Is this CRT?

[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:

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.

Ok. The US government did though.

[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.

+1

[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:

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.

Fallacy thinking. You benefit today from the actions of your ancestors. The fact that you think you are giving up something by someone else having a seat at the table is admitting you like your white privilege, feel entitled to it and will fight hard to keep it, even as you bleat that you aren’t a racist.

[Anonymous]

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[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?

“Very fine people” ignorantly throw out Republican talking points.

[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.

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.

Well, you're the one espousing a system where the government doles out benefits based on race. The only difference between you and tiki-torch bearing white supremacists is who you want to get those benefits.

[Anonymous]

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[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?

You’re the one who can’t see the parallels between “equality of outcomes” and communism, which to me indicates lack of critical thinking and idiocy.

Show me one society in history that has equality of outcomes. How about the NBA? Wall Street? Are the Dalits in India getting equality of outcome? There are too many platitudes these days. I’m glad the Supreme Court is going to end affirmative action. Let everyone get a fair shot using traditional means like race neutral testing. It’s not cool to be bigoted against Asian college admission.

[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:

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.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

[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:

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.

Fallacy thinking. You benefit today from the actions of your ancestors. The fact that you think you are giving up something by someone else having a seat at the table is admitting you like your white privilege, feel entitled to it and will fight hard to keep it, even as you bleat that you aren’t a racist.

I'm not even sure what table you're talking about.

Non-white Americans have access to the same opportunities (sometimes even more, when it comes to things like college admissions) as white Americans. It's not the government's job to guaranty equality of outcome among people. All the government can do is ban discrimination based on race, which has been done.

[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.

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.

Well, you're the one espousing a system where the government doles out benefits based on race. The only difference between you and tiki-torch bearing white supremacists is who you want to get those benefits.

Fixing oppression isn’t the same thing as oppression.

[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:

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.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

[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.

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.

Well, you're the one espousing a system where the government doles out benefits based on race. The only difference between you and tiki-torch bearing white supremacists is who you want to get those benefits.

Fixing oppression isn’t the same thing as oppression.

If your approach for fixing oppression is more oppression, you're doing it wrong.

[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:

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.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

Even white people who have been gentrifying formerly redlined neighborhoods in places like NE DC?

[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:

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.

Well, you're the one espousing a system where the government doles out benefits based on race. The only difference between you and tiki-torch bearing white supremacists is who you want to get those benefits.

Fixing oppression isn’t the same thing as oppression.

If your approach for fixing oppression is more oppression, you're doing it wrong.

It’s not more oppression.

[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:

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.

Ok. The US government did though.

If you can find anyone alive who has been discriminated against by the government, they should of course have the right of legal redress.

Dead people? Not so much.

At a minimum, everyone living in redline neighborhoods.

Even white people who have been gentrifying formerly redlined neighborhoods in places like NE DC?

We can sort out the details if we can all agree that redlining still affects black people today and should be addressed.

[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:

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.

Well, you're the one espousing a system where the government doles out benefits based on race. The only difference between you and tiki-torch bearing white supremacists is who you want to get those benefits.

Fixing oppression isn’t the same thing as oppression.

If your approach for fixing oppression is more oppression, you're doing it wrong.

It’s not more oppression.

Fine, if your approach for fixing past discrimination is a new round of discrimination, you're still doing it wrong.