Racism, Genderism and Marxism
Think of the worst thing you can call a human being?
It really doesn't take much thought. All you have to do is go to any social media platform and look at what some progressives choose to call people either directly or by indirect methods, what we at NT would call skirting or as the rabid indoctrinated extremists would describe as calling someone out for what they consider to be offensive. Even for pointing to top national crime statistics could get you called "racist" or not qualifying a statement via saying "not all" could lead to the endless smearing.
So how did some of the most immoral people on the planet get to label millions of Americans in such vulgar misnomers? The answer lies with American universities, where so many bad idea's come from. About 60 years ago Conservative intellectuals allowed it all to happen. Progressives were able to institutionalize their educational activism and the classroom through a tenured and unionized legion of teachers, where like-minded instructors armed with ideologically driven curriculum (like CRT) populate all levels of educational institutions, often choosing their successors and are protected from scrutiny or opposing ideas. This is central to all of the division within the country.
The late Derrick Bell, a Harvard Law Professor and race obsessed Marxist is credited by some as the founder of CRT. Bell wrote "It is our hope that scholarly resistance will lay the groundwork for wide-scale resistance." You see, while Lenin used class warfare, Bell used race to fulfill his desire for reparations and his Marxist goals. The results of such indoctrination have led to the story-telling approach to history of Nikole Hannah-Jones and the blatant anti-White racism of Ibram X. Kendi.
The democratic party is now driven by the woke left. The ideology they embrace is driven by the idea that minority groups are discriminated against based on their racial, gender, ethnicity, etc, etc, etc. Many of the groups they claim to defend are of their own making and new ones are constantly being created. The "Trans-Gender" group is a prime example. Young children don't naturally think about changing gender. That requires a certain kind of teacher to plant such a seed in an impressionable young mind.
Americans are now, finally aware of all this. We can thank the Teacher's Union for demanding that children learn remotely from home. That's when American parents got a good look at what was going on. We will need community committees throughout America comprised of concerned parents to keep an eye on what is being taught. We will need good Governors to prohibit CRT and gender studies from being taught in public schools. Most of all we will need a President who will deny federal funding to Universities teaching Marxist ideology.
Tags
Who is online
428 visitors
Hopefully it is the beginning of a new day.
Good read Vic. Thanks for posting.
It had to be said!
Indeed it did…
Nope, judging from the content of your seed, SSDD.
Proof of that is your continued mischaracterization of prior events and your incessant posts that illustrate a victim complex.
How many seeds does this make now Vic? Two METAs that you deleted whining being 'called a racist', even though anyone reviewing the seed can see for themselves THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Another META calling out moderators for following the CoC. A plethora of comments, scatted hither and yon, whining about the same bullshit.
Now you're hear trying to pretend that there has been 'endless smearing'.
Surely that victim card must be worn out by now.
Clap trap.
Perhaps some day you will explain to me WTF you have against college education.
Prove that Derrick Bell was a Marxist and advocated for reparations Vic. I'll wait.
Oh and PLEASE, don't post links to someone else's interpretation of Bell's position. QUOTE Bell. Bell's posits are well documented so it shouldn't take you long to support your slanderous claims.
Yes Vic, I know your posit is that universities are all about indoctrination.
You seem of the opinion that once someone crosses the thresh hold of an American University, they become a 'rabid indoctrinated extremist'. That characterizes about 94 MILLION Americans, the vast majority of whom are white.
Political demographics being what they are, those college educated Americans can't possibly come to their own conclusions to vote Democratic, so they MUST be indoctrinated right? Just like all those AA and Latinos who vote Democratic. None of those poor indoctrinated puppets can think for themselves.
Ya, that's the ticket Vic.
So you are either claiming that minority groups are NOT being discriminated against or that ARE being discriminated against but NOT for the reasons you cited.
Which is it Vic?
So it's your posit that being 'Transgendered' was created by the Democratic party.
That's utterly ridiculous Vic.
BTFW Vic, I encourage you to chat with some of our NA members here about the history of 'Two-Spirit' people in their culture. Be sure to ask them how the Democratic Party indoctrinated them even before Europeans came to North America.
Do you seriously think that there are no Transgendered people in other countries Vic?
No Vic, what children naturally do is understand that they not the same as their classmates and look for answers for why that is. Even in your dystopian world, parents are the ones responsible for 'impressionable young minds'. I have NEVER heard of a person choosing to transition because their 3rd grade teacher planted that 'seed'.
Again, you hang your hat on the posit that there is mass indoctrination in this country and of course, it's all to create 'rabid extremists' on the left.
Your posit would be laughable it weren't so fucking sad.
The indoctrination fantasies illustrated in your seed are delusional Vic.
EMPATHICALLY!
What happened to your education program Vic?
You claim to be here to teach members yet when asked about your seed, you ignore them.
It seems that you want 'our readers' to accept your proclamations as fact. That looks a lot like the type of indoctrination that you pretend to decry.
But hey, I suppose you and yours thinks it's all good because it's done to bolster the 'rabid extremists' on the right.
And in case you haven't got the word, people are no longer allowed to converse with those who are ignoring them.
Go figure?
Your reply to my comment is irrelevant since you obviously do NOT have me on ignore, do you Vic?
So why haven't you replied to my questions?
Where is your proof that Prof. Derrick Bell was a Marxist who advocated for reparations?
You decry what you falsely perceive as 'endless smearing' while posting slanderous statements about Prof. Bell that you refuse to substantiate.
It drips with hypocrisy.
A real ignore...like actually pushing the button to ignore someone. You have a problem with making people stop replying to those that are on ignore? I guess you love slap fights
Show me the rule
ask Perrie
I just go by the Coc and clearly posted rules.
It's no problem. I'm sorry I brought it up.
Anyone who reads your META know that is false.
Next time, instead of grasping at straws to deflect, why not actually address me comment Vic?
And after seeing the lefts reaction to parents asking questions, it's apparent the left and their mental problems are the problem.
They put on their brown shirts, didn't they?
They have to go!
As if rabid indoctrinated extremists, the most immoral people on the planet, Derrick Bell, a tenured and unionized legion of teachers and the Democratic Party weren't enough, now we have to add 'the left and their mental problems' to the long list of those responsible for the woes of the right.
Y'all are hilarious.
I listened to a sizeable part of Stamped From The Beginning , which is a comprehensive history of racism in America, on audiobook. There is nothing in there that should frighten people of open minds and good will.
Stamped From The Beginning won the National Book Award for non -fiction. I'm not going to try and judge whether every sentence in it is accurate, but it is a heavily resourced work of immense scholarship. What is Kendi's supposed crime? He is telling white America what many of them don't want to hear, precisely because they know it represents an unwanted truth.
As America inexorably becomes more multi-cultural, white racism can no longer expect to win, and won't. Why not try to do better?
And lies about Russia/collusion won Pulitzer prizes. The left is doing the dealing.
Everything you believe about Trump's innocence is wrong.
Whatever the extent was of Trump's collusion with Russians in 2016, or not, it wasnt because Trump wasnt open to it. For one thing he publicly asked for Russian help against Clinton. For another, he did the same thing 4 years later when he asked Ukraine to help him win the 2020 election.
If you need a ton of bricks to fall on you before you see reality, that is your problem.
Watch out for that ton of bricks come November.
I see you still haven't moved on from that piece of fiction. Since you want to rehash it, exactly what part of the USC is that a crime? Feel free to provide the link.
Right wingers like yourself have lashed themselves to the idea that Trump hasnt broken any laws. That is highly debatable but not remotely the most important point. For YEARS Trump has broken the unwritten laws of human decency. He is a provable pathological liar. This is not even debatable, but morons on the right try to reduce tens of thousands of lies and misrepresentations by Trump to "a few mean tweets".
So you CAN'T provide me that link. Not that you could.
And left wingers like yourself blather on and on that he did with out any evidence.
So it's down to your hurt feelings. Sorry, that's something for YOU to deal with. Not me.
As is every politician the world over. But you are hyper-focused on Trump because....oh, that's right, your feelings. The tweets are the ONLY tangible thing you have to be upset over. I will admit that the freak out by the left over Trumps tweets was hilarious.
I think your assumption that all those that support Trump support EVERYTHING he's done. We don't. We support on varying levels of what he did but never 100%. He's done things that nobody approved of. He also accomplished things that was only lip service for decades or though unattainable.
But, we also realize it's 2022. Trump is no longer in office and there is a new administration. The left cheered that. But the left refuses to move on with the rest of us. Does focusing on Trump prevent you from acknowledging the travesty that is in the WH?
Same thing can be said of Adam Schiff. Where's your outrage at him? Not that this absolves Trump but, rather, it seems hypocritical to single out Trump when there's so many like him on the Dem side of the isle.
what a ridiculous comment
THE SAME DAY as Trump asked Russia to "find" her emails Russians attempted to hack into her computer system.
You blathering nonsense doesnt change anything.
True regardless if you acknowledge it or not.
i told you no more stupid questions
That's bullshit John. When he made that comment, Hillary's hard drive was in a locked closet at the FBI headquarters.
How can you hack into something that is not even plugged in.
OMG ! Do you seriously think her emails only exist on that hard drive ?
Sure do. It was a hidden server that hard drive was connected to in her home. Where else would she keep them?
Some of them, yes.
Keep them ? You think no one else kept them ?
Reminds me of my sister sending me a nasty text she later regretted. She thought since she deleted it from her phone that it was gone and didn't exist anywhere. Really stupid.
You know that somehow ?
Besides if they were emails then they were sent somewhere, no ?
Any email sent to others addresses on the server. Like Huma Abedin
If you were hiding a server and still receive classified information to your home, would you let anyone else "keep them"?
To answer your question to Sean, from what has been published, most of the emails she had on her computer were received, mainly from Huma and other confidential aides, not sent. Those emails were a part of the 30,000 missing emails. Even Obama was busted for sending classified emails to that server, then claiming he did not know it existed. Many of those emails that Hiuma that were classified were found on Weiner's laptop, used by Huma.
Hilary got away with a lot. Republicans then were a bunch of woosies that did not pursue charges.
Glad I could help.
Then they don't exist only on that hard drive.
bugsy claims they only exist on that hard drive, that isn't plugged in.
You're kidding right Jeremy?
Trump's plethora of public embarrassments are quite tangible and well documented. As are the thousands of lies that he told the American public and the rest of the world.
Helsinki is the ultimate example of both.
Then there is the phone call to the President of Ukraine. You know, that guy fighting for his life and his country right now.
Add that to he and his minions threatened the lives and eviscerated the careers of multiple patriot Americans.
Oh and his lies to the American people about a deadly pandemic and his utter incompetence. Ya, that's something to be upset over. Yet it isn't just about 'feelings', it's supported by empirical fact.
Then there is the gaslighting of his most ardent supporters and the fact that he used them as a weapon against his own VP and our seat of government.
That's just a summary Jeremy. Everyone here knows that list and could add much more.
Trying to dismiss all of that [and so much more] by pretending that it's just about 'mean tweets' is disingenuous and obtuse.
But hey Jeremy, you go right ahead and laugh it up.
Now for your list. Tell me what Trump accomplished that qualify under your above standard Jeremy.
Still waiting...
Ever hear of 'the cloud' bugsy?
How about a thumb drive?
Oh and did you know that networked computers can share email storage too.
Oh and BTFW, Russia DID try to hack the Clinton just hours after Trump asked them to.
"Then" bugsy? You know that Trump's DOJ was in charge 'then' right?
You are beyond help. Occasionally people ask me "why are you so nasty to the right wingers?" ---- the answer is because they deserve it.
Good job Dulay.
Donald Trump was 'bout to "accomplish" something on January 6, 2021 that would have taken this, "democracy if you can keep it" for himself and make all his other accomplishment go bye-bye as he, in one effort, intended to squash dissent from anybody. We would have flipped everything you say you love about this country on its head as it fell down the democracy 'ladder' to an authoritarian way of life-in the U.S.A. World War II veterans would have 'rolled' in their eternal states.
(Probably all our dead veterans would request 'special pleading' of Heaven to return to this 'place' to set matters to 'right' once again!)
You typed all that just to say Trump hurt your feelings? Seems like a waste of time.
And after, what, 18 months into another partisan investigation and what do we have. Democrats and the left STILL crying over something they have no proof of. Again.
Evidently you dont know the meaning of the word proof.
Then you'll have no problem providing some. Not that I'm going to wait.
No Jeremy, I posted my comment to refute your claim:
As members can see for themselves, much of what I cited isn't about 'feelings', it's about Trump's unethical actions and/or incompetence.
The only waste of my time was waiting for a cogent, good faith reply.
Oh and BTFW Jeremy, the entire first paragraph of this seed is all about 'hurt feelings' and the unfounded perception of 'endless smearing' by the author. I don't see you characterizing it as a waste of time.
That illustrates the hypocrisy of comments like yours.
As members can see, you deflected and failed to address any of the questions I asked, nor did you support any of the claims you posted.
Instead, perhaps you should have followed your own advice:
Never has, never does, never will.
Did Larry Bemiss say that? Oh boy, it must be true!
That's all he and fellow trumpturd supporters appear to have, along with projection, deflection, and denial. It's so tiresome and more productive to bash your head against the wall.
Thank you for providing the truth and facts, as usual.
Agreed. He/she always hands them their asses.
I don't like to brag, thanks.
Wow Vic, that's some childish shit right there...
Systemic white racism doesn't exist no matter how much the radical left promotes it. Very few buy the lies you're trying to sell.
I would argue it does.
Persistent inequalities in income and wealth can all be traced back to persistent inequalities in student achievements in schools, where the bigotry of low expectation is so pervasive as to defy description.
However no leftist wants to talk about that, because solving that problem takes actual work for many years instead of simply spending somebody else's money so they can feel better.
How dare you! You wrote:
"Persistent inequalities in income and wealth can all be traced back to persistent inequalities in student achievements in schools, where the bigotry of low expectation is so pervasive as to defy description."
Did you just literally state how dare he write something so offensive when you don't even know what he was talking about? What is that? Preemptive indignance?
Why don't you answer for him since you dare to use the 'gap' as intercession. Moreover, the 'dare' in question is more about the sum of the 'messaging' and not the quote itself. I have a sense of what the commenter means, but am reasonable to allow him 'space' to elaborate. Hope that last helps!
Quite easily.
Which part, specifically, is confusing?
Have you heard the phrase "the wealth gap"? Have you heard about income and wealth inequality between white families and black ones? Do you understand that black families earn less and have less wealth than white families, statistically speaking? There is actually quite a lot of research on the subject.
Are you aware of the well-established multi-decade statistical gap between the test scores of white students and black students?
Do you imagine that those two are not related?
The 'bigotry of low expectation' is a well-established phrase that has been used for decades.
It is defined as "the practice of expecting less from members of a disadvantaged group and thus implicitly encouraging those people not to reach their full potential."
In many public schools in America, black students are more likely to be steered into less challenging courses, more likely to have modified or reduced work requirements, and more likely to be limited to mastery of minimum skills. The schools are afraid of their dropout rates climbing, so they keep lowering the requirements until it's almost impossible not to graduate from HS.
Once those kids graduate, they are utterly unprepared to compete academically with kids who have been challenged during their HS years.
(3) answers: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. They are related.
So, you have detailed the long-running and continuous problem of White society against minorities: What is the solution you offer:
1. School Choice?
2. Ending Public schools?
3. Better financing of public schools?
The phrase: "The soft bigotry of low expectations" is well-established (for decades). Yes, it's petty to point this out in this manner, but encompassing also.
You can't fix anything with any one of those choices.
Ending public schools is craziness.
Any real solution requires a substantial re-think. It requires us to use schools primarily as educational institutions instead of daycare for working parents. That sounds obvious but it's a rather dramatic shift from what we're actually doing. We warehouse these kids for 8-10 hours a day, but we're really only teaching them for about 2-3 of those hours. The rest of it is just crowd control in a modified jail.
We also need a fundamental shift away from sacrificing medium and high-performing students for the sake of getting apathetic kids up to minimum standard.
The ideal solution involves:
There is more, but you can see the problem right away. We need a transformational shift in public schools in this country, ESPECIALLY in schools where the statistics demonstrate we have failed to serve black students. But the people inside the institution have a vested interest in not allowing it to change.
So we will probably continue to warehouse kids instead of educating them, teach black kids even less, and then look up in 20 years amazed at why nothing has changed.
I don't believe any bigotry is soft.
The results are sure as hell hard as granite.
Damn, that's harsh on teachers and administrators of today. Professionals who have to deal with 'liberty "hounds"' coming on school grounds and to meetings (searching for their latest classroom political conquests), and lacks of proper funding for educator/student activities (in student "daycare" prisons!)
Two points:
1. Those questionable schools and their students have limited to no access to suitable additional educational amenities.
2. There is a lack of interest from conservatives as to changing the community environment which causes apathy in poor children (especially Children of Color). That is, the investment (capitalization) in value of these children should began before apathy 'sets in.' Early on, instead of waiting for cultural 'bad' factors to take hold of them. (Malcolm Gladwell.)
How are these 'bullets' not an argument for school choice?
The remainder of your points I can agree with, generally. (Some specifics might need more explanation.)
Not for that, no. They are doing what our system requires them to do.
I do fault them for other types of failures, but certainly not that one.
You would think that, and in some cases, it's certainly a problem.
But the statistics are much more damning. We've spent decades trying to integrate schools in an effort to make sure black students get the same education as white students. Yet we see similar achievement disparities in integrated schools.
This is where I fault teachers, administrators. Don't tell me you need more money when you clearly have plenty to teach the white and Asian kids.
Most have given up, which is just as well because they're shut out of those communities anyway.
Until we have a sweeping and fundamental change in how we as a society view black students and black people in general, additional investment is simply throwing good money after bad. When we start to view the academic potential of black students the same way we view the athletic potential of black athletes, we'll start to see where we actually need to spend the money.
And that may be the best example of the overall problem. Black kids are famously successful in athletic endeavors. A huge part of that involves coaches who believe in those kids and push them to excel. All too often, the exact opposite happens in the classroom.
The traditional Republican version of "school choice" involves a poorly disguised scheme that allows affluent homeowners in perfectly good school districts use their property tax dollars to subsidize private school tuition for their kid. If you live in Southlake, TX, for example, your school system is one of the best in the nation, and we have no business redirecting funds so you can send your kid to some conservative white flight Christian academy.
As you can tell, I believe that form of school choice is complete bullshit.
However, if you live in Southeast Dallas in the Spruce HS attendance area, where the average SAT score is below 900, your child should not be stripped of all their opportunities simply because you can't afford to move to Southlake. BTW, teachers at Spruce are paid well above the state average, so it's not a funding issue.
So what are you suggesting or implying, Jack_Tx be more direct, please. I won't be able to put "suggestions" in your mouth that would be wrong of me. Yes, location and social economic conditions can and are socially and politically problematic. Several considerations:
1. SAT alone is not a determinant of intellect. Moreover, many affluent students have tutors, programs, and other 'elite' metrics which inform and incentivize them to retake SAT's (re-scoring).
Thus, what is the value of SAT in placement? Many affluent students have other "offerings" which land them in elite colleges, unavailable to the considerable number of average students.
2. Conservatives are not 'shut out" of communities of color without cause. As you point out many conservatives point fingers at people of color 'deficits' without lifting a finger to do the laborious work of continuing to improving the environment from which those children strive daily. When the problem is consistent and long-term; the solution has to be more consistent and longer-term too!
3. As for "premium" colleges, what makes them so costly in the first place? How much endowment is enough? They limit supply, thus driving up demand. That is, it is a question as to why colleges should be allowed to 'constrict' class sizes simply to create a "premium" product. (Allow more students into elite schools!)
(Credit: Malcolm Gladwell, "The Myths of Meritocracy: A Revisionist History Anthology," - 2021.)
NOTE: Thank you for acknowledging the 'problem' of politics in the education realm.
We're not talking about intellect. We're talking about achievement, and SAT/ACT scores are a primary method by which colleges and universities measure it. Not only are test scores important for admission, but they are also usually critical for merit-based financial assistance. Many schools offer automatic academic scholarships based solely on SAT or ACT scores.
I'm sure you believe so. Nonetheless, they are shut out and they know it. Moreover, this is a problem that is easy for them to ignore, especially when they're met with hostility.
Demand and federal govt enabling. Which you don't really understand until you've put kids through college.
Interesting question. I think most colleges would love to get to the level of Harvard or Yale, where undergraduate tuition is free for all students with family incomes under a given threshold.
The opposite of "allowing them" to determine their own class sizes would be "prohibiting them" from doing so, and I'm not sure how realistic it would be to attempt to interfere with that decision.
There is an obvious limit to supply/class size based on facilities alone, with further limits based on the availability of qualified faculty. It's not like they can just decide to let more kids in. Those kids have to be housed and fed. Classrooms and professors must be available.
These 'elite' institutions are ranked base on their amenities offered and those largely come from wealthy endowments and 'kind' of (affluent) students allowed to enter. That is, HBCUs are not so endowed by wealthy families, thus they are ranked (sadly) lower and at the bottom of the ranking list. That matters. What if schools of 'color' were given private funding to the level of white schools (how much better would the education and amenities be)?
The answer to the question is illustrated in the question asked. The question assumes a given state exists among whites, specifically, racism, and then puts the blame for the situation and the responsibility for fixing it, on whites. Problem is, again, the question is based on an assumption. One that whites, as well as many others in non-white groups, totally reject. So, why not try to do better? Because we don't believe the problem assumed in the question is actually the problem, so there is nothing for which to try to do better on concerning it.
What's actually going on is that Ivory Tower Marxist educators have replaced the Marxist class struggle with racial struggle but keeping the same goal. Marxism, or socialism at the least. Problem is, because we have had ample historical examples of such systems, those systems need a perpetual enemy on which to blame the failures of that system on. Whites are currently the ones they've volunteered for this role and if these Marxists succeed in destroying this country, whites will continue to be the scapegoats of choice once they're in power. The adage "tiger by the tail' comes to mind.
America has always been multicultural and is becoming more so. Generally, cultures always bring their own ways with them but tend to get absorbed into the whole with each succeeding generation and not without influencing the whole as it does so, similar to mixing different colored paint produces a different color as the end result.
What's being attempted now is to keep those colors from mixing to create a new whole. It's known as identity politics and is the very definition of racism, yet its proponents call its detractors the racists. They do so because they want the discord. It's how Marxism takes over except, rather than it being class struggle, it's now racial struggle.
So, not racist and the only way we can 'do better' is to resist the actual racism being perpetrated in the name of Social Justice.
Why not try to do better?
Kendi's simplistic racialism is step backward. It's half assed Marxist utopianism (do you whatever you want and all results will be equal) held together with a totalitarian impulse Stalin would envy.
pffft, that's easy, a trumpster. that name embodies everything that is wrong with america today. however, I think [deleted] perspective, such as this article, is an important lesson in realizing the importance of including all facets in higher education, no matter how ridiculous and remedial some of them may seem.
So first, those who label others as the "most immoral people on the planet" without a lick of fucking evidence can go shove their worthless opinion where the sun don't shine. Second, it's not a misnomer if the shoe fits, and clearly in millions of right wing conservative cases it perfectly describes their deplorable prejudices.
The answer lies with Americans choosing not to be such fucking worthless bigoted pieces of shit after centuries of racial discrimination, segregation and slavery. Once the shit was shoved in conservatives faces with the cameras and footage of the abuse Americans could no longer turn a blind eye to right wing white conservatives racial hatred and prejudice, especially in the South. And right wing conservatives didn't just "allow" that to happen, they fought tooth and nail to stop the progress of civil rights, they just lost the battle which is why they continue to harbor bitter resentment towards the liberals and progressives who have continued to push forward civil rights for women, black Americans and lgtbq Americans.
Total horse shit opinion with not a shred of truth. The fact is that any intelligent rational educated teacher recognized the benefits of teaching children the truth about our history and nation including the warts and blemishes so that our next generations don't repeat those same mistakes. And "CRT" is a relatively new invention, unless you're claiming that any discussion of race and inequality is "CRT" as many conservatives seem to believe.
What is central to the division is that there are some who appreciate and support education, learning facts and truth even if some are unpleasant facts about American history and they are willing to teach the unpleasant truths to the next generation. And then you have many conservatives who ridicule education, think their religious education is all they really need and believe they know best about everything because they inherited a finely tuned "gut" sense from their pappy which of course includes all their general prejudices towards gays, liberals and other minorities, and in their minds equality is apparently just staying out of each others way. I believe most white conservatives just want everyone to shut up about race and prejudice so they can continue to be prejudiced in their actions, where they choose to live, who they hire at their businesses, who they rent to, all without having to say they're prejudiced. And those bigots who get exposed of course lash out at those who expose them, thus all the bullshit attacks on progressives and liberals with conservatives calling them Marxists, communists, socialists, fascists or whatever name conservatives think sounds the worst because they clearly have no fucking idea what those terms actually mean.
Woke: adjective - alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
It's rather sad that now, being "alert to injustice" has been turned into a bad thing by prejudiced conservatives desperate to hide their shame and guilt. If you're white and don't feel the least bit guilty, then why would teaching about how whites in the past treated black Americans matter at all to you? Why would speaking out about the injustices of the past matter? Why not let the schools teach the facts about the long history of racial disparity in America? The reason conservatives are so up in arms over even the suggestion of CRT is because they know, deep down, they harbor those same racial prejudices and when people openly discuss it or tell their children about it they feel guilty and they can't fucking stand it. That's the only reason you'll see them standing up screaming at their school boards after their children come home with those tough questions about race their parents apparently feel too guilty about to discuss. It's easier for them to march down to the school and scream at teachers and school board members who had the temerity to teach their kids the truth about American history.
Just more horse shit opinion. There was no supposed "CRT" teaching caught by parents who had their kids at home distance learning, that's just pure fantasy conjecture.
Concerned parents do keep an eye on what their kids are being taught and have been for decades. Apparently conservative parents historically unconcerned with education are just finding out that's important.
We need to elect Governors who protect and defend every Americans rights in our society regardless of their race, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. Those who reject such protections can go fuck themselves.
Just a President who is smart enough to recognize the conservative horse shit lie about Democrats/progressives/liberals being Marxist would do. Democrats/progressives/liberals embrace capitalism with very few exceptions. Supporting a narrow segment of social programs for the poor, children, widows, disabled etc is not Marxism, it's not communism or socialism, its just rational empathy. Sadly it seems many conservatives see that rational empathy as weakness and they despise the very thought of having a penny come out of their pockets to help some minority they believe are inherently lazy or criminal in nature. That is no doubt why conservatives are so bitter and angry about both the discussion of race and the creation of social programs that are intended to help address systemic inequities. Many conservatives are clearly desperate to sweep any teaching about racial inequality under the rug while at the same time do everything they can to kill social programs that benefit anyone other than themselves.
Good, comprehensive, comments.
Thread removed for off topic.
[removed]
[removed as no value]
[removed]
Ah, a usual suspectism article replete with all the catchwordisms of the dayism ... how enlightening! /S
How the heaven do you know what (all) young children spend time thinking about? Especially, when they THINK about it at home and talk about it with their PARENTS get shut-down, and then come to school with emotional baggage 'leaking' out every day?
May be it could be helpful if some conservatives would STOP trying to 'debate' what makes a person human and sexual and instead LISTEN to the 'sorrows' of children being made sick by inattention and strict moral standards that they can not achieve or live up to!
Just how much neurotic do we want this citizenry, our society, to be (or continue being) because of hard-headed folks in power and influence who refuse to desist in trying to shove large square shapes into narrow circle shapes?
Thousands of years of history. Having been young children at one time. You know. Common sense stuff like that.
I wrote more than that: "Especially, when they THINK about it at home and talk about it with their PARENTS get shut-down, and then come to school with emotional baggage 'leaking' out every day?"
Commonsense, stuff like that. Can you reply?
Got to wonder how humanity made it through thousands of years of history without having this particular problem we've invented for ourselves.
I find this comment astounding in its post-modernist interpretation. The ideology you support is taking away every firm foundation they can find so that no one anywhere has solid ground to stand on. No truth. No absolutes. A place where any idiocy is to be tolerated in the name of affirming an individual's "truth". And then want to blame the neurotic state of the citizenry on conservatives. No thanks.
That comment is beyond contempt! There are more people in this world than heterosexuals. Indeed, heterosexuals should COMPREHEND this since it is HETEROSEXUALS who are making 99.99 percent of the world's babies, by extension, DIVERSITY, which people of DRAKKONIS' persuasion reject, oppress, and repress.
And who mentioned any thing about "tolerating idiocy" - I don't support tolerating straightforward and clear moral evil, which transgender is not. But if you feel that "trans" is too much a damnation here's a thought: allow them to live in freedom and liberties you SWEAR TO GOD you wish for everybody here and let God deal with 'trans" people when they stand in God's presence?
How about that?!
I rest my case.
Why are you trying to ignore that transgendered people have been a part of the world population since the beginning of history?
I find your comment an unfounded interpretation.
He isn't. As with quite a few people, some like to continually use the race card to reinforce their perceived world-wide perpetual victimhood.
Or they use it in the hopes that whoever they are losing an argument against will back off.
Yep
No it isn't. I suspect you didn't read it correctly.
Please cite any instance where Drak has suggested otherwise.
Drak isn't rejecting or oppressing anybody.
Please cite where Drak has indicated that it is.
Please cite where Drak has given any such indication.
How about you admit that a transgender 6 year old is like a vegan cat.....we all know who's making that decision.
My wife's cousin had a six year old (he's now 7) but he insists on wearing his big sisters dresses when at home. I've watched his dad try and discourage him from wearing them, to try and get him to wear something else but the kid goes into complete hyperventilating fit mode when his parents try to take the dresses away. So "we all" don't really know who's making that decision do we. I honestly don't think there are any parents who are hoping and/or encouraging their kids to be gay or transgender. It's like hoping your child will be left handed. They're no better or worse, but parents understand that most of the world is designed for right handed people. Same with hoping your kids aren't too tall or too short, not that there's anything wrong with people of any height, it's just parents understand that it would be a far bigger challenge for their children if they're born to far out of the "norm" whether too tall, too short, gay or transgender. What virtually every parent wants is for their children to have the best possible life they can with the most doors of opportunity open to them as possible, they know not conforming to the current "norm" will likely hurt their chances of having a "smooth" ride through life.
Most parents, even if they're extremely compassionate, understand that if their child expresses themselves outside of what the rest of society has considered the "norm" for thousands of years they're likely to have a very tough life. Just growing up completely "normal" in todays world is fraught with peril, the parents of transgender and/or gay children know their child will have an even more difficult time fitting in and getting through school and navigating the rest of their lives. So the idea that it's really the supposedly "woke" parents that are pushing their kids into being different is not really believable except for extremely rare cases. I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm saying it's extremely unlikely and I'd wager than 9 out of 10 its just an open minded parent reacting to the expressions and actions of their child in a kind and understanding manner instead of channeling the preacher on Sunday as they describe the evil, disgusting, vile, detestable sinner lifestyles of anyone not accepting their supposedly God given heterosexual norms and the fiery punishments that await any who dare color outside the lines.
And you? What 'card' do some conservatives use to 'interpret" and interfere in people's lives who don't even care or bother with conservatives at all? Fix conservative business and get some real diversity in the party (already)!
So early (on)? Drakkonis, nothing is resolved. And, you are 'exhausted' already. Well, I best let you 'go' before the dreaded "I" 'card' is invoked.
You really equate a little kid wanting to dress up like older kids to be some indication of transgenderism? Do you think the same thing about little girls who want to wear football jerseys and play sports with older brothers?
Do you see how completely batshit this entire idea is?
Just look at any parent who is trying to tell everybody their 6 year old is gay or transgender.
There isn't any attention for the parents in having a left-handed kid. There is no drama to create. There aren't years of invoking sympathy from other liberals because of the "persecution" cast upon you and your child. You get all that with a "transgender" kid, plus a GoFundMe, and a t-shirt campaign.
You can't blame left-handedness when your kid doesn't get invited to stuff, or bully everybody with a big "transphobia" stick every time they don't do what you want. You can't borrow years of victimhood by extension from a left-handed, short, or ginger kid.
That would be wonderful if it were true. But over 600,000 American kids were abused in 2020.
We're not talking about extremely compassionate people. We're talking about attention whores using their small children to feed their own emotional needs.
An open-minded parent ....wait for it..... keeps an open mind. They do not look at a boy who dresses up in his sister's clothes at 6 or 7 and brand him "transgendered" to the world for the rest of his life.
That's pretty much the problem right there. Because we know who should be making the decision and it isn't the child. It's called parenting. Children have nowhere near enough information or the ability to act on it. It's actually one of the best examples of what postmodernism is doing to our society.
If you think I'm exaggerating then please consider the following:
Woke SJW
And that's just issues concerning sex. I can easily find the same sort of vids for political nonsense, all of which first attempts to disconnect society from the idea that there are concrete concepts in life and then sell you invisible clothing and get really angry when you don't wear them.
And if you want to know why gun violence is increasing, it isn't the guns. It's the divorce from reality postmodernists are forcing on society. There are more shootings not because there are more guns but because our society is becoming more disconnected from reality. The values our forebearers grew up with and that gave them an anchor, a solid foundation on which to stand, is being eroded away, exchanged for a "reality" that is whatever anyone wants it to be for the sake of 'tolerance' and 'affirming' and 'speaking truth to power' and the rest of that crap.
And the absolute cherry on top of the whole thing is it's somehow all Conservative's fault.
Some conservatives need to get additional real world experience about non-conservative issues and matters. School administrations and teachers are not interested in converting heterosexual boys into 'transsexuals' which would be morally wrong and legally against the law. Teachers would undoubtedly be taken out of the classroom, staff away from administration duties, and potentially all "suspects" arrested.
And though I am not a trans-person, I resent this ridiculous notion being presented that the "culprit" of sissification of children must be heterosexual teachers who only motivation is to help developing children and their minds stay healthy.
Wow, I am not talking about diversity of color in the context of @8.2.13. The GOP needs diversity in its policies and political platform.
Now let's kick this up a notch: What is the GOP 'position' on Log Cabin Republicans (LGBT republican party affiliate)?
Safe group? Or, 'Disruptors'?
And some conservatives say they are not petty, but the grown-ups in the room. /s
Democrats are political demon-spawns many whom are inclined to birth babies to 'punk' and 'sissify' in a world of dickey boys and pussified girls because well, life is not hard enough without being mocked for being that impossible 'thing' only some conservatives can see you 'becoming' right before their eyes. And we have not even began to talk about all the painful surgeries and emotional highs and lows involved in 'transitoning' to the opposite sex.
I would tell you that I was not indoctrinated in becoming a homosexual. Nobody told me 'diddly' about my next twenty year 'plan' in human sexuality. You know why? Because I was 'closeted' and 'out' and 'out' and 'closeted.' Heavens, being a celibate homosexual in a heterosexual setting is really interesting: I get to be 'closeted' (again) for my own peace of mind. Drakkonis, as some conservatives like to put it- I don't get to talk about 'myself' around others as a celibate homosexual (though I am). Why?
Because it never, ever, comes up in conversation. The oddest thing is this: the effect that I have in my senior years is I am 'conflicted'! I like being celibate, but sometimes I want to just "let it go" in my environment-but, the 'return' I get is silence, ignored, or a tepid loss of respect!
Is that any way to live (free and at liberty)? Do you live feeling 'captured' by the spirit of me or others?
I, to this day, live in a community where I am respected; but, not because I 'openly' extrovert myself—the real me. Ironically, the respect I feel and give only returns to me because I jettisoned a 'chunk' of whom I am! For peace and quiet and spiritual growth and development.
What a 'trade-off.' I didn't see it coming. I, honestly, am in suspense, as to who I am (still) 'becoming.'
(And I am old as 'dirt!' I would not wish this on my worse enemy!)
But, I am sure you will 'ditch' my narrative for some 'clinical,' 'theo-political' thrown together reply or maybe you won't reply at all. I will just have to see what-what!
The values our forebearers grew up with? What is this? Your forebearers want you to respect the members of this society, all members who conform to rule of law and goodness, and mercy. This notion you have all the citizenry can CONTORT itself to being you or some 18th century 'fabrication' of a boy, girl, woman, or man - denies evolution and cries out for devolution.
The forebears, I daresay do not wish this nation to be 'less than' ready for the future. Because there is no leadership from us in sticking to a 'foundation' of being stubborn, obstinate, frontiers folks in our modern, satellite-filled, and nuclear "appliance" world of tomorrow!
You have no choice, grow or be "pulled up" and shitcanned. In the larger scheme of life, our forefathers want you to get up (off your knees) to them and quit the ritual and instead respect those who are in the present "here and now" encompassing you on every side!
And should you be unable to do that much, at least, leave them alone to get on with the future they legally ascribe to themselves!
One more thing: It is really interesting to me that I and my homosexual companions are as 'well-adjusted' as we are. Because this 'treatment' is some weird shit! And, then we throw in being a second-class minority (black American) as 'the cherry on the top'—or is it the inverse?
So you don't have a more substantial answer, I see.
What is the GOP position on the Log Cabin Republicans? If you know it, it should be easy to share it. I do not know the "some conservative" view. (As far as I know the GOP could see Log Cabin Republicans as a 'third tit' (no offense to girls and women.)
Did you know that Log Cabin Republicans do support LGBT causes and actions from within its political 'circle'?
And Texan I could care less what you label 'silly' - it's like the proverbial "water running off a duck's back" to me. Less 'color' commentary and distraction I say. Besides, in the big picture of life there no silly questions!
Transgender 6-year-olds are not a real-world thing.
Fair enough.
Who said anything about "sissification"?
What in the hell are you talking about?
You're not becoming anything sexual at 6 years old. Not sure how that's difficult to understand.
Nor should we begin to talk about it. In what universe should we be talking to young children about the details of gender transition surgery? In what universe do we want teachers giving medical advice?
I will ditch your reply because it doesn't have much to do with what I was talking about. Since you seem to have missed what that was I will remind you. The effect postmodernism is having on our society.
Yeah. Full of "ditching." It's sad and a bit pathetic that some conservatives want other people to live in a man-made 'managerie' of their imagination.
I am no expert on childhood psychology, so I will have to defer to those licensed in the field. Now, what about you; you licensed to know what is happening in child development? Sissification? O f course you are discussing it, doing so with me and others here, though you may give it some other euphemism. And thus, you are against it.
I don't suppose you realize that God is the most conservative person, ever, do you? Maybe you should take it up with Him, since you claim to be one of His.
God is not a person. He is the maker of all creation. A person is a creation. And that's according to your bible
AGAIN: You licensed to know what is happening in child development? You a school administrator responsible for those under your care for eight hours, five days a week, and who has to deal with narrow-minded parents who can not hear or respond to the suffering of the child/ren in their midst? (BTW, I observe you narrow focus on a 6 years old (as "if") only 6 years olds are relevant to transgenderism. The 'trick' will fail. The topic is the needs of a broader spectrum age group.)
No, that's you projecting. Again. I'm talking about artificially assigning gender to small children because the parents have their own problems. That applies to girls and boys.
You are the one who has some sort of personal issue with this idea of "sissification".
Against what?
Without giving you my entire life story, yes, I have a license to work with kids and the graduate degree necessary to obtain that license. I've spent 30 years working with kids, ages 4-18.
I have referred to 6-year-olds because I am making a specific point about the sexualization of small children.
Specific. Point.
Do you understand that concept?
I believe you are referring to verses like Numbers 23:19 or similar, where it states...
This isn't claiming God isn't a person. It is saying that God's personality is not the same as a human's. If you are thinking of some other verse you feel makes your case, please share it.
We humans, who are indeed created, are persons. But it isn't being created that makes us persons. Animals are created but they aren't persons. (Yes, I know. In this postmodernist unreality we are currently living in there are lots of people who insist animals, trees and probably even rocks are persons. I'll stick with reality, which says persons are self-aware in the sense humans are.)
God is conservative in what sense? You can't go around casting 'labels' like that about God! Next you will be expressing narratives that God supports oppressive "busybodyism" AKA as meddling in the affairs of people who are not associated with the faith (as if they were so)!
Do reconcile for me how simultaneously all powerful God is Love and a meddlesome repressive being who has all power but manages to not exert it on a world gone 'astray'? Either God is leaving the door to an open 'system' for humanity to find its way back home or God would have definitely exerted supreme authority to make all humanity 'cow-tow' to God's control over it.
Only one who would have God be 'schizo' would suggest God is Love and love's greatest foe at once!
As for the 'discounting' of my faith, I forgive you for you know not what you say.
Hey, you up there!
We're trying to have a meaningful discussion here. Pipe down!
We're done with this. Stupification is the dumbing down of discussion and I have no interest in that kind of delay action.
Well I am not making a specific point about nonsexual youths, or general child abuse despite what a Texas political figure dictates with a majority conservative backing. So where do we go from here? These parents, as some conservatives like to state it, should BE LISTENED TO, except when they are overruled by holding to non-orthodox conservative freedoms of expression. Right?
God is Spirit. Any reference to God being human is anthropomorphic - a means of relating to us as flesh and bone beings with intellect. God has no carnal 'nature' and as to personality we can only relate to God based on what our minds can 'connect' -which has no bearing on the entirety of character that a Spirit being can possess. That is, God does not suffer as we do or have feelings such as we do for this suffering is only due to our biological makeup and functioning—which we are never told God possesses.
Thus, theoretically, it is we who must stay in our lane when we speak of God, because we are limited and God is by definition unlimited.
The Biblical one. You should know what that means already.
The rest of your post is just made up fantasy arguments based on nothing I've said.
You pretend that batshit parents attempting to project transgenderism on their 6 year old are not damaging the child for the rest of its life.
And you pretend to know that it's the parent projecting. Do you have any facts to back up your spurious claims? If so please do present them, I can't wait to see all this evidence of "woke" parents trying to force transgenderism on their completely normal heterosexual children just so they have to try and not only survive as a human which isn't that easy, but also as a discriminated against minority.
It's not pretending.
Do you have any facts to prove their ridiculous claims are correct?
Why would they be heterosexual?
Six-year-olds are not naturally sexual...hetero or otherwise. They're not old enough.
Jack, you are ranting about an infinitesimally SMALL number of parents. There are far more parents that fuck up their kids in a plethora of other ways, like bringing them up toxic racism or misogyny.
So now your insulting "injuries" migrate to parents whom I presume some conservatives are claiming are uncaring. How twisted is reasoning that suggests there are a myriad of mothers (and fathers) out there who do not care about the child sprung from her womb; that, these women, mothers, would cripple their babes mentally just to manufacture a reality that would not exist except they effectively act to cripple children mentally? Stinkin-thinkin!
(Are you seriously writing this to me today?)
Which leads some conservatives with two options:
1. File charges for child abuse against any adult who "indoctrinates" a child about their (gender) behavior, and
2. When a child displays their (gender) behavior; any adult who "indoctrinates" a child about their behavior should have child abuse charges filed against them.
Do you agree with these options? (I bet some conservatives won't answer appropriately, but will 'duck and cover.')
There are over half a million cases of child abuse in this country annually. I'm not sure how the existence of this myriad you describe could even be in question.
With specific regard to people who tell us they have "transgender 6-year-olds", I might be persuaded that the parents are mentally ill in some way. But in no way are they putting the child first.
Don't take my word for it. Here: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/27/us/transgender-inclusive-families-texas-trnd/index.html
Is today special in some way?
Your link was removed probably for being bs.
Updated links:
This Texas mom says she's moving her family to California to protect her transgender daughter | CNN
This Texas mom says she's moving her family to California to protect her transgender daughter (mercurynews.com)
Fine. I read your links. Which one of those families cited in your link say they have "transgender 6-year-olds" and which ones are 'batshit parents attempting to project transgenderism' on their kids' and which ones are 'attention whores using their small children to feed their own emotional needs'?
You seem to agree with Texas [the state] that these parents are abusing their kids. Do you agree with Texas [the state] that these families should be reported to DFPS?
Did you read the story in the link?
Turns out, claiming that her 6-year-old is transgender is a fantastic way to get shitloads of national media attention. Then she can say:
In case there was any doubt about how utterly batshit she is.
You seem to misunderstand the proposed rule.
Yes.
I never heard of her until you posted your link.
Here's her WHOLE statement:
“There’s pretty much nothing that could keep us here,” Violet said. “The general feeling (in Texas) is just constant fear. I’m always worried that she’s going to accidentally say something about her penis in public, because that has happened, and I see the way people react to us which is why Texas hasn’t really ever felt safe…it’s just time for us to get out and I want to be somewhere there are actually laws in the books that protect her instead of trying to erase her.”
That doesn't sound like Violet is a batshit parent attempting to project transgenderism OR an attention whore.
Really Jack?
Since your link isn't about a 'proposed rule', that's impossible.
Paxton's letter is a legal opinion, did YOU read it?
I did...
Again, from your link:
See that there 'legal opinion and 'declared' thingy Jack. The legal opinion that Paxton wrote states:
So see there Jack. This isn't a 'proposed rule', this is about the AG ordering DFPS to investigate the parents and doctors of transgender kids. There's more, like fucking with doctors and other clinicians but I doubt that you're actually interested.
I have no reason to think that this article supports your point of view: That is, that these parents do not CARE ABOUT THEIR 'TRANS' children. (The narrative here is the mother CARES so much about her child—she is willing to depart Texas for California!)
That Texas has an argument to make on transgenderism in children as a form of child abuse is beyond my scope or plan to debate. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the action—but, I have no axe to grind in this. These parents, these kids, these administrators, these teachers, and STATES do.
My only "in" here is to say do what is best for the child-whatever it is and whatever can be done safely (with the child in mind).
In the case of Texas conservatism, I know for a fact the politics of conservatism drives the direction of the state. Not interests or emphases on Texans health quality, per se. How do I know this, because I have seen Texan enact rules and policies that repress its citizens directly and within reasonable compromise.
The implication here is that there actually is such a thing as a transgender 6-year-old.
The abuse in question is drugging a child to interfere with their natural development.
Agreed. What can be done safely is to love the child and let them develop.
I kinda have to agree with you. There was a thinking that if a kid takes hormones early it would be easier to transition. I think they are now finding out that may not be the case.
I use as a case in point that tv show 'I Am Jazz'. The kid started hormones before puberty. What ended up happening is the kid never went through puberty. Then when she wanted transition surgery it was extremely difficult as her genitalia never grew. It stayed child size. It is the genitalia that is used for for surgery.
This ends our share of this discussion on this score, as neither you or I are medical specialists or psychologists. Even so there is a difference of opinions between 'competing' sides. MAY THE BEST DEFENDERS OF CHILDREN and young adults WIN. I'm out!
She appeared in a national media outlet.
Yes. You act like more of it is somehow less crazy.
She is pretending her 6-year-old is transgender (batshit), and announcing it publicly (attention whore).
Thank you for I knew half of the 'story' about transitioning easier, but I did not know the other half that you brought forward. Again, valuable insight, thank you!
In this 'telling' of the narrative I can agree with Jack_TX too! And, I would hope medical specialists would be informing parents in meaningful ways to get the best outcomes (whatever that may be). What is at stake always is the health of the child/ren.
In the past (several years ago) I read about (1) grown man who transitioned to female . . . and decided to transition back to man. Interesting. (I did not know that was 'do-able.' Science!)
I also heard her say she never had any desire for sex. I attribute that to never going through puberty as well.
I do agree with you though, what is best for the child.
That poor woman. Sex is so much a needy 'distraction' in life, but just maybe she can teach us (all) how much one can do when looking for 'love' is not a driving factor! Watch (her) space!
I don't know. Maybe it is just me but I have a hard time not having love and attraction together.
I know there is love between siblings and the like yet to me love with a partner, where there is an attraction is a whole different thing. Being vulnerable and intimate I think is something she may never understand.
Sibling love is by no means intimacy. And a lack of a need for intimacy-especially when one's mind calls for it but receives no 'return' from its loins can call anguish. That is, we do not know what we are missing-until we encounter a sense of loss.
Back to topic matter, your point is possibly the best case to consider as to why to take the 'long approach' on effectively altering one's or another's body make-up. Though, some young people have physical and mental traits that are so forceful they know who they are from birth and in due course never 'repent' of their decision-making to alter themselves.
Violet? She's a star? Sheesh Jack.
I stated as much Jack, it's an opinion, just like yours.
You're making unfounded assumptions and pretending that they are facts. How is that better?
As I've explained, I make the same sort of "unfounded assumption" about transgender 6 year olds as I do about vegan cats.
They only exist in the realm of completely insane fantasy.
So, it's not better. Got ya.
Think of the worst thing you can call a human being?
Still being a Trump supporter.
The proof is in the pudding. After years of anti American indoctrination, a majority of Democrats would flee the country if invaded. A majority of Republicans and independents would stay and fight.
The failed ideologies of Marxism rebranded for a group of under achieving circus side show acts has to be one of the funniest things we have seen in society.
The bearded lady will never be accepted no matter how you try to normalize it even if she's a communist.