Political Roundtable Part XXXI

[pancakes3]

Oh for sure, DeSantis is just the man to come up with a way to have black people like white people more.

[Zonkerbl]

A lot of people here and across the country are disappointed (including the victims mother) have shown a ton of disappointment that the cops weren't white.That shows 150 % on who the racists are in this country.
I just hope DeSantis can find a way to curb the obama damage in 2024

Yawn

[doclinkin]

Pulling out the old Trump "Many people are saying..." formulation.

Many people being one person, ones own self, but probably someone somewhere said it.

[daSwami]

for my own edification, crazy is ablelist but demented isn't?

Exactly, because one is objectively true and the other isn't.

[Zonkerbl]

for my own edification, crazy is ablelist but demented isn't?

Exactly, because one is objectively true and the other isn't.

Yeah, that's not how truth works

[pancakes3]

for my own edification, crazy is ablelist but demented isn't?

Exactly, because one is objectively true and the other isn't.

Ok, so I just want to get this straight.

You're saying that it's ableist to call MTG crazy because she's not actually crazy. But it's ok to call Biden demented, because he's actually demented?

[Zonkerbl]

for my own edification, crazy is ablelist but demented isn't?

Exactly, because one is objectively true and the other isn't.

Ok, so I just want to get this straight.

You're saying that it's ableist to call MTG crazy because she's not actually crazy. But it's ok to call Biden demented, because he's actually demented?

I call shenanigans

[daSwami]

for my own edification, crazy is ablelist but demented isn't?

Exactly, because one is objectively true and the other isn't.

Yeah, that's not how truth works

Typical Dem, letting the facts in the way of a good story.

[daSwami]

for my own edification, crazy is ablelist but demented isn't?

Exactly, because one is objectively true and the other isn't.

Ok, so I just want to get this straight.

You're saying that it's ableist to call MTG crazy because she's not actually crazy. But it's ok to call Biden demented, because he's actually demented?

Exactly - or vice-versa, depending on which subjective reality you choose to inhabit.

[Zonkerbl]

SHENANIGANS I SAY

[Pointgod]

for my own edification, crazy is ablelist but demented isn't?

Exactly, because one is objectively true and the other isn't.

Oh wait you were serious…..

Oh boy

[pancakes3]

Exactly, because one is objectively true and the other isn't.

Ok, so I just want to get this straight.

You're saying that it's ableist to call MTG crazy because she's not actually crazy. But it's ok to call Biden demented, because he's actually demented?

Exactly - or vice-versa, depending on which subjective reality you choose to inhabit.

Well, my pedantic point is that your criticism doesn't really align with an ableist argument because based on the facts that you provided, you are the ableist in prejudicing Biden for having a disability; the people who call MTG crazy aren't ableists - just mean, or defamatory, because she doesn't actually have a disability. At worst, it's using problematic language that promulgates ableist stereotypes, but is not in and of itself ableist because, again, she's not "objectively" suffering from a disability.

Just as an analogy, someone could call you dumb for making such a dumb point, and also call me dumb for responding to such a dumb point. It would be ableist of them to call you dumb because you're objectively dumb. It's not your fault you're dumb, and it promulgates negative stereotypes for dumb people everywhere. It wouldn't be ableist to call me dumb because I'm not objectively dumb, and it's mean and possibly defamatory to knowingly call me something that I am not. Additionally, it is problematic to denigrate me by making a slur out of your disability.

FWIW, mocking a reporter for a congenital joint condition would be ableist, as would mocking a political opponent for being short, or fat, or having a sleepy demeanor.

Pedantry aside though, I'm not sure if you had a point that you were trying to make.

[Zonkerbl]

This has transcended trolling. It is art. The Art of Shenanigans

[daSwami]

Ok, so I just want to get this straight.

You're saying that it's ableist to call MTG crazy because she's not actually crazy. But it's ok to call Biden demented, because he's actually demented?

Exactly - or vice-versa, depending on which subjective reality you choose to inhabit.

Well, my pedantic point is that your criticism doesn't really align with an ableist argument because based on the facts that you provided, you are the ableist in prejudicing Biden for having a disability; the people who call MTG crazy aren't ableists - just mean, or defamatory, because she doesn't actually have a disability. At worst, it's using problematic language that promulgates ableist stereotypes, but is not in and of itself ableist because, again, she's not "objectively" suffering from a disability.

Just as an analogy, someone could call you dumb for making such a dumb point, and also call me dumb for responding to such a dumb point. It would be ableist of them to call you dumb because you're objectively dumb. It's not your fault you're dumb, and it promulgates negative stereotypes for dumb people everywhere. It wouldn't be ableist to call me dumb because I'm not objectively dumb, and it's mean and possibly defamatory to knowingly call me something that I am not. Additionally, it is problematic to denigrate me by making a slur out of your disability.

FWIW, mocking a reporter for a congenital joint condition would be ableist, as would mocking a political opponent for being short, or fat, or having a sleepy demeanor.

Pedantry aside though, I'm not sure if you had a point that you were trying to make.

Thank you for setting me straight. I hang my head in #wokeshame.

[doclinkin]

dumb dumb point, dumb for responding to such a dumb point. dumb objectively dumb. dumb, call me dumb. I'm dumb.

I'm not sure if you had a point that you were trying to make.

Pretty sure that was the point. Swami speaks with a green font accent.

[pancakes3]

https://www.newsweek.com/ron-desantis-defender-black-history-opinion-1777585

I suppose if certain conservatives wanted to engage substantively and articulately re: the Florida AP discussion, it would resemble something like the above.

The debate over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's rejection of the AP African-American Studies course is both profoundly stupid and stupendously profound.

It can be aptly summarized in three lines of dialogue:

College Board: "Here's the new AP African-American Studies course."

Florida: "Wait, why is Queer Theory in here? We're not teaching this."

Elite Liberal Groupthinkers: "Florida's trying to ban teaching Black history! Racists!"

What exactly is Queer Theory doing in AP African-American Studies? And why are liberal media elites reflexively committed to the proposition that it is essential to Black history? There's actually a lot to unpack behind all of this.

Well... sure. It can be aptly summarized as such. Mr. Eden just fails to elaborate on why banning queer theory is racist. But ok, let's see how you unpack things, Mr. Eden.

The announced course framework features units on "The Black Feminist Movement and Womanism," "Intersectionality and Activism," "Black Feminist Literary Thought," "Black Queer Studies," "'Post-Racial' Racism and Colorblindness," and the Black Lives Matter Movement. The history of African-Americans, in other words, becomes the history and endorsement of far-left academic ideology. Nowhere is it suggested that there are profound critiques of these niche academic-activist interpretations. If a state were to offer AP African-American Studies in its current form, it would effectively be endorsing the position that these political-ideological academic hobbyhorses are essential to "Blackness."

Oh, interesting. So the first way to unpack things is to lie. The course contains 4 units, subdivided into 102 topics. Mr. Eden wrongfully asserts that the course "features units" (topics) that are problematic. Mr. Eden intentionally omits that there are 96 other topics, such as The Sudanic Empires: Ghana, Mali and Songhai (each a topic), Gender and Slavery in Literature (exploring the impact on women's experiences of enslavement, seeking freedom, and writing about their experiences), Black Women's Rights & Education (explores the intersection of race and gender in African American women activists' advocacy for justice, Reconstruction and Its Discontents, Black Suffrage and Women's Rights, Marcus Garvey and the UNIA, Anti-Colonial Politics and the African Diaspora, etc.

https://www.theflstandard.com/content/files/2023/01/AP-African-American-Studies-Coursework.pdf

But that's pedantry. The core of Mr. Eden's argument, same as Poppers it seems, is that Florida is within its power to selectively pick out these political and problematic topics. But no, Mr. Eden goes one further.

Since then [Biden saying that if you're on the fence about voting for him, you ain't black], an intersectional academic alliance ranging from critical race theorists to queer theorists has worked to develop a very specific set of political-ideological propositions and socially impose them as "Black," regardless of what people who happen to be black actually believe.

I don't see how Mr. Eden can say that there is an "intersectional academic alliance" between CRT and queer scholars without conceding that this academic alliance also includes 100+ other scholars such as pre-colonial West African scholars, jazz age scholars, afro-carribean diaspora scholars etc. all working in unison to advance this far left agenda. Furthermore, just because there exists black people who are not queer, or are not part of BLM does not mean those topics are without academic merit. Taking race out of the equation, the study of Queer Studies isn't invalidated simply because there are people that exist that are not queer (saving the discussion about Don't Say Gay for another day).

Allotting one topic out of 106 to examine the history of queer blacks in American history is not indoctrination. It is part of a comprehensive education, just the same as a course on American History should cover how queer Americans have been treated. You don't have to be queer, or be an ally to study the topic. This is a course in American History. The students are simply learning about what happened to queer Americans, specifically queer Black Americans, an experience that is different than other queer Americans, not an exercise in advocacy into being queer. Learning about pirates, or Nazis doesn't make someone a pirate or Nazi.

Mr. Eden's argument then shifts from "this stuff doesn't seem very black to me, so why is it in the curriculum?" to "you can't force us to learn this stuff."

The fundamental question posed by the AP African-American Studies course framework, and the concomitant squabble with Governor DeSantis, is: Which position should the government take? Are African-Americans persons who have distinctive, yet also diverse, experiences and opinions? Or are they political avatars whose subjectivity is properly anchored in the whims of contemporary far-left academics?

I simply do not follow the logic. Yes, there AA persons have distinctive yet also diverse experiences and opinions. That's why there are 106 topics. Part of the collective of those experiences and opinions include those of women and queer folk. That's why it's part of the curriculum. Again, the topic on queer studies is just 1 out of 106. The course is hardly focused on queer studies, but it makes time to explore that topic instead of neglecting it and pretending that those histories never existed. Banning the course all together because there's even a minute of classroom time devoted to the queer perspective is protesting too much.

The College Board may have the prerogative to attempt to impose a far-left worldview on high school students, but it has no right to do so. The state of Florida, by contrast, has every right to determine which political and sociological propositions its schools will teach children to be true. But Florida should not have been alone in its stand. If the final AP African-American Studies course framework, due to be released this week, does not radically alter course, every governor and state superintendent in America should reject this ideological usurpation of African-American history.

Ah, ok, so really this is what it boils down to. "You can't make us." Nobody is making you. They're just calling you out on your justification. If we accept the proposition that the state of Florida has a right to determine which political and sociological propositions the schools teach, it seems to give away the game that this decision is politically and sociologically motivated. The curriculum simply presents a broad, 106-topic sampling of AA history, some of which contain certain ideas that the incumbent political party does not like, so that government is eliminating those topics from the curriculum.

Does it get any more complicated than that? Are we ok with this? I don't think we're talking past each other here. But obviously there's something lost in translation. What am I not getting? We're all saying the same facts but the conclusions - that this is part of some lib agenda to make the kids gay, or to shove CRT/intersectionalism down our kids' throats - simply aren't supported by the facts. So what is it?

Like, the AP curriculum is all of 82 pages, and it's COMPREHENSIVE. To go through this and throw a b*tch fit over 5-6 topics is ludicrous.

[Wizardspride]

Again, maybe I just missed. If so, please provide a link to some official Florida government source that specifies what parts of the AP curriculum were considered to violate Florida law. I read your previous post on the subject Zonk and maybe your observations on the relevant section is exactly right. I want to hear the specifics from an official Florida government source though. If that exists, please post it.

Popper you and I both know that that's not how dogwhistling works. How dumb do you think we are?

If they came out and said the real reason why they are doing this there would be a huge backlash against their racism. That's why racists have to never say the quiet part out loud. The Republicans have made a whole cottage industry out of it.

I speculate that we will hear the specific reasons within the coming week. If they dodge and weave then I will post here that something is very fishy.

Read on Twitter

?t=9_WIJFvpKSPY-4LaqhvDcw&s=19

[Zonkerbl]

I 100% agree that studying Nazis is not indoctrination into Nazism. It's actually an interesting insight into how conservatives think. Since they are sheep that believe only what they are told to believe by someone else, they can't imagine that someone might expose them to a dangerous idea so that they can independently come to a conclusion as to whether they agree with it. The very idea of independent thought goes against their entire world view.

I guess logically it makes sense. The whole point of conservatism is to then go into the world and try to force other people to conform to your world view, so you will inevitably be exposed to ideas contrary to your brainwashing. So the point of [edit: conservative] education is to make you impervious to persuasion. Explains a lot really.

[bsilver]

I 100% agree that studying Nazis is not indoctrination into Nazism. It's actually an interesting insight into how conservatives think. Since they are sheep that believe only what they are told to believe by someone else, they can't imagine that someone might expose them to a dangerous idea so that they can independently come to a conclusion as to whether they agree with it. The very idea of independent thought goes against their entire world view.

I guess logically it makes sense. The whole point of conservatism is to then go into the world and try to force other people to conform to your world view, so you will inevitably be exposed to ideas contrary to your brainwashing. So the point of [edit: conservative] education is to make you impervious to persuasion. Explains a lot really.

Don’t think I agree with your depiction of conservatism. I see three groups.
1) Intelligent people who actually believe in their world view, but respect the beliefs of others.
2) The MAGA group. Easily led and not interested in any ideas ideas that conflict with their own. These are the sheep.
3) True believers in conservatism, and will do anything to gain and keep power, including eliminating thoughtful education in the schools. These are the wolves.
The Republican Party in congress used to contain many in group 1, but they have been forced out of office by the wolves who have gained control of the sheep.

[Zonkerbl]

I 100% agree that studying Nazis is not indoctrination into Nazism. It's actually an interesting insight into how conservatives think. Since they are sheep that believe only what they are told to believe by someone else, they can't imagine that someone might expose them to a dangerous idea so that they can independently come to a conclusion as to whether they agree with it. The very idea of independent thought goes against their entire world view.

I guess logically it makes sense. The whole point of conservatism is to then go into the world and try to force other people to conform to your world view, so you will inevitably be exposed to ideas contrary to your brainwashing. So the point of [edit: conservative] education is to make you impervious to persuasion. Explains a lot really.

Don’t think I agree with your depiction of conservatism. I see three groups.
1) Intelligent people who actually believe in their world view, but respect the beliefs of others.
2) The MAGA group. Easily led and not interested in any ideas ideas that conflict with their own. These are the sheep.
3) True believers in conservatism, and will do anything to gain and keep power, including eliminating thoughtful education in the schools. These are the wolves.
The Republican Party in congress used to contain many in group 1, but they have been forced out of office by the wolves who have gained control of the sheep.

Well, that's fair. A lot of the political appointees I worked with under W from 2000-2008 were in the first group.