Southwest Missouri high school teacher accused of using critical race theory loses job

[RestoreTheJoy]

They don't leave it open for discussion. CRT doesn't try to make you question whether or not you have privilege. If you're white, then you have a problem, by default. You are inherently different from your black friends and family in a bad way. There are testimonies of CRT stirring up division among different skinned toned family members in the same household. Since when should skin color ever become the issue that fixes our problems?

This. There is automatic condemnation because of skin color, per Kendi et. al. Not ok.

 

[stevil]

It's ok. They keep swapping the higher offices. So we get both perspectives. It's insane now, but eventually will be sane again.

Hopefully, some day, people will get it and remove all funding from campaigns and parties, and we eventually just vote for people with the best policy ideas, who aren't purchasable, because no one funded them to get them in office.

Personally I think USA should:

• remove the Electorial college system
• Encourage more parties

If you pick up a more representative system such as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)
What is MMP?
Then gerymandering becomes a thing of the past, and each vote is equal in weight. Your eventual government becomes a representation of the votes and votes for third parties are no longer wasted votes.

With USA only having two parties, your parties are very confusing.
Myself, I tend to be centre right. I like right leaning fiscal policies but left leaning social policies. I'm not religious so If I were a USA citizen I would really struggle to vote for the Republican party which seem to pander alot to Christians, anti science and are contrarian.
When a USA party wins the election, you don't know if the people voted for Far left, moderate left, centre, moderate right, far right. But if you had parties representing each of these positions then you would know what people want. e.g. if you had 10% far left, 5% progressive, 40% moderate left, 30% moderate right, 15% far right. Then you'd know that the country mostly wants left, and mostly wants moderate left, that they are not too fussed about progressive. This means your government would be made up of moderalte left, progressive and far left (if they combined into a coalition government) and that your moderate left would have the lion's share of the power and the president would come from the moderate left. The progressives would be in government, but more for support. At 5% they wouldn't have much leverage to negotiate on policy, but might get one or two things through.

 

[Ringo84]

American history according to Christian Forums (and in fairness, American history in general): America had no problems with racism because we never talked about race. Bing bong, so simple!

Then, apropos of absolutely nothing in 1963, MLK walked up to a podium and said, "I have a dream that my children will be judged by the content of their characters; not the color of their skin" - nothing else. Then, for completely unknowable reasons, he died in 1968 and everyone was happy until evil "CRT" was invented just to make white people feel bad.

The end.
Ringo

 

[essentialsaltes]

Have you seen the 15 questions? I want to see it. Anyone have a copy?

Yes. Once again, keep in mind that this was a reflection for the students for reading a particular section of this book. It was not graded.

 

[Skye1300]

Hopefully, some day, people will get it and remove all funding from campaigns and parties, and we eventually just vote for people with the best policy ideas, who aren't purchasable, because no one funded them to get them in office.

Yes, this is how I wish it was! They need to abolish political parties and just vote for people based on their ideas instead of having to align to a political party. Just vote for people. No democrats or republicans. I agree with some Republican ideas but not all of them and I agree with some Democrat ideas but not all of them.

 

[stevil]

Yes, this is how I wish it was! They need to abolish political parties and just vote for people based on their ideas instead of having to align to a political party. Just vote for people. No democrats or republicans. I agree with some Republican ideas but not all of them and I agree with some Democrat ideas but not all of them.

One person cannot run a country
One person cannot know everything e.g. Health, Economics, Finance, Defence, Transport....

You really do need a team of people to come together with a coherent set of policies and to make the work within a balanced budget.

This is another thing I don't understand about the USA system. It's reliance on the "President" and the amount of unilateral power you give this single person.

 

[rjs330]

They don't leave it open for discussion. CRT doesn't try to make you question whether or not you have privilege. If you're white, then you have a problem, by default. You are inherently different from your black friends and family in a bad way. There are testimonies of CRT stirring up division among different skinned toned family members in the same household. Since when should skin color ever become the issue that fixes our problems?

Its the Marxist way. Dividing is always the way to create more problems so they can be fixed using Marxist ways.

Division is key.

 

[Skye1300]

They don't leave it open for discussion. CRT doesn't try to make you question whether or not you have privilege. If you're white, then you have a problem, by default. You are inherently different from your black friends and family in a bad way. There are testimonies of CRT stirring up division among different skinned toned family members in the same household. Since when should skin color ever become the issue that fixes our problems?

Wow. And what about how it must make biracial children feel too. Anything that focuses on "race" needs to go. I think it will also condition black and brown children to overthink things and attribute every bad thing to being because of their "race". If they catch a cold, somehow it's because of their "race" instead of just being a part of nature. Yes racism exists, but it's not behind every corner and I think it's unhealthy to obsess over it or over anything period. They should teach it in terms of class and not "race". Lower income people of all colors face challenges that well off people of all colors won't have to face.

 

[rjs330]

USA, it seems has a lot of racists. Just look how few Republicans voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first black woman in the history of USA to be confirmed on the SCOTUS.
112 white men, 1 black woman.
Jackson is highly qualified and has nothing controversial in her history and yet the vast majority of Republicans cannot vote to confirm her. Is it because they object or their base cannot support a black woman??

It's a real problem that cannot be ignored.

This is why we can't be colorblind or ever get rid of race. Because people need it in order to vilify their opponents. Without race there can be no false accusations of racism. The left needs race cause they need it in order to cause division and create oppressed and oppressors. Pure Marxist ideology.

 

[stevil]

This is why we can't be colorblind or ever get rid of race. Because people need it in order to vilify their opponents. Without race there can be no false accusations of racism. The left needs race cause they need it in order to cause division and create oppressed and oppressors. Pure Marxist ideology.

BTW I'm not on the left.

Tell me why the Republicans couldn't vote for Ketanji Brown Jackson? What was their legitimate objection?

 

[royal priest]

BTW I'm not on the left.

Tell me why the Republicans couldn't vote for Ketanji Brown Jackson? What was their legitimate objection?

Republicans nominated a black woman in 2003, but Democrats blocked her. CRT is convincing many people that racism exists under every rock.
It's a Marxist ideology born and cultivated in the Frankfurt School and will destroy Constitutional Democracy if we allow it.

 

[Arcangl86]

Republicans nominated a black woman in 2003, but Democrats blocked her.

She was never nominated. Her name was floated as a POTENTIAL nominee, and Biden did warn Bush that it would be a controversial nomination. So he ended up nominating somebody else.

 

[royal priest]

She was never nominated. Her name was floated as a POTENTIAL nominee, and Biden did warn Bush that it would be a controversial nomination. So he ended up nominating somebody else.

Ironically, her official nomination was blocked by Biden through what he now calls, "a relic of the Jim Crow era."

 

[Aryeh Jay]

She was never nominated. Her name was floated as a POTENTIAL nominee, and Biden did warn Bush that it would be a controversial nomination. So he ended up nominating somebody else.

Isn't it funny that the people who scream the loudest about cancel culture and revising history are the biggest offenders?

 

[rjs330]

BTW I'm not on the left.

Tell me why the Republicans couldn't vote for Ketanji Brown Jackson? What was their legitimate objection?

Just how far left so you have to be to be in the left? Cause it seems everytime there is a topic involving left vs right thinking you side with the leftists.

The Republicans voted against her because because those on the right believed she will support leftist thought and ideology from the bench.

Why did the democrats not support Barrett? Cause she was a woman?

 

[rjs330]

She was never nominated. Her name was floated as a POTENTIAL nominee, and Biden did warn Bush that it would be a controversial nomination. So he ended up nominating somebody else.

Same difference. Why was controversial? Cause she was a black woman? What a racist.

 

[rjs330]

Isn't it funny that the people who scream the loudest about cancel culture and revising history are the biggest offenders?

Huh?

 

[Arcangl86]

Same difference. Why was controversial? Cause she was a black woman? What a racist.

No, she was an arch conservative being named as a potential replacement for somebody considered a moderate.

 

[stevil]

Just how far left so you have to be to be in the left? Cause it seems everytime there is a topic involving left vs right thinking you side with the leftists.

On these forums people don't actually debate financial policy. All you guys argue about is abortion, anti gay, anti non white immigration, covid measures. I do't consider any of these things to be right vs left politics.

The Republicans voted against her because because those on the right believed she will support leftist thought and ideology from the bench.

Elections mean something. The Democrats won the election and so you can expect any and all judges they nominate to be at least slightly on the left.
If Republicans won't vote for any judge nominated by the Democrats then really the Democrats should resort to confirming far left judges (if their goal is to have a leftist Supreme court)

Why did the democrats not support Barrett? Cause she was a woman?

I'm pretty sure it's because of the Hypocrisy of the Republicans, who blocked Garland saying it is too close to the next election.

 

[DaisyDay]

Same difference. Why was controversial? Cause she was a black woman? What a racist.

No, it was never about her sex or race, it was about her extreme conservatism.