Is this CRT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

Sure they do. A black employer refusing to hire a white applicant is illegal discrimination under American law. An Asian apartment owner refusing to rent to a white person is illegal discrimination under American law. Those things might not happen as often as the reverse, but they're still discrimination.

You woke progressives don't get to change the meaning of words just to suit your ideology.

Take your lame strawman arguments and sit TF down.

No, I'm not going to stop posting just because you don't like what I have to say, and can't counter it.

And, do you even know what a strawman argument is? Because what I posted was no such thing.

Absolutely a strawman. Deflecting from centuries of oppression and real discrimination with lame a$$ strawmen.

So, you don't have a counter-argument to the fact that a black employer (for example) refusing to hire a white person based on race is illegal discrimination under American law?

Let’s look at the demographics for Fortune 500 companies. How many have an underrepresentation of white people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

So communism? When in history has their been a perfect equilibrium between all people in all things? Haven’t their always been rich and poor? Remedial learners and advanced learners? I don’t understand “equality of outcomes”, because it just seems like an unachievable platitude being used to end things like race neutral testing for advanced public schools like TJ, to end ap classes, to end gifted and talented, and essentially to water down academic vigor and promote grade inflation merely for the sake of getting better graduation statistics for certain populations. I mean who needs the most qualified engineers, right? And then heaven forbid anyone dare discuss “equity” efforts with any objectivity. No. No you can’t do that. You’ll be branded an outcast for even questioning things and possible counterintuitive impacts.

I mean, as another example, don’t discuss the fact that teachers are getting increasingly burnt out because traditional means of discipline is less enforced (less suspension and expulsion) and day a kid who punches another, or repeatedly disrupts learning in a classroom wil be kept there, or face some “restorative justice” but allowed to remain in the class or their victim in perpetuity. No we can’t talk about the treble effects of that progressive policy.

No, we’re all in this grand experiment together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

You think “rednecks” and “traitor trash” don’t experience discrimination? How about Jewish people? Mormons?

Then you wonder why people are wary of progressives. Many progressives can’t see beyond their own worldview.

The thing about the US is that poor white people living in West Virginia have a lot more in common with poor non-white people than they do with white people living in Arlington or Bethesda. But, progressives start bleating on about how someone living in a trailer in Appalachia has "white privilege", and working class and poor white people look at them (justifiably) like they're a bunch of morons.

It's kind of funny- the people in power in the US have used race to divide lower-income people for decades, which has prevented the creation of strong unions or anything akin to a European-style labor party in the US. Now, progressives seem determined to continue the practice. And they don't even understand how they're hurting their own cause.

Now do household income distributed by race in West Virginia. And report back.

Exactly.

The US’s racist policies caused this massive wealth gap. We need to take steps to fix it.

DP. Is that average or median? Do Bill Gates and Elon Musk skew the numbers and obscure the household income for LMC or LC families?

Median

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

Slavery and Jim Crow were unAmerican first. Correcting those with race-based use of tax dollars is appropriate reparations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Does "fixing that" include non-slave states like California (San Francisco, particularly) paying billions in "reparations" to African Americans who haven't experienced slavery in 150 years? And of course, where are these "reparations" coming from? Rich white people who never owned slaves.

Systemic racism didn’t end with the civil war.

CA is taking steps to fix wrongs.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/bruces-beach-los-angeles-seized-beachfront-property-returned-black-family/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Does "fixing that" include non-slave states like California (San Francisco, particularly) paying billions in "reparations" to African Americans who haven't experienced slavery in 150 years? And of course, where are these "reparations" coming from? Rich white people who never owned slaves.

What about recent Nigerian immigrants, who are one of the richest ethnic groups in the US? Should they benefit from any sort of racially-based reparations scheme? How long do your ancestors have to have been in this country to qualify?

There are tons of similar reasons why a race-based reparations scheme is dead in the water.

If progressives want to reduce poverty in the US, they'd be much better off focusing on class, rather than race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Does "fixing that" include non-slave states like California (San Francisco, particularly) paying billions in "reparations" to African Americans who haven't experienced slavery in 150 years? And of course, where are these "reparations" coming from? Rich white people who never owned slaves.

CA is 40% Latino and 15% Asian. Both these groups and Native Americans were horribly discriminated against yet now they are going to be the people paying for reparations? CA is only 35% white. Why aren’t their reparations for Native Americans first?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

You think “rednecks” and “traitor trash” don’t experience discrimination? How about Jewish people? Mormons?

Then you wonder why people are wary of progressives. Many progressives can’t see beyond their own worldview.

The thing about the US is that poor white people living in West Virginia have a lot more in common with poor non-white people than they do with white people living in Arlington or Bethesda. But, progressives start bleating on about how someone living in a trailer in Appalachia has "white privilege", and working class and poor white people look at them (justifiably) like they're a bunch of morons.

It's kind of funny- the people in power in the US have used race to divide lower-income people for decades, which has prevented the creation of strong unions or anything akin to a European-style labor party in the US. Now, progressives seem determined to continue the practice. And they don't even understand how they're hurting their own cause.

Now do household income distributed by race in West Virginia. And report back.

Exactly.

The US’s racist policies caused this massive wealth gap. We need to take steps to fix it.

DP. Is that average or median? Do Bill Gates and Elon Musk skew the numbers and obscure the household income for LMC or LC families?

If you read the chart it clearly says median.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

Slavery and Jim Crow were unAmerican first. Correcting those with race-based use of tax dollars is appropriate reparations.

Slavery and Jim Crow laws were gotten rid of decades ago. In the former case, at a high cost of American lives and money.

You're not going to get Americans on-board with a race-based system of reparations. If progressives push that too hard, it's going to lead to an even more divided country, political suicide for the Democratic party, and potentially violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Does "fixing that" include non-slave states like California (San Francisco, particularly) paying billions in "reparations" to African Americans who haven't experienced slavery in 150 years? And of course, where are these "reparations" coming from? Rich white people who never owned slaves.

What about recent Nigerian immigrants, who are one of the richest ethnic groups in the US? Should they benefit from any sort of racially-based reparations scheme? How long do your ancestors have to have been in this country to qualify?

There are tons of similar reasons why a race-based reparations scheme is dead in the water.

If progressives want to reduce poverty in the US, they'd be much better off focusing on class, rather than race.

There are multiple factors and we can address each. I fully support programs to help all low-income people.

I also support programs to support ADOS and victims of Jim Crow/redlining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

So communism? When in history has their been a perfect equilibrium between all people in all things? Haven’t their always been rich and poor? Remedial learners and advanced learners? I don’t understand “equality of outcomes”, because it just seems like an unachievable platitude being used to end things like race neutral testing for advanced public schools like TJ, to end ap classes, to end gifted and talented, and essentially to water down academic vigor and promote grade inflation merely for the sake of getting better graduation statistics for certain populations. I mean who needs the most qualified engineers, right? And then heaven forbid anyone dare discuss “equity” efforts with any objectivity. No. No you can’t do that. You’ll be branded an outcast for even questioning things and possible counterintuitive impacts.

I mean, as another example, don’t discuss the fact that teachers are getting increasingly burnt out because traditional means of discipline is less enforced (less suspension and expulsion) and day a kid who punches another, or repeatedly disrupts learning in a classroom wil be kept there, or face some “restorative justice” but allowed to remain in the class or their victim in perpetuity. No we can’t talk about the treble effects of that progressive policy.

No, we’re all in this grand experiment together.

No, not communism. No one is suggesting government own the means of production. Jesus. Were you born stupid or are you just poorly educated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

The US has systemically oppressed the life, liberty, and happiness of many people because of the color of their skin.

That’s unAmerican. We need to fix it as best as we can.

Go ahead and try to enact racially-based policies to redress past discrimination, and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, we know the “very fine” people will do more than bring their tiki torches.

Every American has a duty to fight against the racially-based laws you want to enact, just like every American had a duty to fight against slavery or segregation.

Just be honest that you support discrimination, as long as it's discrimination against people you don't like.

Asking white people to give others a seat at the table is not discrimination against white people, no matter how much you resent sharing.

I've never taken anything from other people, so I don't owe them anything of mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

Slavery and Jim Crow were unAmerican first. Correcting those with race-based use of tax dollars is appropriate reparations.

Slavery and Jim Crow laws were gotten rid of decades ago. In the former case, at a high cost of American lives and money.

You're not going to get Americans on-board with a race-based system of reparations. If progressives push that too hard, it's going to lead to an even more divided country, political suicide for the Democratic party, and potentially violence.

Yes, those “very fine” people will certainly continue to terrorize our country fighting racial equality. Their hate knows no bounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality [b]seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

You don’t like paying taxes? Find a new country.

I'm fine with paying taxes, and don't have an issue with programs to reduce poverty.

I'm not okay with racially-based uses of tax dollars. Everyone should consider that un-American.

Slavery and Jim Crow were unAmerican first. Correcting those with race-based use of tax dollars is appropriate reparations.

Slavery and Jim Crow laws were gotten rid of decades ago. In the former case, at a high cost of American lives and money.

You're not going to get Americans on-board with a race-based system of reparations. If progressives push that too hard, it's going to lead to an even more divided country, political suicide for the Democratic party, and potentially violence.

And yet, you still have politicians of a certain party actively pursuing Jim Crow like policies including the disenfranchisement of large swaths of black voters, limiting health care including abortion access in communities that serve people of color.