Florida bans teaching Critical Race Theory in its schools

[Walter Sobchak]

Obvious stupid remark not worth responding to. The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

But I’ll answer anyway. I started with many advantages (except whiteness). Never was poor, went to good schools, had involved parents, etc. My concern is not for myself but for the country in general, for people who have little chance.

There’s millions of white trash living in trailer parks all over this country. What advantage do they have over you exactly? You hit the nail on the head, involved parents and not being poor are the advantages that matter. White privilege, come on man. Quit acting like white people are trying to keep black people or any other race down.

Those people need help too. They’ve been fucked by the system too. They keep voting Republican though.

[Dan Druff]

Obvious stupid remark not worth responding to. The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

But I’ll answer anyway. I started with many advantages (except whiteness). Never was poor, went to good schools, had involved parents, etc. My concern is not for myself but for the country in general, for people who have little chance.

There’s millions of white trash living in trailer parks all over this country. What advantage do they have over you exactly? You hit the nail on the head, involved parents and not being poor are the advantages that matter. White privilege, come on man. Quit acting like white people are trying to keep black people or any other race down.

That's actually very true, and is mostly overlooked in the "inequality" argument.

If you have $, it doesn't matter what your race is. You will have the same advantages as anyone else who has money.

If you are poor, it doesn't matter what your race is. You will have the same disadvantages as anyone else who is poor.

Sure, there are some exceptions, but systemically that's basically how it works. The reason black people fare poorly in criminal cases versus their white counterparts is NOT because of racism. It's because of ability to afford good representation. If you get a top defense attorney, you will fare MUCH better than if you get a public defender.

If charged with a serious crime, would you rather be a rich black man or a poor white man? If you choose "poor white man", you're an idiot. There have been no studies to my knowledge which connect BOTH race and social class to outcome in criminal court -- such as poor black people doing worse than poor white people, with their prior criminal records being essentially equivalent.

It's not just criminal court though. It's the same for many other aspects of life.

I had an interesting experience on the same day at two AT&T stores. The first was in a poor Mexican neighborhood. It was crowded, disorganized, and the employees treated everyone (including me) like shit. I eventually walked out. The employees were also Mexican, so there was no element of racism there.

I then stopped at an AT&T store 10 miles down the road, in a middle-class white neighborhood. The employees were nice and helpful. The store was clean, organized, and not crowded.

It was like night and day. I've seen stuff like this over and over. Social class matters much more than race, regarding how people tend to be treated. This is ignored by the left and mainstream media, because it kills a lot of their "racism" arguments.

[nightmarefish]

There’s millions of white trash living in trailer parks all over this country. What advantage do they have over you exactly? You hit the nail on the head, involved parents and not being poor are the advantages that matter. White privilege, come on man. Quit acting like white people are trying to keep black people or any other race down.

Those people need help too. They’ve been fucked by the system too. They keep voting Republican though.

Or maybe they’re responsible for their own lives and have fucked themselves over? When does personal responsibility come into play in your mind?

Why have you never seen an Asian living in a trailer park?

[Walter Sobchak]

There’s millions of white trash living in trailer parks all over this country. What advantage do they have over you exactly? You hit the nail on the head, involved parents and not being poor are the advantages that matter. White privilege, come on man. Quit acting like white people are trying to keep black people or any other race down.

That's actually very true, and is mostly overlooked in the "inequality" argument.

If you have $, it doesn't matter what your race is. You will have the same advantages as anyone else who has money.

If you are poor, it doesn't matter what your race is. You will have the same disadvantages as anyone else who is poor.

Sure, there are some exceptions, but systemically that's basically how it works. The reason black people fare poorly in criminal cases versus their white counterparts is NOT because of racism. It's because of ability to afford good representation. If you get a top defense attorney, you will fare MUCH better than if you get a public defender.

If charged with a serious crime, would you rather be a rich black man or a poor white man? If you choose "poor white man", you're an idiot. There have been no studies to my knowledge which connect BOTH race and social class to outcome in criminal court -- such as poor black people doing worse than poor white people, with their prior criminal records being essentially equivalent.

It's not just criminal court though. It's the same for many other aspects of life.

I had an interesting experience on the same day at two AT&T stores. The first was in a poor Mexican neighborhood. It was crowded, disorganized, and the employees treated everyone (including me) like shit. I eventually walked out. The employees were also Mexican, so there was no element of racism there.

I then stopped at an AT&T store 10 miles down the road, in a middle-class white neighborhood. The employees were nice and helpful. The store was clean, organized, and not crowded.

It was like night and day. I've seen stuff like this over and over. Social class matters much more than race, regarding how people tend to be treated. This is ignored by the left and mainstream media, because it kills a lot of their "racism" arguments.

This is absolutely true no argument here.

[gut]

and again you can see that the left wants to keep pushing race. Race! Everyone look! Everyone judge!

Meanwhile everyone else wants to move the fuck on.

[Walter Sobchak]

There’s way too much woke shit that’s dumb but that doesn’t mean race is no longer a factor. You’d have to be blind not to realize that it is.

[nightmarefish]

Race plays a factor pertaining to cultural differences for sure, that’s why Asians are so successful.

[gut]

There’s way too much woke shit that’s dumb but that doesn’t mean race is no longer a factor. You’d have to be blind not to realize that it is.

Well again, define who is what then. Cause it ain't "race".

[MumblesBadly]

Would you want the concept of abortion taught to your kids at school by a religious Catholic? Do you think the controversial topic of abortion would get fair treatment, or would the lesson be a one-sided "abortion-is-murder" lecture? I think you know the answer.

Same thing here with CRT-type lessons. Given that most teachers are left wing, there is a high chance these lessons will be taught in an indoctrinational fashion, rather than from a neutral standpoint where both sides of the CRT controversy are explained. I can assure you that most conservatives aren't worried about kids being EXPOSED to CRT-type material, but rather that it will be taught as the undeniable truth.

Many liberals believe conservatives have a secret code where they claim some sort of reasonanble- sounding objection, but what they really mean is that they want to preseve the structure of white supremacy in the US. It's bullshit. I get accused of this crap all the time on social media, whenever I argue from the conservative political standpoint. "You just want to perpetuate the white power structure!!!" It's pathetic.

How many?

All of the folks who subscribe to Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory is based on Critical Theory. The basis premise of Critical Theory is that there is a dominant group in society — the Oppressors — that desires to maintain the status quo in which the Oppressed realize inferior demographic outcomes, and Oppressors do so through laws and social conventions.

Critical Race Theory, in turn, assumes that that dominant group is Whites. And anyone who isn’t working to eliminate ANY differences in demographic outcomes between actual Whites and Blacks is considered to be seeking to perpetuate the domination of the Oppressors — Whites — over the Oppressed — Blacks. And as such, such folks are ASSUMED by adherents to CRT to be seeking to perpetuate the “White power structure”.

[gut]

How many?

All of the folks who subscribe to Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory is based on Critical Theory. The basis premise of Critical Theory is that there is a dominant group in society — the Oppressors — that desires to maintain the status quo in which the Oppressed realize inferior demographic outcomes, and Oppressors do so through laws and social conventions. Critical Race Theory assumes that that dominant group is White men, i.e. the White Patriarchy.

Need that wiki link plz

[Dan Druff]

In general there is a very poor understanding of what motivates conservatives. It's one thing if you don't agree with the politics of conservatism, or if you feel their approach to governing and/or social issues is incorrect. I can respect that. Not everybody has to agree with me or see things my way.

However, a large percentage of liberals honestly believe that conservatism is motivated by greed, evil, bigotry, and selfishness. It's just not true. Sure, there is a small percentage of Republicans who are motivated by this, but an overwhelming percentage of modern Republicans simply hate what the left is doing (or planning to do), and want to oppose it simply because they believe it's wrong. It has nothing to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything like that.

I've also seen an amazing amount of arrogance from liberals/leftists regarding the belief that only Democrats can be intellectuals. Ike Haxton, one of the many limousine liberals of poker, recently made this claim on Twitter. It's obnoxious, arrogant, and obviously incorrect.

I remember listening to a liberal podcast last year which explored the reasons for the massive political division we're currently experiencing. The first half of the podcast was good, as it fairly and neutrally discussed why the left and right aren't trusting each other, and the factors which went into this occurring. The second half, however, was absolutely clueless. It explored why people become conservative, and the conclusion was that "they just need to be educated on the facts" and "most conservatives are that way because they've been misled by either right wing media or their church". The podcast hosts refused to acknowledge that many conservatives fully understand the "facts", and simply disagree with left wing politics! To them, it was simply a matter of ignorance.

[Walter Sobchak]

In general there is a very poor understanding of what motivates conservatives. It's one thing if you don't agree with the politics of conservatism, or if you feel their approach to governing and/or social issues is incorrect. I can respect that. Not everybody has to agree with me or see things my way.

However, a large percentage of liberals honestly believe that conservatism is motivated by greed, evil, bigotry, and selfishness. It's just not true. Sure, there is a small percentage of Republicans who are motivated by this, but an overwhelming percentage of modern Republicans simply hate what the left is doing (or planning to do), and want to oppose it simply because they believe it's wrong. It has nothing to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything like that.

I've also seen an amazing amount of arrogance from liberals/leftists regarding the belief that only Democrats can be intellectuals. Ike Haxton, one of the many limousine liberals of poker, recently made this claim on Twitter. It's obnoxious, arrogant, and obviously incorrect.

I remember listening to a liberal podcast last year which explored the reasons for the massive political division we're currently experiencing. The first half of the podcast was good, as it fairly and neutrally discussed why the left and right aren't trusting each other, and the factors which went into this occurring. The second half, however, was absolutely clueless. It explored why people become conservative, and the conclusion was that "they just need to be educated on the facts" and "most conservatives are that way because they've been misled by either right wing media or their church". The podcast hosts refused to acknowledge that many conservatives fully understand the "facts", and simply disagree with left wing politics! To them, it was simply a matter of ignorance.

There's a difference between conservative and Republican. Buckley and Goldwater would be appalled by what the Republicans have become, and the lion's share of prominent conservative intellectuals are mostly appalled by it too (like George F. Will).

[MumblesBadly]

In general there is a very poor understanding of what motivates conservatives. It's one thing if you don't agree with the politics of conservatism, or if you feel their approach to governing and/or social issues is incorrect. I can respect that. Not everybody has to agree with me or see things my way.

However, a large percentage of liberals honestly believe that conservatism is motivated by greed, evil, bigotry, and selfishness. It's just not true. Sure, there is a small percentage of Republicans who are motivated by this, but an overwhelming percentage of modern Republicans simply hate what the left is doing (or planning to do), and want to oppose it simply because they believe it's wrong. It has nothing to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything like that.

I've also seen an amazing amount of arrogance from liberals/leftists regarding the belief that only Democrats can be intellectuals. Ike Haxton, one of the many limousine liberals of poker, recently made this claim on Twitter. It's obnoxious, arrogant, and obviously incorrect.

I remember listening to a liberal podcast last year which explored the reasons for the massive political division we're currently experiencing. The first half of the podcast was good, as it fairly and neutrally discussed why the left and right aren't trusting each other, and the factors which went into this occurring. The second half, however, was absolutely clueless. It explored why people become conservative, and the conclusion was that "they just need to be educated on the facts" and "most conservatives are that way because they've been misled by either right wing media or their church". The podcast hosts refused to acknowledge that many conservatives fully understand the "facts", and simply disagree with left wing politics! To them, it was simply a matter of ignorance.

For anyone to claim that either conservatives just “need to be educated on the facts” to adopt a liberal point of view is clearly ignorant of how people vary in there moral interpretation of “facts”. That’s because, as research has shown, liberals and conservatives tend to value different some basic moral values. Here’s a discussion of some research on that matter in a TED talk from over a decade ago.



On the other hand, it is reasonable to say that MANY conservatives — AND also liberals — tend to dismiss or downplay the “facts” that disagree with their worldview.

And funny you should bring up this issue. Because a PERFECT example of a conservative who dismisses an important fact regarding the efficacy of government policy in combating harmful drug abuse is how you reactionarily dismiss the findings of Portugal’s very successful drug decriminalization program to be applicable to the US in reducing drug abuse and related crimes, as well improving the relationships between citizens and the police. And you do so without one shred of evidence in support of the notion that such a program adopted in the US wouldn’t pay great dividends on that front.

[gimmick]

There’s millions of white trash living in trailer parks all over this country. What advantage do they have over you exactly? You hit the nail on the head, involved parents and not being poor are the advantages that matter. White privilege, come on man. Quit acting like white people are trying to keep black people or any other race down.

That's actually very true, and is mostly overlooked in the "inequality" argument.

If you have $, it doesn't matter what your race is. You will have the same advantages as anyone else who has money.

If you are poor, it doesn't matter what your race is. You will have the same disadvantages as anyone else who is poor.

It's basically never overlooked. In all statistical analysis you control for variables. Such as in this random study about Latinos...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...475-6773.13216

...you should find a variation of this text block...

"We then conducted logistic regression models to assess whether reporting discrimination remained significantly associated with race/ethnicity after controlling for the following variables that may be related to variation in experiences of discrimination8, 9, 11, 13, 26, 27: gender, age (18-29, 30-49, 50-64, 65+), household income (<$25 000, $25 000-<$50 000, $50 000-<$75 000, $75 000+), education (less than college degree or college graduate), current health insurance status (used only for the health care question—uninsured, Medicaid insured, non-Medicaid insured), neighborhood racial composition (measured as whether respondents live in a neighborhood that is predominantly their own race/ethnicity or not), metropolitan status (urban, suburban, rural), and region (US Census Bureau 4-region division: Midwest, Northeast, South, West). Among Latino adults only, we estimated logistic regression models to examine variation in experiences of institutional discrimination by socioeconomic status (education and income) and country of birth, while controlling for gender, age, health insurance (for health care outcomes only), neighborhood racial/ethnic composition, and geographic measures. To test the sensitivity of our results to model specifications, we fit alternate models using different measures of discrimination, income, and education. We also tested models interacting age with income, but models showed insignificant results, most likely due to small sample size, and were ultimately dropped from analysis. In addition, among Latino adults only, we ran an ordinal logistic regression model to test characteristics associated with reporting overall institutional discrimination. Because questions were only asked among a randomized half sample of respondents, the scale of this model ran from 0 (no reported discrimination in any domains) to 7 (maximum possible reported discrimination in 7 different institutional domains).

To compensate for known biases in telephone surveys (eg, nonresponse bias) and variations in probability of selection within and across households, sample data were weighted by household size and composition, cell phone/landline use, and demographics (gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, and census region) to reflect the true population distribution of Latino and white adults in the country.28 Other techniques, including random-digit dialing, replicate subsamples, and random selection of a respondent within a household, were used to ensure that the sample is representative. All analyses were conducted using STATA version 15.0 (StataCorp) and all tests accounted for the variance introduced by weighted data."

...in any serious study. Not a single article about the study will ever include it and excerpts about the study will shorten it to some variation of this...

"We used logistic regression to compare the black-white difference in odds of discrimination, and among blacks only to examine variation by socioeconomic status, gender, and neighborhood racial composition."

...from this random study...

https://europepmc.org/article/med/31663124

...they do it because without it they aren't saying anything and separating signal from noise is more or less the entire job of an analyst.

So yes, they have thought about the first counterargument most people come up with.

[Kalam]

In general there is a very poor understanding of what motivates conservatives. It's one thing if you don't agree with the politics of conservatism, or if you feel their approach to governing and/or social issues is incorrect. I can respect that. Not everybody has to agree with me or see things my way.

However, a large percentage of liberals honestly believe that conservatism is motivated by greed, evil, bigotry, and selfishness. It's just not true. Sure, there is a small percentage of Republicans who are motivated by this, but an overwhelming percentage of modern Republicans simply hate what the left is doing (or planning to do), and want to oppose it simply because they believe it's wrong. It has nothing to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything like that.

I've also seen an amazing amount of arrogance from liberals/leftists regarding the belief that only Democrats can be intellectuals. Ike Haxton, one of the many limousine liberals of poker, recently made this claim on Twitter. It's obnoxious, arrogant, and obviously incorrect.

I remember listening to a liberal podcast last year which explored the reasons for the massive political division we're currently experiencing. The first half of the podcast was good, as it fairly and neutrally discussed why the left and right aren't trusting each other, and the factors which went into this occurring. The second half, however, was absolutely clueless. It explored why people become conservative, and the conclusion was that "they just need to be educated on the facts" and "most conservatives are that way because they've been misled by either right wing media or their church". The podcast hosts refused to acknowledge that many conservatives fully understand the "facts", and simply disagree with left wing politics! To them, it was simply a matter of ignorance.

For anyone to claim that either conservatives just “need to be educated on the facts” to adopt a liberal point of view is clearly ignorant of how people vary in there moral interpretation of “facts”. That’s because, as research has shown, liberals and conservatives tend to value different some basic moral values. Here’s a discussion of some research on that matter in a TED talk from over a decade ago.



On the other hand, it is reasonable to say that MANY conservatives — AND also liberals — tend to dismiss or downplay the “facts” that disagree with their worldview.

And funny you should bring up this issue. Because a PERFECT example of a conservative who dismisses an important fact regarding the efficacy of government policy in combating harmful drug abuse is how you reactionarily dismiss the findings of Portugal’s very successful drug decriminalization program to be applicable to the US in reducing drug abuse and related crimes, as well improving the relationships between citizens and the police. And you do so without one shred of evidence in support of the notion that such a program adopted in the US wouldn’t pay great dividends on that front.

Most Democrat run cities in the US have repealed and/or stopped enforcing drug laws, along with other criminal justice "reforms". I think we are getting a pretty good front row seats of how well these programs are panning out. People that belong in jail/mental hospitals for their behavior and actions (most of it which occurs when they are high on mind-altering drugs) are just being dumped into the streets over and over and over, with disastrous consequences for themselves and the communities they live in.

[MumblesBadly]

For anyone to claim that either conservatives just “need to be educated on the facts” to adopt a liberal point of view is clearly ignorant of how people vary in there moral interpretation of “facts”. That’s because, as research has shown, liberals and conservatives tend to value different some basic moral values. Here’s a discussion of some research on that matter in a TED talk from over a decade ago.



On the other hand, it is reasonable to say that MANY conservatives — AND also liberals — tend to dismiss or downplay the “facts” that disagree with their worldview.

And funny you should bring up this issue. Because a PERFECT example of a conservative who dismisses an important fact regarding the efficacy of government policy in combating harmful drug abuse is how you reactionarily dismiss the findings of Portugal’s very successful drug decriminalization program to be applicable to the US in reducing drug abuse and related crimes, as well improving the relationships between citizens and the police. And you do so without one shred of evidence in support of the notion that such a program adopted in the US wouldn’t pay great dividends on that front.

Most Democrat run cities in the US have repealed and/or stopped enforcing drug laws, along with other criminal justice "reforms". I think we are getting a pretty good front row seats of how well these programs are panning out. People that belong in jail/mental hospitals for their behavior and actions (most of it which occurs when they are high on mind-altering drugs) are just being dumped into the streets over and over and over, with disastrous consequences for themselves and the communities they live in.

Selectively not enforcing drug prohibition laws is NOT what Portugal did with its drug decriminalization program. While simultaneously making minor drug possession illegal, Portugal also re directed funding from criminal drug law enforcement to fund drug abuse treatment programs that are 100% funded by the government and available on a voluntary basis. Such programs in the US are only available for the rich and upper middle class who can afford them, as publicly-funded programs are ridiculously underfunded.

Also, police there are tasked with directing drug users to attend drug treatment counseling to get access to such treatment programs, with no criminal liability for users to in admitting drug use or small drug possession. In the US, such admissions do not expose users to criminal prosecution even if local DAs who currently occupy the office selectively do not enforce laws.

[dwai]

Mumbles shut the fuck up nobody gives a fuck about Portugal

just drive your truck and sit with your white guilt

[TheXFactor]

Black kids kept stealing Dan Druff's lunch and lunch money in school.

[Dan Druff]

Aggressive enforcement of drug dealing and decriminalization of recreational possession is the proper way to go.

It's kind of the same approach currently taken with non-regulated online poker sites. Illegal to offer/run/support, legal to use.

But we're getting way off topic here.

[MumblesBadly]

Aggressive enforcement of drug dealing and decriminalization of recreational possession is the proper way to go.

It's kind of the same approach currently taken with non-regulated online poker sites. Illegal to offer/run/support, legal to use.

But we're getting way off topic here.

The bolded part is something I’ve never heard you say before, he who has argued for as long as I can remember how legalizing pot use was going to lead to untold amounts of chaos and an increase in pot use-related deaths.

But let’s get back on topic...