11 ms·

There are a large number of bills in US state legislatures aimed at suppressing honest and uncensored discussion of the Tulsa race massacre. In America, we sho

by geofft 5y ago

There are a large number of bills in US state legislatures aimed at suppressing honest and uncensored discussion of the Tulsa race massacre. In America, we should discuss and debate and try to incrementally learn from our experiences. And we do, a lot of the time. But not always.

zepto 5y ago
> There are a large number of bills in US state legislatures aimed at suppressing honest and uncensored discussion of the Tulsa race massacre. Bullshit. There is not one.
- guipsp 5y ago
  Quick google search: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2346/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/234...
  - zepto 5y ago
    Ahh, so in other words complete bulkshit, That bill has nothing to do with preventing teaching about Tulsa.
    - guipsp 5y ago
      It does, for example, the provision regarding >(B) the United States is a fundamentally racist country; Could be interpreted as preventing proper discussion about what caused the Tulsa massacre
      - zepto 5y ago
        Ok, so you just proved the point. These bills do not prevent teaching about Tulsa. That claim has always been a lie. As for what you call “proper” discussion about what caused the Tulsa massacre. Nothing in the bill prevents people talking about how the massacre was caused by racism. Nothing in the bill even prevents discussion of the idea that the US is fundamentally racist, or why people might believe that to be true. The only thing the bill prevents is teaching that the US is fundamentally racist as if it were an absolute truth or fact, rather than an idea that some people hold. So no. You are simply wrong about what the bill means.
        geofft 5y ago
        My claim (upthread) was "honest and uncensored discussion." You can talk in censored ways about it, yes. If you think it's okay to censor particular views because they're obviously wrong or misguided... you're totally free to hols that view, but that's still censorship.
        zepto 5y ago
        Your claim I was responding to is this: “Could be interpreted as preventing proper discussion about what caused the Tulsa massacre” > If you think it's okay to censor particular views because they're obviously wrong or misguided... you're totally free to hols that view, but that's still censorship. It’s a false claim to say that these bills ‘censor’ particular views. That is the lie. They seek to prevent certain views being taught as fact that can’t be debated. I.e. the bills do the opposite of what you assert.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    >RACE-BASED THEORY.—The term “race-based theory” means a theory that— >(A) any race is inherently superior or inferior to any other race; >(B) the United States is a fundamentally racist country; >(C) the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States is a fundamentally racist document; >(D) an individual's moral worth is determined by the race of the individual; >(E) an individual, by virtue of the race of the individual, is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; or >(F) an individual, because of the race of the individual, bears responsibility for the actions committed by members of the race of the individual. Have you actually read and thought about these bills, beyond the anti-anti-CRT hysteria? There's a difference between teaching about the history of racism/slavery in the US and doing so in a way that singles out and blames modern white people and white culture. These bills are effectively a response to the overt demonization of "whiteness" that has been increasingly en vogue in our academic (and other) institutions over the last few years. They absolutely do not prevent teaching of history, and are anti-discriminatory - because people have suddenly decided that belonging to an arbitrarily defined majority or "dominant" culture somehow makes you immune from discrimination. No one should be made to feel guilty for the color of their skin, for the sins of others who looked like them in the past, and that includes white people. The hysteria over these bills is ironically steeped in anti-white racism. It comes from the same place as the diversity seminars where whites are explicitly being asked to apologize for their whiteness.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Many isn't one so I guess you're right there https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web
  - zepto 5y ago
    As I already said - this just proves you don’t know what CRT is. CRT is not a history curriculum and has nothing to do with the Tulsa Massacre. If you can find a bill which would outlaw teaching about Tulsa, try presenting it. I don’t think you can.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Name a single one
- guipsp 5y ago
  https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-proposes-bill-restricting-teaching-on-race-slavery https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-propo...
  - trothamel 5y ago
    This doesn't ban discussion of the sort we're having here.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    In the very slim chance that this bill might ban talking about the Tulsa race massacre, I actually read the dumb thing. This is just anti-CRT/adjacent shit, it in no way prevents anyone from talking about the Tulsa race massacre. And even if it DID talk about Tulsa, its mentioning it Teaching it in schools, so your original claim STILL doesn't apply. Try harder
  - chmod600 5y ago
    Controlling how classroom time is managed is not suppression of speech. The teacher can't spend the whole day preaching the gospel, either, and that doesn't amount to suppression of religion. It may not be the best example of the U.S. remembering its failures, but it's nowhere close to what China does to force people to forget.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Did you want to make sure it's the same one, that your preferred media outlets are talking about? It's more than one. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web
  - mrtranscendence 5y ago
throwawaylinux 5y ago
> There are a large number of bills in US state legislatures aimed at suppressing honest and uncensored discussion of the Tulsa race massacre. Which bills are those?
- guipsp 5y ago
  https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-proposes-bill-restricting-teaching-on-race-slavery https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-propo...
  - zepto 5y ago
    Some of what is in that bill is repugnant - the part about not teaching that one group was the victim and another the oppressor in slavery is totally absurd. If you are claiming that bill is about the Tulsa race massacre, you either haven’t read it or are lying.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Let me google that for you https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web
  - zepto 5y ago
    That just proves that you don’t know what CRT is, CRT is not a history curriculum and has nothing to do with the Tulsa Massacre.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    No need to be snarky, I didn't know what term to search for. This is the first actual bill that comes up from those search results - https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2346/text?r=80&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/234... Now the problem is I'm not a lawyer or expert in reading laws or understanding how they would be interpreted. The bill aims to prevent the following kind of theories being taught, ones that say: (A) any race is inherently superior or inferior to any other race; (B) the United States is a fundamentally racist country; (C) the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States is a fundamentally racist document; (D) an individual's moral worth is determined by the race of the individual; (E) an individual, by virtue of the race of the individual, is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; or (F) an individual, because of the race of the individual, bears responsibility for the actions committed by members of the race of the individual. This sounds pretty good to me. B and C could be controversial in that those things were true in the past, but they seem to refer to the present tense. So the letter of the law is okay and the rest of the points are banning racist theories which is good, so the spirit of the law seems reasonable too. I don't see how this would be interpreted as banning the teaching of past racism like slavery or segregation or that massacre. But as I said I'm not an expert so I would be interested to know whether that's a real concern.

by geofft 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

> There are a large number of bills in US state legislatures aimed at suppressing honest and uncensored discussion of the Tulsa race massacre. Bullshit. There is not one.

guipsp 5y ago
Quick google search: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2346/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/234...
- zepto 5y ago
  Ahh, so in other words complete bulkshit, That bill has nothing to do with preventing teaching about Tulsa.
  - guipsp 5y ago
    It does, for example, the provision regarding >(B) the United States is a fundamentally racist country; Could be interpreted as preventing proper discussion about what caused the Tulsa massacre
    - zepto 5y ago
      Ok, so you just proved the point. These bills do not prevent teaching about Tulsa. That claim has always been a lie. As for what you call “proper” discussion about what caused the Tulsa massacre. Nothing in the bill prevents people talking about how the massacre was caused by racism. Nothing in the bill even prevents discussion of the idea that the US is fundamentally racist, or why people might believe that to be true. The only thing the bill prevents is teaching that the US is fundamentally racist as if it were an absolute truth or fact, rather than an idea that some people hold. So no. You are simply wrong about what the bill means.
      - geofft 5y ago
        My claim (upthread) was "honest and uncensored discussion." You can talk in censored ways about it, yes. If you think it's okay to censor particular views because they're obviously wrong or misguided... you're totally free to hols that view, but that's still censorship.
        zepto 5y ago
        Your claim I was responding to is this: “Could be interpreted as preventing proper discussion about what caused the Tulsa massacre” > If you think it's okay to censor particular views because they're obviously wrong or misguided... you're totally free to hols that view, but that's still censorship. It’s a false claim to say that these bills ‘censor’ particular views. That is the lie. They seek to prevent certain views being taught as fact that can’t be debated. I.e. the bills do the opposite of what you assert.
- twofornone 5y ago
  >RACE-BASED THEORY.—The term “race-based theory” means a theory that— >(A) any race is inherently superior or inferior to any other race; >(B) the United States is a fundamentally racist country; >(C) the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States is a fundamentally racist document; >(D) an individual's moral worth is determined by the race of the individual; >(E) an individual, by virtue of the race of the individual, is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; or >(F) an individual, because of the race of the individual, bears responsibility for the actions committed by members of the race of the individual. Have you actually read and thought about these bills, beyond the anti-anti-CRT hysteria? There's a difference between teaching about the history of racism/slavery in the US and doing so in a way that singles out and blames modern white people and white culture. These bills are effectively a response to the overt demonization of "whiteness" that has been increasingly en vogue in our academic (and other) institutions over the last few years. They absolutely do not prevent teaching of history, and are anti-discriminatory - because people have suddenly decided that belonging to an arbitrarily defined majority or "dominant" culture somehow makes you immune from discrimination. No one should be made to feel guilty for the color of their skin, for the sins of others who looked like them in the past, and that includes white people. The hysteria over these bills is ironically steeped in anti-white racism. It comes from the same place as the diversity seminars where whites are explicitly being asked to apologize for their whiteness.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Many isn't one so I guess you're right there https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web
- zepto 5y ago
  As I already said - this just proves you don’t know what CRT is. CRT is not a history curriculum and has nothing to do with the Tulsa Massacre. If you can find a bill which would outlaw teaching about Tulsa, try presenting it. I don’t think you can.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

NikolaeVarius 5y ago

Name a single one

guipsp 5y ago
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-proposes-bill-restricting-teaching-on-race-slavery https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-propo...
- trothamel 5y ago
  This doesn't ban discussion of the sort we're having here.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  In the very slim chance that this bill might ban talking about the Tulsa race massacre, I actually read the dumb thing. This is just anti-CRT/adjacent shit, it in no way prevents anyone from talking about the Tulsa race massacre. And even if it DID talk about Tulsa, its mentioning it Teaching it in schools, so your original claim STILL doesn't apply. Try harder
- chmod600 5y ago
  Controlling how classroom time is managed is not suppression of speech. The teacher can't spend the whole day preaching the gospel, either, and that doesn't amount to suppression of religion. It may not be the best example of the U.S. remembering its failures, but it's nowhere close to what China does to force people to forget.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Did you want to make sure it's the same one, that your preferred media outlets are talking about? It's more than one. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web
- mrtranscendence 5y ago

throwawaylinux 5y ago

> There are a large number of bills in US state legislatures aimed at suppressing honest and uncensored discussion of the Tulsa race massacre. Which bills are those?

guipsp 5y ago
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-proposes-bill-restricting-teaching-on-race-slavery https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-propo...
- zepto 5y ago
  Some of what is in that bill is repugnant - the part about not teaching that one group was the victim and another the oppressor in slavery is totally absurd. If you are claiming that bill is about the Tulsa race massacre, you either haven’t read it or are lying.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Let me google that for you https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legislature+bill+crt&t=h_&ia=web
- zepto 5y ago
  That just proves that you don’t know what CRT is, CRT is not a history curriculum and has nothing to do with the Tulsa Massacre.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  No need to be snarky, I didn't know what term to search for. This is the first actual bill that comes up from those search results - https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2346/text?r=80&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/234... Now the problem is I'm not a lawyer or expert in reading laws or understanding how they would be interpreted. The bill aims to prevent the following kind of theories being taught, ones that say: (A) any race is inherently superior or inferior to any other race; (B) the United States is a fundamentally racist country; (C) the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States is a fundamentally racist document; (D) an individual's moral worth is determined by the race of the individual; (E) an individual, by virtue of the race of the individual, is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; or (F) an individual, because of the race of the individual, bears responsibility for the actions committed by members of the race of the individual. This sounds pretty good to me. B and C could be controversial in that those things were true in the past, but they seem to refer to the present tense. So the letter of the law is okay and the rest of the points are banning racist theories which is good, so the spirit of the law seems reasonable too. I don't see how this would be interpreted as banning the teaching of past racism like slavery or segregation or that massacre. But as I said I'm not an expert so I would be interested to know whether that's a real concern.