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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans believe in merit and equality. That success and wealth can be achieved by anyone willing to work hard and seize opportunity. In creating a country where people can make a better life for themselves and their families.

Many Americans have seen firsthand their own families have social and economic mobility over the generations, both to the upside and the downside, depending on choices and circumstances.

There's a lot of evidence that a strong social safety net can help social mobility. Social mobility is easier in the Nordic countries, for example, than it is in the US. But, racial-based policies espoused by supporters of CRT that ignore lower-income white people make strengthening the social safety net impossible in this country, because race-based policy is so divisive to white supremacists.

FIFY

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not CRT

Stop trying to make an issue when there is none


VA on the other hand taking MLK and Obama out of history WTF?

Source?

“At Thursday's meeting, Balow said the initial deletion of references to Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth were unintentional errors that had been corrected. And she apologized for language describing Indigenous people as "America's first immigrants" — a rewrite that members of Virginia tribes who spoke Thursday called deeply offensive.”
https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2022/11/18/youngkin-history-virginia-standards

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.

What difference does it make that a poor white person in a trailer in West Virginia is slightly better off than a poor black person in a trailer?

the poor white peson in a trailer can take a shower, wash up real nice and come to Bethesda and if Terry are up to it.. make place for tehmesleves here and then talk about how far they have come.. the poor black person can try to do the sam but more often will end up shot or incarcerated and will be given a smaller lice of the pie and less leeway. Look at MLK- pppl are like he wa s serial cheater blah di blah.. but Thomas Jefferson was a rapist who like to sleep with a25 year old girl and sold his own children ..he still wa s genius. A white person will always have more leeway given f they want to change their situation than a POC, a white guy can be alittel drunk and spectacularly collapse once a black person can never ever even be a little bit tipsy in the same situation. Bit teary are bot human a nd subject to the same pressures and means of relieving those pressures, more is expected from the black man so he can receive less.

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.

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?

sure- but you should be paid the same as the guy who works the same hours as you. There are some industries where this is true and some where it is not. Also, maybe you choose to work 70% less or chose a profession that was not as in demand/equally renumarative but a lot of women and people of color are forced into these choices not b/c of aptitude but b/c there is a system in place that uses race and gender as. proxy for caste.

Anonymous wrote:Americans believe in merit and equality. That success and wealth can be achieved by anyone willing to work hard and seize opportunity. In creating a country where people can make a better life for themselves and their families.

Many Americans have seen firsthand their own families have social and economic mobility over the generations, both to the upside and the downside, depending on choices and circumstances.

There's a lot of evidence that a strong social safety net can help social mobility. Social mobility is easier in the Nordic countries, for example, than it is in the US. But, racial-based policies espoused by supporters of CRT that ignore lower-income white people make strengthening the social safety net impossible in this country, because race-based policy is so divisive to decent Americans.

What a nonsense sentence. What are they trying to say? Just use regular language. Intersectionality?? WTH

Americans believe in merit and equality. That success and wealth can be achieved by anyone willing to work hard and seize opportunity. In creating a country where people can make a better life for themselves and their families.

Many Americans have seen firsthand their own families have social and economic mobility over the generations, both to the upside and the downside, depending on choices and circumstances.

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.

^ because they have fewer barriers

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.

What difference does it make that a poor white person in a trailer in West Virginia is slightly better off than a poor black person in a trailer?

Poor white people have better success with upward mobility than poor black people.

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.

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.

What difference does it make that a poor white person in a trailer in West Virginia is slightly better off than a poor black person in a trailer?

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.

I don't think you understand "intersectionality."