Florida bans teaching Critical Race Theory in its schools

[Kalam]

And in fact, this is the general Democratic playbook recently. They push something extreme, conservatives react to it, and then they suddenly walk it back, claiming that conservatives misunderstood and are just engaging in political fear

You dumbass! The “shit” Kalam’s son “parroted” about a Black man being the first to reach the North Pole, but credit for that feat being falsely attributed to a White man for decades is true!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nat...matthew-henson



Which begs the questions: How come it takes only a quick Google search to find out that Kalam was an ignoramous about what he claimed was “shit”?

Also, Druff, correcting the history that is taught to our kids that has been for so long “White”-washed to hide or discount the role and experiences of non-Whites is NOT critical race theory! But conservotards like you and Kalam seem to think so despite being spoon-fed sufficient evidence to the contrary. Which is why you two earn the “-tard” ending of that descriptor.

I didn't say it wasn't likely technically true. You completely missed the point. The point was the lesson (as he articulated it back to me) was done in an unnecessarily divisive, racially oriented fashion. Everything can't be simplistically reduced to a black vs. white, oppressor vs. oppressed narrative (which is a main complaint against progressive ideology, is that there is way too much of this). I am pretty confident Columbus wasn't the first person to technically step foot in the new world either. In pretty much every exploration the "discovery" is attributed to the leader of the group, when in most cases I doubt they are actually the ones to make the discovery.

[gimmick]

Druff, correcting the history that is taught to our kids that has been for so long “White”-washed to hide or discount the role and experiences of non-Whites is NOT critical race theory! But conservotards like you and Kalam seem to think so despite being spoon-fed sufficient evidence to the contrary. Which is why you two earn the “-tard” ending of that descriptor.

Nobody is asking for them to whitewash history or to avoid teaching the truth.

Teaching correct history is fine.

Teaching left-wing propaganda regarding the current state of affairs in the country is NOT fine.

For example:

"Prior to the 1960s civil rights movement, black people were treated in an unfair and unethical manner in this country, and lacked a lot of basic rights they should have been given." --- OK to teach

"As a result of legalized discrimination in this country through the mid-1960s, some black families are still suffering the effects of this today, even though it's been over 55 years since laws were changed." --- OK to teach

"The existing systems of power in this country are systemically racist, and built to continue quietly oppressing people of color, while maintaining the white power structure. These systems must be torn down and rebuilt in order to achieve much-needed equity." -- NOT OK to teach


See the difference? The first is a historical fact. The second is a well-accepted modern consequence of the first historical fact. The third is a controversial (and in my opinion, untrue) theory about present systems of government.

Now, I'd be fine with the teaching of the third statement if a counter-response from the other side was also taught, and both were given equal weight as being potentially valid. This at least would allow students to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

However, this isn't happening. CRT is being taught as fact and truth in these schools, and students who disagree with it are given failing grades for the unit.

This is not false outrage or a right-wing bogeyman. This is a true and correct assessment of a rapidly evolving situation at the secondary school level, and conservatives are trying to cut off the head before it becomes uncontrollable.

You should get a failing grade if you think legalized discrimination ended in the 60s. I'm sure that's what they thought in 80s when you were at school, but that simply wasn't true.

[gimmick]

You dumbass! The “shit” Kalam’s son “parroted” about a Black man being the first to reach the North Pole, but credit for that feat being falsely attributed to a White man for decades is true!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nat...matthew-henson



Which begs the questions: How come it takes only a quick Google search to find out that Kalam was an ignoramous about what he claimed was “shit”?

Also, Druff, correcting the history that is taught to our kids that has been for so long “White”-washed to hide or discount the role and experiences of non-Whites is NOT critical race theory! But conservotards like you and Kalam seem to think so despite being spoon-fed sufficient evidence to the contrary. Which is why you two earn the “-tard” ending of that descriptor.

I didn't say it wasn't likely technically true. You completely missed the point. The point was the lesson (as he articulated it back to me) was done in an unnecessarily divisive, racially oriented fashion. Everything can't be simplistically reduced to a black vs. white, oppressor vs. oppressed narrative (which is a main complaint against progressive ideology, is that there is way too much of this). I am pretty confident Columbus wasn't the first person to technically step foot in the new world either. In pretty much every exploration the "discovery" is attributed to the leader of the group, when in most cases I doubt they are actually the ones to make the discovery.

Ed Hillary wasn't the leader of the group that first hit the top of Mount Everest. John Hunt was. I had to look up several posts above yours to find that example. It was really really hard.

Only a very simplistically reduced version of CRT gives zero fucks about a single axis. That's the boogeyman.

[nightmarefish]

[Dan Druff]

Nobody is asking for them to whitewash history or to avoid teaching the truth.

Teaching correct history is fine.

Teaching left-wing propaganda regarding the current state of affairs in the country is NOT fine.

For example:

"Prior to the 1960s civil rights movement, black people were treated in an unfair and unethical manner in this country, and lacked a lot of basic rights they should have been given." --- OK to teach

"As a result of legalized discrimination in this country through the mid-1960s, some black families are still suffering the effects of this today, even though it's been over 55 years since laws were changed." --- OK to teach

"The existing systems of power in this country are systemically racist, and built to continue quietly oppressing people of color, while maintaining the white power structure. These systems must be torn down and rebuilt in order to achieve much-needed equity." -- NOT OK to teach


See the difference? The first is a historical fact. The second is a well-accepted modern consequence of the first historical fact. The third is a controversial (and in my opinion, untrue) theory about present systems of government.

Now, I'd be fine with the teaching of the third statement if a counter-response from the other side was also taught, and both were given equal weight as being potentially valid. This at least would allow students to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

However, this isn't happening. CRT is being taught as fact and truth in these schools, and students who disagree with it are given failing grades for the unit.

This is not false outrage or a right-wing bogeyman. This is a true and correct assessment of a rapidly evolving situation at the secondary school level, and conservatives are trying to cut off the head before it becomes uncontrollable.

You should get a failing grade if you think legalized discrimination ended in the 60s. I'm sure that's what they thought in 80s when you were at school, but that simply wasn't true.

Oh, leftists like you still believe massive systemic "discrimination" occurs today in the US, and I dont think those claims will ever end, regardless of what changes are made.

However, the '60s civil rights movement ended the clear, race-based discrimination which could be accurately described as systemic racism.

I'm sure you're referring to things such as redlining, which while controversial, are done with economic motivations and not racial discrimination. If I'm the CEO of a supermarket chain and choose not to open a store in a low-income neighborhood where profits will be lower and crime will be higher, that's not a racist decision, even if it ends up ultimately making it more difficult for certain black neighborhoods to get groceries.

But that's a different discussion for a different time.

The bottom line is that, regardless of anyone's opinion of whether systemic racism still exists in the US, it shouldn't be taught in school as one-sided fact. You simply can't teach "The US is systemically racist in 2021" the same way you teach "Slavery in the 1800s was wrong" and "Racial segregation laws in the 1960s were wrong". The latter is obvious and well established in modern society, while the former is highly controversial.

[gimmick]

You should get a failing grade if you think legalized discrimination ended in the 60s. I'm sure that's what they thought in 80s when you were at school, but that simply wasn't true.

Oh, leftists like you still believe massive systemic "discrimination" occurs today in the US, and I dont think those claims will ever end, regardless of what changes are made.

However, the '60s civil rights movement ended the clear, race-based discrimination which could be accurately described as systemic racism.

I'm sure you're referring to things such as redlining, which while controversial, are done with economic motivations and not racial discrimination. If I'm the CEO of a supermarket chain and choose not to open a store in a low-income neighborhood where profits will be lower and crime will be higher, that's not a racist decision, even if it ends up ultimately making it more difficult for certain black neighborhoods to get groceries.

But that's a different discussion for a different time.

The bottom line is that, regardless of anyone's opinion of whether systemic racism still exists in the US, it shouldn't be taught in school as one-sided fact. You simply can't teach "The US is systemically racist in 2021" the same way you teach "Slavery in the 1800s was wrong" and "Racial segregation laws in the 1960s were wrong". The latter is obvious and well established in modern society, while the former is highly controversial.

It's a pretty long list of things.

First classic that comes to mind is 100-1 law of 1986. 5 year mandatory minimum for trafficking 5 grams of crack or 500 grams of cocaine. Changed to simple first time possession in 1988. It was revised swiftly in 2010 to a just as arbitrary ratio of 18-1. Obv we couldn't touch the half a brick, so the crack end got bumped to 28g for trafficking and they finally got rid of simple possession. That was in the distant past of 11 years ago.

"1995: The USSC issues its first research report to Congress on crack cocaine, finding that because over 80% of crack offenders are black, and because the 100-to-1 ratio results in unduly high sentences, sentences are harsher for minorities and create a public perception that the criminal justice system is unfair and inconsistent."

I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

It took 4 USSC reports before anything happened. The last one was from 2007.

https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/...Crack-Laws.pdf

[Dan Druff]

Oh, leftists like you still believe massive systemic "discrimination" occurs today in the US, and I dont think those claims will ever end, regardless of what changes are made.

However, the '60s civil rights movement ended the clear, race-based discrimination which could be accurately described as systemic racism.

I'm sure you're referring to things such as redlining, which while controversial, are done with economic motivations and not racial discrimination. If I'm the CEO of a supermarket chain and choose not to open a store in a low-income neighborhood where profits will be lower and crime will be higher, that's not a racist decision, even if it ends up ultimately making it more difficult for certain black neighborhoods to get groceries.

But that's a different discussion for a different time.

The bottom line is that, regardless of anyone's opinion of whether systemic racism still exists in the US, it shouldn't be taught in school as one-sided fact. You simply can't teach "The US is systemically racist in 2021" the same way you teach "Slavery in the 1800s was wrong" and "Racial segregation laws in the 1960s were wrong". The latter is obvious and well established in modern society, while the former is highly controversial.

It's a pretty long list of things.

First classic that comes to mind is 100-1 law of 1986. 5 year mandatory minimum for trafficking 5 grams of crack or 500 grams of cocaine. Changed to simple first time possession in 1988. It was revised swiftly in 2010 to a just as arbitrary ratio of 18-1. Obv we couldn't touch the half a brick, so the crack end got bumped to 28g for trafficking and they finally got rid of simple possession. That was in the distant past of 11 years ago.

"1995: The USSC issues its first research report to Congress on crack cocaine, finding that because over 80% of crack offenders are black, and because the 100-to-1 ratio results in unduly high sentences, sentences are harsher for minorities and create a public perception that the criminal justice system is unfair and inconsistent."

I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

It took 4 USSC reports before anything happened. The last one was from 2007.

https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/...Crack-Laws.pdf

This wasn't racist. It was an attempt to contain the crack epidemic which was becoming a huge issue in the 80s, and also resulting in a lot of crime committed by those high on crack (which wasn't as common on normal cocaine).

I've never been a fan of criminalizing recreational drug possession, but it's a stretch to say this was racist because it happened to affect black people more.

See, there's a huge difference between this law and pre-60s laws which allowed for actual segregation by race. Laws like these are non-racial, and just happen to affect black people more. However, they're behavioral, and there is nothing in the law which allow for lighter punishment for white people doing the same.

You can post a ton of things like this, and we can debate back and forth, but why bother? The bottom line is that controversial political race theory should not be taught in the public school classroom, unless the other side is fairly presented in an equally positive fashion.

The "CRT bogeyman" is not a bogeyman. It's conservatives rightfully being concerned that public schools are being used (and planned to be used) for teaching left wing racial propaganda. It doesn't matter if it 100% fits the definition of CRT -- the concept is the same.

[gimmick]

It's a pretty long list of things.

First classic that comes to mind is 100-1 law of 1986. 5 year mandatory minimum for trafficking 5 grams of crack or 500 grams of cocaine. Changed to simple first time possession in 1988. It was revised swiftly in 2010 to a just as arbitrary ratio of 18-1. Obv we couldn't touch the half a brick, so the crack end got bumped to 28g for trafficking and they finally got rid of simple possession. That was in the distant past of 11 years ago.

"1995: The USSC issues its first research report to Congress on crack cocaine, finding that because over 80% of crack offenders are black, and because the 100-to-1 ratio results in unduly high sentences, sentences are harsher for minorities and create a public perception that the criminal justice system is unfair and inconsistent."

I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

It took 4 USSC reports before anything happened. The last one was from 2007.

https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/...Crack-Laws.pdf

This wasn't racist. It was an attempt to contain the crack epidemic which was becoming a huge issue in the 80s, and also resulting in a lot of crime committed by those high on crack (which wasn't as common on normal cocaine).

I've never been a fan of criminalizing recreational drug possession, but it's a stretch to say this was racist because it happened to affect black people more.

See, there's a huge difference between this law and pre-60s laws which allowed for actual segregation by race. Laws like these are non-racial, and just happen to affect black people more. However, they're behavioral, and there is nothing in the law which allow for lighter punishment for white people doing the same.

You can post a ton of things like this, and we can debate back and forth, but why bother? The bottom line is that controversial political race theory should not be taught in the public school classroom, unless the other side is fairly presented in an equally positive fashion.

The "CRT bogeyman" is not a bogeyman. It's conservatives rightfully being concerned that public schools are being used (and planned to be used) for teaching left wing racial propaganda. It doesn't matter if it 100% fits the definition of CRT -- the concept is the same.

Nothing about crack leads to higher crime rates. Every BS reason that lead to the 100-1 laws has been found to be false.

The 3rd USSC report from 2002...

"The Commission also calls on Congress to repeal the mandatory minimum for simple
possession of crack. The report also finds that:
 Current crack penalties exaggerate the harmfulness of crack, which is pharmacologically
identical to powder cocaine
 The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack are identical to those of prenatal
exposure to powder cocaine
 Current crack penalties over-punish low-level crack offenders and apply to too many
low-level offenders and street-level dealers, rather than major traffickers
 The amount of violence associated with crack was overstated, and the current sentences
unfairly punish all crack offenders as if they had used violence or weapons
 The 100-to-1 disparity results in overly harsh sentences for crack offenders and produces
a racial disparity in sentencing, as 80% of those convicted of crack offenses are black.

...would you say a law that punishes people that wear yarmalke 100 times harsher than people that wear baseball caps would be fair? Sounds non-racial and it's just behavioral.

[lol wow]

DO YOU EVEN SMOKE CRACK FAGGOT

[lol wow]

[Kalam]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-criteria.html

This is related to CRT, but the "top high school" in the US that was formerly completely merit based decided to go in went woke and balance their races better, and the result was a steep decline in Asians and an increase in every other race, including whites.

I know the narrative around the need for affirmative action in school admissions is we need it to combat white supremacy, but if you actually break down the numbers most top schools actually don't have "too many" whites, they have too many Asians at the expense of everyone else, including whites. So they are the ones who are going to be the most affected, and at a pretty massive level.

This is actually going to be true in a lot of different areas, not just education. The more we reject "merit" and instead opt for " equity" it isn't going to be whites who are most effected, but Asians. Which of course illustrates quite nicely the entire "merit is white supremacy" narrative is complete BS.

[gut]

DO YOU EVEN SMOKE CRACK FAGGOT

That should have been the mic drop on the thread.

Druff was working the finn hard tbh.

[Dan Druff]

This wasn't racist. It was an attempt to contain the crack epidemic which was becoming a huge issue in the 80s, and also resulting in a lot of crime committed by those high on crack (which wasn't as common on normal cocaine).

I've never been a fan of criminalizing recreational drug possession, but it's a stretch to say this was racist because it happened to affect black people more.

See, there's a huge difference between this law and pre-60s laws which allowed for actual segregation by race. Laws like these are non-racial, and just happen to affect black people more. However, they're behavioral, and there is nothing in the law which allow for lighter punishment for white people doing the same.

You can post a ton of things like this, and we can debate back and forth, but why bother? The bottom line is that controversial political race theory should not be taught in the public school classroom, unless the other side is fairly presented in an equally positive fashion.

The "CRT bogeyman" is not a bogeyman. It's conservatives rightfully being concerned that public schools are being used (and planned to be used) for teaching left wing racial propaganda. It doesn't matter if it 100% fits the definition of CRT -- the concept is the same.

Nothing about crack leads to higher crime rates. Every BS reason that lead to the 100-1 laws has been found to be false.

The 3rd USSC report from 2002...

"The Commission also calls on Congress to repeal the mandatory minimum for simple
possession of crack. The report also finds that:
 Current crack penalties exaggerate the harmfulness of crack, which is pharmacologically
identical to powder cocaine
 The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack are identical to those of prenatal
exposure to powder cocaine
 Current crack penalties over-punish low-level crack offenders and apply to too many
low-level offenders and street-level dealers, rather than major traffickers
 The amount of violence associated with crack was overstated, and the current sentences
unfairly punish all crack offenders as if they had used violence or weapons
 The 100-to-1 disparity results in overly harsh sentences for crack offenders and produces
a racial disparity in sentencing, as 80% of those convicted of crack offenses are black.

...would you say a law that punishes people that wear yarmalke 100 times harsher than people that wear baseball caps would be fair? Sounds non-racial and it's just behavioral.

Nothing you posted above says that crime wasn't higher among those on crack versus those on cocaine.

Read it again if you still don't understand.

Once again, outcomes which happen to disproportionately affect black people are not racist, unless you can prove the law was specifically written to punish black people for being black.

A white person caught with crack back then, with the equivalent representation in court, would have fared just as poorly.

Once again, how does this relate to teaching CRT in the schools? I'm not interested in debating everything in America that gimmick thinks is racist. I'm saying that controversial modern political theory (left or right) should not be taught as fact in public schools.

If public schools were teaching lessons that abortion is murder, I would have a similar problem with the curriculum.

[Sloppy Joe]

Conservative media getting a nice little run stoking the lemmings with CRT.

So easy to keep these faggots angry and scared.

[Dan Druff]

They're not politicizing the schools, though.

Sloppy Soyboy said so. Just propaganda to scare the white conservatives, obv.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1412772807398789122

[Sloppy Joe]

They're not politicizing the schools, though.

Sloppy Soyboy said so. Just propaganda to scare the white conservatives, obv.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1412772807398789122

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ia-viral-video

Keeping you scared and angry is the name of the game, bubba.

[LegalizeMeth]

Once again, outcomes which happen to disproportionately affect black people are not racist, unless you can prove the law was specifically written to punish black people for being black.


But thats the thing, Druff. What if outcomes that disproportionately affect black people ARE in fact racist? Its a radical thought, but not one without merit.

[gimmick]

Nothing about crack leads to higher crime rates. Every BS reason that lead to the 100-1 laws has been found to be false.

The 3rd USSC report from 2002...

"The Commission also calls on Congress to repeal the mandatory minimum for simple
possession of crack. The report also finds that:
 Current crack penalties exaggerate the harmfulness of crack, which is pharmacologically
identical to powder cocaine
 The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack are identical to those of prenatal
exposure to powder cocaine
 Current crack penalties over-punish low-level crack offenders and apply to too many
low-level offenders and street-level dealers, rather than major traffickers
 The amount of violence associated with crack was overstated, and the current sentences
unfairly punish all crack offenders as if they had used violence or weapons
 The 100-to-1 disparity results in overly harsh sentences for crack offenders and produces
a racial disparity in sentencing, as 80% of those convicted of crack offenses are black.

...would you say a law that punishes people that wear yarmalke 100 times harsher than people that wear baseball caps would be fair? Sounds non-racial and it's just behavioral.

Nothing you posted above says that crime wasn't higher among those on crack versus those on cocaine.

Read it again if you still don't understand.

Once again, outcomes which happen to disproportionately affect black people are not racist, unless you can prove the law was specifically written to punish black people for being black.

A white person caught with crack back then, with the equivalent representation in court, would have fared just as poorly.

Once again, how does this relate to teaching CRT in the schools? I'm not interested in debating everything in America that gimmick thinks is racist. I'm saying that controversial modern political theory (left or right) should not be taught as fact in public schools.

If public schools were teaching lessons that abortion is murder, I would have a similar problem with the curriculum.

CRT is specifically about law.

We're talking about this because you claimed that legalized discrimination ended 55 years ago.

I gave an example of a law that was mitigated 11 years ago.

Crack leading to higher crime rates was your claim that you never bothered to prove.

You do know crack is made out of powdered cocaine?

[nightmarefish]

Nothing you posted above says that crime wasn't higher among those on crack versus those on cocaine.

Read it again if you still don't understand.

Once again, outcomes which happen to disproportionately affect black people are not racist, unless you can prove the law was specifically written to punish black people for being black.

A white person caught with crack back then, with the equivalent representation in court, would have fared just as poorly.

Once again, how does this relate to teaching CRT in the schools? I'm not interested in debating everything in America that gimmick thinks is racist. I'm saying that controversial modern political theory (left or right) should not be taught as fact in public schools.

If public schools were teaching lessons that abortion is murder, I would have a similar problem with the curriculum.

CRT is specifically about law.

We're talking about this because you claimed that legalized discrimination ended 55 years ago.

I gave an example of a law that was mitigated 11 years ago.

Crack leading to higher crime rates was your claim that you never bothered to prove.

You do know crack is made out of powdered cocaine?

Ya CRT is about law and taught to law students in college, shouldn’t be taught to little kids. Kids can’t comprehend it correctly and the teachers aren’t qualified to teach it correctly. Just creates more unnecessary division.

[Sloppy Joe]

Nothing you posted above says that crime wasn't higher among those on crack versus those on cocaine.

Read it again if you still don't understand.

Once again, outcomes which happen to disproportionately affect black people are not racist, unless you can prove the law was specifically written to punish black people for being black.

A white person caught with crack back then, with the equivalent representation in court, would have fared just as poorly.

Once again, how does this relate to teaching CRT in the schools? I'm not interested in debating everything in America that gimmick thinks is racist. I'm saying that controversial modern political theory (left or right) should not be taught as fact in public schools.

If public schools were teaching lessons that abortion is murder, I would have a similar problem with the curriculum.

CRT is specifically about law.

We're talking about this because you claimed that legalized discrimination ended 55 years ago.

I gave an example of a law that was mitigated 11 years ago.

Crack leading to higher crime rates was your claim that you never bothered to prove.

You do know crack is made out of powdered cocaine?

It's like making a DUI 100 times more punitive if a guy was drinking Colt 45's versus IPA.

Indefensible policy.