As for the CRT stuff, I know there are some crazies and overreactions. I’m not for banning per se, but I am against giving it a preferred platform in education. I think this is actually what some of these “bannings” are; not that you can’t think it or read about it, just that government paid educators are forbidden for presenting it as some kind of truth. CRT (at least from the definition I’m using) is philosophy. Bad philosophy. At a minimum, it is unsettled and therefor unsuitable to be taught as a curriculum. It can be taught as something that exists but then it needs to be given the treatment any such philosophy would get and I doubt e.g. High School educators have the background to even try that.
Right but tourists getting killed because they cycled through regions where ISIS was active does not represent the middle east as a whole… That’s as if tourists were killed in America by a drug cartel and you took that as a representation of all of America.
As for the CRT stuff, I know there are some crazies and overreactions.
Those “crazies” are generally politicians who are trying to use the fear of “CRT” to create laws banning the topic from being discussed at schools.
I think this is actually what some of these “bannings” are; not that you can’t think it or read about it, just that government paid educators are forbidden for presenting it as some kind of truth.
That’s how the politicians try to present it as of course. But the problem is that the way they use and classify “CRT”, it can mean virtually anything connected to race, which makes such laws dangerous.
Those “crazies” are generally politicians who are trying to use the fear of “CRT” to create laws banning the topic from being discussed at schools.
Ah but now you’ve changed what we’re discussing. “Banning being discussed at schools” is not what anyone is doing. It’s being banned from being taught at schools. And both of those things are not remotely the same as “banning CRT”. Banning schools from using their position of authority over children to indoctrinate them on garbage philosophy is a reasonable position. Banning books from general consumption is not and I’m not aware of anyone doing that.
And, yes, scope creep is certainly a dangerous issue when it comes to the government. So I take this to mean you’re for smaller government? :)
“Banning being discussed at schools” is not what anyone is doing.
Yes, that seems to be the goal of the politicians pushing the anti-CRT narrative.
It’s being banned from being taught at schools.
Because of the incredibly vague definition of “CRT”, it often leads to teachers just staying away from any topic that could in any way be seen as “CRT”. Discussing “controversial” topics can leave a teacher vulnerable for accusations by students and most teachers don’t want to get in trouble, so they play it safe and stay away from the topic altogether.
Banning schools from using their position of authority over children to indoctrinate them on garbage philosophy is a reasonable position.
Isn’t that a bit naive? Of course politicians always claim that their language and thought policing is reasonable and use justifications such as “we just want to protect the children” or “it’s a matter of national security”…
So I take this to mean you’re for smaller government?
Depends on what you mean with “smaller government”. In practice, “smaller government” often just means that big corporations get to do whatever they want. But yes, certainly in terms of language/thought policing, censorship and how much power politicians should have, I am on the side of “smaller government”.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/634373403/d-c-couple-killed-in-tajikistan-attack-were-biking-around-the-world-together
As for the CRT stuff, I know there are some crazies and overreactions. I’m not for banning per se, but I am against giving it a preferred platform in education. I think this is actually what some of these “bannings” are; not that you can’t think it or read about it, just that government paid educators are forbidden for presenting it as some kind of truth. CRT (at least from the definition I’m using) is philosophy. Bad philosophy. At a minimum, it is unsettled and therefor unsuitable to be taught as a curriculum. It can be taught as something that exists but then it needs to be given the treatment any such philosophy would get and I doubt e.g. High School educators have the background to even try that.
Right but tourists getting killed because they cycled through regions where ISIS was active does not represent the middle east as a whole… That’s as if tourists were killed in America by a drug cartel and you took that as a representation of all of America.
Those “crazies” are generally politicians who are trying to use the fear of “CRT” to create laws banning the topic from being discussed at schools.
That’s how the politicians try to present it as of course. But the problem is that the way they use and classify “CRT”, it can mean virtually anything connected to race, which makes such laws dangerous.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2021/09/29/critical-race-theory-bans-are-expanding-to-cover-broad-collection-of-issues/
Ah but now you’ve changed what we’re discussing. “Banning being discussed at schools” is not what anyone is doing. It’s being banned from being taught at schools. And both of those things are not remotely the same as “banning CRT”. Banning schools from using their position of authority over children to indoctrinate them on garbage philosophy is a reasonable position. Banning books from general consumption is not and I’m not aware of anyone doing that.
And, yes, scope creep is certainly a dangerous issue when it comes to the government. So I take this to mean you’re for smaller government? :)
Yes, that seems to be the goal of the politicians pushing the anti-CRT narrative.
Because of the incredibly vague definition of “CRT”, it often leads to teachers just staying away from any topic that could in any way be seen as “CRT”. Discussing “controversial” topics can leave a teacher vulnerable for accusations by students and most teachers don’t want to get in trouble, so they play it safe and stay away from the topic altogether.
Isn’t that a bit naive? Of course politicians always claim that their language and thought policing is reasonable and use justifications such as “we just want to protect the children” or “it’s a matter of national security”…
Depends on what you mean with “smaller government”. In practice, “smaller government” often just means that big corporations get to do whatever they want. But yes, certainly in terms of language/thought policing, censorship and how much power politicians should have, I am on the side of “smaller government”.