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Just think about that for a second.
So again, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
> I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply.
> someone else jumped in
Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct.
The point of all of this, is that they were trying to say the following, which someone else clarified as : 'if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'.
I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that.
Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting.
> Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct.
No, I was not wrong. If you actually read the thread, you would see that there was no misunderstanding. Continuing to reply isn't going to change that.
> Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting.
And by multiple people, you mean you and the one other? Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. Shocking.
> I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that.
It's clear that the original poster was saying exactly what they wrote.
So as I said, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Because you're multiple replies in, and have accomplished precisely nothing. You've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Are you seriously oblivious to how ridiculous this is?
"Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments."
I assume you're talking about me. I am curious about this. Which of your arguments have I expressed ideological opposition towards? The only ideology I've expressed, I believe, is that overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination. Otherwise I've pointed out mistakes in your thinking and writing.
> Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments.
I don't really care either way on this topic acceptance criteria in schools. I just don't like it when people misunderstand other people's arguments and refuse to accept reasonable clarifications.
> have accomplished precisely nothing
You could have just accepted the reasonable clarification, with WhoOhWhyQ said, which is "overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination", and gone on from there.
> to how ridiculous this is?
You could have just gone with the clarification which was helpfully offered. No ridiculousness necessary.
"And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written."
I disagree, but who really cares anyways. Have a nice one!
Edit: "This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education."
> And Florida recently rejected math textbooks claiming they push critical race theory.
It wasn't just a claim. One example shown was a math textbook that showed a graph saying that conservatives were more racist than liberals. I'm a staunch liberal but I found that to be pretty shocking. I would love to see more examples from the other textbooks, but for that particular textbook, I myself would have no qualms telling the published to change that graph to something less divisive.
This is an interesting comment on a thread which is essentially about free speech. If the data shows that conservatives are more racist than liberals, why should that be censored?
It wasn't data - it was an "example" of made up numbers. But you immediately assumed the numbers were based on something factual. Because it fit your biases? Was published in a text book? Doesn't matter - your post proves why it was a horrible, horrible thing to have - in a math book of all things! There are plenty of subjects to have as examples yet they had to pick something political?
Your damn right it was attempted indoctrination!
Because the charge that this is indoctrinating young children to be anti-conservative would be valid. This isn't a free speech issue, it's a question of appropriateness. Having a graph showing about oranges vs lemons is appropriate for a math textbook. Making an comment about how conservatives are more racist than liberals is not appropriate for a math textbook.
How would you feel if that graph instead showed "56% of all crimes are committed by African Americans"? That statistic is true, but is that appropriate for a math textbook without a deeper conversation about underlying causes?
> Because the charge that this is indoctrinating young children to be anti-conservative would be valid.
Is a hard truth indoctrination?
> This isn't a free speech issue, it's a question of appropriateness.
Excellent point. Doesn't this apply to the so-called censorship on Twitter as well? No one is getting arrested, and thus is cannot be a free speech issue. Should Twitter not get to decide what is appropriate on their platform?
> Making an comment about how conservatives are more racist than liberals is not appropriate for a math textbook.
What if the purpose of math textbooks should be to teach how math is applied in the real world? A graph of oranges vs lemons isn't going to be good at that.
This sounds like the same argument used to justify "shielding" kids from homosexuality.
> How would you feel if that graph instead showed "56% of all crimes are committed by African Americans"? That statistic is true, but is that appropriate for a math textbook without a deeper conversation about underlying causes?
This is a great rebuttal. Alone, I would agree it's not appropriate. But if the textbook then proceeded to use math to show why that might be the case, then I would fully support it. In fact, that would be an excellent addition to a statistics lesson for kids.
Is there a distinction between censorship and a subset of books approved as curriculum?
To me (not from the US, far from conservative), it seems needlessly divisive. I'm all for real-world examples in maths/science instruction, but there'd surely be better alternatives that keep focus on learning the core topic at hand.
Would that be using some new definition of "racist" that liberals invented to brand their opponents racist and absolve their own racism, and that you have to accept as the canonical definition otherwise you are a racist racism-denier?
Here's some actual data shows that liberals are more racist than conservatives. Would it be appropriate to go from there to the government indoctrinating the nation's elementary school students into believing that liberals are more racist than conservatives?
This too is a fact. Those minorities are less competent. Liberals recognize that fact and propose how to fix it. Conservatives say it is genetics and ignore the problem, making it worse. Which of these is racist?
"Those minorities"? You mean the individuals involved in the interaction? I didn't see where the study establishes that those people are less competent. Or do you mean the individuals are being stereotyped based on an assumed racial statistic?
> Liberals recognize that fact and propose how to fix it. Conservatives say it is genetics and ignore the problem, making it worse.
Well that's not what this study demonstrates.
And which conservatives do you believe say this anyway? The ones in this study? The average conservative? Or the imaginary boogyman that your math textbook warned you about?
> Which of these is racist?
Assuming a black individual one is conversing with is less competent due to their skin color and treating them differently because of that, is racist. Making no assumptions about an individual's competence based on their skin color and treating them as you would any other individual is not racist. At least that's my definition of the word and the one I was taught.
> Assuming a black individual one is conversing with is less competent due to their skin color and treating them differently because of that, is racist
The study didn't show that the liberal whites assumed these groups were less competent and treated them that way but that liberal whites assumed that the audience was less interested in competence-related terms for voting and changed how they campaigned to them, probably around how they would fix the problems unique to these groups, which the conservative politicians ignored.
To be clear, what is racist is assuming the problems that these groups face is due to genetic mental inferiority, which is what conservatives assume, as the study I linked above shows.
> I stated the fact in the very next sentence, which you quoted.
I asked a question. "Those minorities" is not specific. If you are claiming it is the people in the study then you are wrong, no such fact was established.
> That was not the point of the study. Other studies have established this fact. This study just says that white liberals acknowledge this when speaking to these groups.
They are not "speaking to a group" or an amorphous blob. They are speaking to individuals in this study. Humans.
So some people. That does not support any such claim that "conservatives are more racist" unless you establish that's a general view among conservatives. You can say those people with that view are more racist if that's a racist opinion.
> They are on the whole less competent. Pretending that they aren't is ignoring the facts. This can be fixed. This is also a fact.
Treating people the same regardless of skin color is not ignoring the fact there are statistical differences among different "socioeconomic" groups is not ignoring those differences. I'm astounded you're actually trying to claim that is being racist, but then again I'm allegedly a racist old curmudgeon for being against institutional discrimination against asian college applicants so I really should stop being so surprised at today's liberal dogma and just agree to disagree with you.
> If you are claiming it is the people in the study then you are wrong, no such fact was established.
It's established all over the place. Look at SAT scores, IQ tests, grades, etc. I never claimed that the stidy you linked to established it.
> So some people. That does not support any such claim that "conservatives are more racist" unless you establish that's a general view among conservatives.
Which is exactly what the first link you quoted showed, if you were able to read it.
> Treating people the same regardless of skin color is not ignoring the fact there are statistical differences among different "socioeconomic" groups is not ignoring those differences
The way they were treated differently was by using less competence words to signal that they were a good politician to vote for, since these people are from communities without a highly competent reference. Instead, these white liberals probably talked about the unique problems these groups were facing, which conservatives ignore and blame on genetics. Talking about their problems is not racist, and is in fact why these groups vote for white liberals. Pretending their problems is due to genetics without being able to point to a gene is racist.
> I'm allegedly a racist old curmudgeon for being against institutional discrimination against asian college applicants so I really should stop being so surprised at today's liberal dogma and just agree to disagree with you.
Liberals are also against discrimination against Asians. They try to solve problems where discrimination against Asians hold Asians back, like working to get reparations for interned Japanese Americans. Liberals also recognize that a significant minority of Americans have been systematically discouraged from getting an education and that fixing that will have a far greater impact on economic progress than almost anything else we can do.
> It's established all over the place. Look at SAT scores, IQ tests, grades, etc. I never claimed that the stidy you linked to established it.
Competency is not established for the individuals involved in the study!
Read what I wrote. I never said there aren't statistical differences among racial groups. That's why I asked you to clarify when you said "those minorities" whether you were talking about the individuals in the study or the racial stereotypes.
> Which is exactly what the first link you quoted showed, if you were able to read it.
Using the revised liberal definition of racist that requires one to discriminate against asians and assume black people are incompetent, sure.
> The way they were treated differently was by using less competence words
Yes I know, you don't have to repeat what the study concluded. I just fundamentally disagree on your idea of what racism is. Do you still think it's a good idea to teach this stuff in math class? Using my definition of racism? Or yours?
> Liberals are also against discrimination against Asians.
Not the ones I've talked to who have been trying to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination in order to bring about policies of systemic racism and discrimination in their institutions.
> Competency is not established for the individuals involved in the study!
They are being talked to in the terms of what the groups they belong to care about. What about that did you fail to understand?
> Using the revised liberal definition of racist that requires one to discriminate against asians and assume black people are incompetent, sure.
No, using the definition that people who think different races are less intelligent due to genetics. You clearly haven't read it, or if you did read it, you didn't understand it. Being a liberal, I won't reach to thinking this is due to your poor genetics but will instead point out that your poor reading ability is something that can be fixed and that society should strive to fix.
> Do you still think it's a good idea to teach this stuff in math class?
Sure, why not? This is real data that they're being asked to fit a polynomial to. The fact that you are offended by what the data shows does not make the data less real or the exercise any less instructive.
> Using my definition of racism?
To be clear, your definition of racism is to speak to people according to the problems that their communities face (whether it be competence of politicians or politicians who ignore their problems) instead of in exactly the same terms. I have heard of nobody else who shares your definition.
> Not the ones I've talked to who have been trying to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination in order to bring about policies of systemic racism and discrimination in their institutions
The policies they are pushing for are to reduce crime and poverty, which helps all people. Giving support to groups that need it instead of groups that won't benefit from it necessarily involves discrimination. It is beneficial to debate which policies are likely to have the largest benefit, but sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem (and then justifying it by hypothesizing that no policy will help due to genetics without providing any evidence for genetic difference in intelligence) is the type of lazy thinking that permeates conservative thought.
I think that's should be left up to parents. I personally don't want my kids to learn about sex at all until puberty. There is plenty of time in life to learn these things.
So if anything, this bill gives freedom to whatever you please with your children as parents, but don't dogmatize them with controversial sex education as teachers.
Btw, this is NOT a fringe view. The rest of the world operates like this including most progressive countries in Europe.
Is it really so badly worded that you could complain about a teacher teaching he and she? That’s going to be fun when the trolls start filing lawsuits.
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
They purposefully had to make it this vague so it could stand even the minimum of court scrutiny... unfortunately for them, the wording is impossible without explicitly stating what the purpose of the language of the bill is actually for, so... Every child is they/them and / or "students," not "boys and girls."
I think they would make the argument that the simple and wrong "boys are he, girls are she" is age-appropriate and "developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards".
This is a bad bill that severely infringes on transgender and LGBTQ rights.
While I don't think your position on free speech is unreasonable, to overlook the harmful things the right is doing and base your vote on Twitter's moderation policies seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Off the top of my head:
* Don't say gay bill * Huge restrictions on abortions that have been enacted recently and will undoubtedly be upheld by the SCOTUS. Even in cases of rape and incest. * Gerrymandering, ensuring the right will stay in control even if they are not supported by the electorate. * Restrictions placed on voting that target minorities
I also think phrasing this as crushing political dissent is a gross exaggeration. We're talking about very extreme people being suspended from a social media website. No one is getting arrested. If you want to see examples of people being arrested, look at Texas where a woman was recently arrested for suspicion of having an abortion, or Florida where Desantis had a researcher arrested for releasing COVID data.