Indiana Senate Bill 167: Holy crap, what a mess.
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
It's been the explanation every time I've seen. School districts are adding these books to the curriculum, putting up new sections in libraries, inviting authors to give talks all with deliberate focus on diversity and representation. That's not a bad thing, but it is change, and it's not a surprise to find more controversy about the new material than about the same reading lists that have been used for decades. Any time you introduce a bunch of new literature to schools, you stir up controversy. It's not a new phenomenon, nor necessarily a bad one, as we should want the things we teach children to stand up against criticism.
Some of it is based in CRT, and that does justify the criticism, though frankly a lot of other reasonable things are being caught as collateral damage. But that's ok, because every time it's a temporary freeze to vet materials, and the things that deserve to be there will be back in the curriculum, and the CRT wont.
Proof is not a reasonable standard in argument.
Yeah.... that's not going to happen. Anything with a whiff of diversity is the problem. CRT is just the battle cry to gain action
I liked the part where it's in complete contradiction to claims made in this thread.
You're being lied to about what's actually happening. As previously explained, I'm like 5 miles away from one of these controversies. I can tell you what happened here. Everything you know of what's happening is coming to you through a political filter designed to make you resent Republicans.
You know the other side would say something similar to anyone hyperventilating about CRT right? And that those Republican spread lies are more easily demonstrated?
Then why is it I end up resentful of Republicans when I listen to their own arguments with their own words and deeds?
You don't appreciate how easily demonstrated the Democratic spread lies are, I think. They're still claiming that Texas passed a bill banning MLK from the school curriculum... because they passed a bill that mandated curriculum about the civil rights movement but made it not explicitly name MLK as required reading.
Most people on both side are trying to do what they genuinely think best for the children and the country. Some bad actors are trying to demonize their opponents using an issue that people care deeply about. Don't be the latter.
You could be only aware of sleazy politicians and not paying attention to anyone else, not listening to people directly, not understanding what they're saying, lacking in human empathy, or any combination of those. If you listen to people genuinely trying to do what's right and resent them for it, that's your problem, not theirs.
But how many Republicans are genuinely trying to do what's right? Because voter suppression by definition isn't what's right in a democracy. Trying to spread propaganda about how Trump secretly won the election is not doing what is right, forbidding workers to drink water on the job is not doing what is right. A lot of time cruelty seems to be the point.
I find that I can fully understand that most of these morons believe that what they are doing is what's right.
Every parent forcing their kid into conversion therapy thought what they were doing was right. I'm still gonna fucking resent them, fuck's sake. You can't tell me you don't resent marxists/communists/scarewords/socialists even though they genuinely think that they doing the right thing.
Coward's argument. Everybody believes they're doing the right thing
Last edited:
Well....almost everyone. I think there are exceptions where people are under no illusions what they are.
The Trump clan for instance probably knows that they're just in it to enrich themselves at the state's expense. Trump knows he's just doing it to satisfy his freed and vanity. Likewise Brexiteers probably know that Brexit is mostly there to further there own career and that it has no tangible advantage for Britain. And Putin and his inner circle probably aren't unaware that they're a bunch of robber barons pillaging Russia.
I'd also throw the likes of Desantis and Cruz in there. Both received the best educations (graduating with honors) money can buy and went on to successful law careers before going full politician. You don't get to be a Naval SpecOps JAG-advisor or successfully argue cases before the USSC if you're an idiot. The out-of-this-world level bullshit they spout has nothing to do with being true believers; it's just a way to have power and wealth by pandering to the morons (and immoral grifters) of the US conservative base.
I can tell you that. You can see a difference here in how I treat most of the communists/socialist/etc on this site and that one that denies genocides and runs defense for the CCP. I don't resent all communists. I disagree with their viewpoints, but the only communists I resent are the ones that are knowingly defending evil.
The evidence suggests otherwise, as the same officials pulling back the books are typically the ones who recommended them to children in the first place.
Would you care to throw more propaganda at the wall? Trying to see what sticks?
Lets put it this way. If a group makes an electoral map that a certified judge describes as targeting minority voting with surgical precision should we consider this an accident? Should we assume this map had been made with the best of intentions?
Should we assume that Republican Senators genuinely believe Trump's claims about a stolen election even if they say stuff behind closed doors like ''What's the worst thing that can happen if we indulge the president for a bit?''. Should we assume they have perfectly good reasons for promoting extremely damaging lies that they know not to be true?
And if Republican push to deprive workers of protection bills that allow them to drink water should we then blindly assume that they have no plans on forbidden them from drinking water, even if they push to grant themselves the power to do it?
That's a lot of assumptions you're asking us to make.
Last edited:
No. That's them thinking they're doing the right thing. See only the rich can really help the economy, so all that is beneficial to everyone else
Have you considered that the 'white demographic' has filled the libraries for a long time at the expense of everyone else.
a) Classic literature being in libraries is not at the expense of non-whites.
b) That's not relevant. Nobody is saying there should be fewer non-white authors.
a) It might not be deliberate. If people live in segregated geographies, it very likely takes a deliberate effort to not "gerrymander" them. Democratic voters packing into congested urban areas does more to crack and pack than anyone could possibly do by just drawing the lines. A certified judge is not guaranteed to recognize this.
b) You shouldn't assume anything was done with the best intentions, but you should not just assume anything is done with the worst intentions. "You shouldn't resent people doing what they genuinely think if right" ... "but what if I'm assuming that they're a douchebag?"
To make an actual statement, I highly doubt anyone is targeting racial demographics with surgical precision. There are tons of correlating variables here (you know, the "people live in cities" joke), and gerrymandering is rarely done for broader purposes than protecting specific, individual candidates.
It's painfully ironic that your first example is claiming Republicans use underhanded means to influence elections, and your second example is that claiming the Democrats used underhanded means is "promoting extremely damaging lies".
Republicans are not pushing to deprive workers of protection bills that allow them to drink water. Republicans in Texas have a bill that would prevent localities from implementing employment policies that contradict State or Federal policies. I personally disagree with that suggestion, but the people who have characterized this as denying people water have seemed to forgotten that State and Federal policies also require people to have access to water on demand. Like, why do you buy this crap so easily? It's such a disingenuous take.
Ultimately we know that Trump's claims about he secretly won the election were a bunch of gibberish. No judge has acknowledged that there was a case to be had, no investigation has concluded that Biden magically managed to convince Republican election officials to somehow swing the vote in his favor. Meanwhile its a well established fact that the Republicans fiercely engage in gerrymandering and voter suppression, with a judges directly calling them out on it.
Kinda curious how these um....''accidents'' then go on to conviniently obstruct Democratic voters and minorities while seemingly not doing the same to Republican voters. If you doubt that anyone is targeting racial demographics then you're probably in the minority.
And drinking water is against state or federal policies? If we pretend that this is true then its rather telling that Republicans put more effort in banning those breaks for ''being against federal policies'' than they do trying to amend those policies to allow people their water breaks. Or could ''drinking water being against state or federal polices'' perhaps be a pretext, a technicality that they cling to a technicality in order to ban those breaks so they don't intrude on corporate profit?